Hubbry Logo
CannabinoidCannabinoidMain
Open search
Cannabinoid
Community hub
Cannabinoid
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cannabinoid
Cannabinoid
Cannabinoid
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Cannabis
Cannabis
Chemistry
  • Semi-synthetic cannabinoids
Pharmacology
Consumption
Economics
Effects
Forms
Law
Variants
  • Genus
  • Species
Related

Cannabinoids (/kəˈnæbənɔɪdzˌ ˈkænəbənɔɪdz/) are several structural classes of compounds found primarily in the Cannabis plant or as synthetic compounds.[1][2] The most notable cannabinoid is the phytocannabinoid tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (delta-9-THC), the primary psychoactive compound in cannabis.[3][4] Cannabidiol (CBD) is a major constituent of temperate cannabis plants and a minor constituent in tropical varieties.[5] At least 113 distinct phytocannabinoids have been isolated from cannabis, although only four (THCA, CBDA, CBCA, and their common precursor CBGA) have a confirmed biogenetic origin.[6] Phytocannabinoids are also found in other plants, such as rhododendron, licorice, and liverwort.[7]

Phytocannabinoids are multi-ring phenolic compounds structurally related to THC,[8] while endocannabinoids are fatty acid derivatives. Nonclassical synthetic cannabinoids (cannabimimetics) include aminoalkylindoles, 1,5-diarylpyrazoles, quinolines, and arylsulfonamides, as well as eicosanoids related to endocannabinoids.[3]

Uses

[edit]

Medical uses of cannabinoids include the treatment of nausea due to chemotherapy, spasticity, and possibly neuropathic pain.[9] Common side effects include dizziness, sedation, confusion, dissociation, and "feeling high".[9]

Parkinson's Disease

[edit]

Cannabis may provide limited relief for some Parkinson's disease (PD) symptoms, such as pain, sleep issues, or anxiety, based on small human studies (2023–2024, 10–50 participants), but it does not improve motor symptoms like tremors or stiffness (no significant change in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale scores).[10][11] A 2023 US survey found 46% of PD patients reported benefits for pain or sleep.[12] Raw Cannabis contains tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA, 15–30% of the plant) and cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), which are non-psychoactive. Animal studies (2021–2024) suggest THCA and CBDA may reduce inflammation and protect brain cells in PD models, acting on CB2 receptors and other pathways (e.g., TRP channels, PPARγ), unlike tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), which form when cannabis is heated (e.g., smoking, 105–150°C).[13][14][15] No human studies have tested THCA or CBDA for PD as of 2025. In regions like India, raw cannabis is used traditionally for tremors, but scientific evidence is lacking.[16] Risks include dizziness from THC (12–20% dropout in studies) and potential interactions with PD medications like levodopa.[17]

Cannabinoid receptors

[edit]

Before the 1980s, cannabinoids were thought to produce their effects via nonspecific interaction with cell membranes, rather than specific membrane-bound receptors. The discovery of cannabinoid receptors in the 1980s resolved this debate.[18] These receptors are common in animals, with two primary types, CB1 and CB2,[19] and evidence suggests additional receptors may exist.[20] The human brain has more cannabinoid receptors than any other G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) type.[21]

The endocannabinoid system (ECS) regulates multiple functions, including movement, motor coordination, learning, memory, emotion, motivation, addictive-like behavior, and pain modulation.[22]

Cannabinoid receptor type 1

[edit]
Main article: Cannabinoid receptor 1

CB1 receptors are found primarily in the brain, particularly in the basal ganglia, limbic system, hippocampus, and striatum. They are also present in the cerebellum, and male and female reproductive systems, but absent in the medulla oblongata, which controls respiratory and cardiovascular functions. CB1 is also found in the human anterior eye and retina.[23]

Cannabinoid receptor type 2

[edit]
Main article: Cannabinoid receptor 2

CB2 receptors are predominantly found in the immune system or immune-derived cells,[24][25][26][27] with varying expression patterns. A subpopulation of microglia in the human cerebellum expresses CB2.[28] CB2 receptors are linked to immunomodulatory effects[27] and potential therapeutic benefits in animal models.[26]

Phytocannabinoids

[edit]
See also: Comparison of phytocannabinoids
The bracts surrounding a cluster of Cannabis sativa flowers are coated with cannabinoid-laden trichomes.
Cannabis indica plant

The classical cannabinoids are concentrated in a viscous resin produced in structures known as glandular trichomes. At least 113 different cannabinoids have been isolated from the Cannabis plant.[6]

All classes derive from cannabigerol-type (CBG) compounds and differ mainly in the way this precursor is cyclized.[29] The classical cannabinoids are derived from their respective 2-carboxylic acids (2-COOH) by decarboxylation (catalyzed by heat, light, or alkaline conditions).[30]

Well known cannabinoids

[edit]
See also: Conversion of CBD to THC

The best-studied cannabinoids include tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD), and cannabinol (CBN).

Tetrahydrocannabinol

[edit]
Main article: Tetrahydrocannabinol

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the primary psychoactive component of the Cannabis plant. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC, THC) and delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC) induce anandamide and 2-arachidonoylglycerol synthesis through intracellular CB1 activation.[31] These cannabinoids produce the psychoactive effects of cannabis by binding to CB1 receptors in the brain.[31]

Cannabidiol

[edit]
Main article: Cannabidiol

Cannabidiol (CBD) is mildly psychotropic and counteracts cognitive impairment associated with cannabis use.[32] CBD has low affinity for CB1 and CB2 receptors but acts as an indirect antagonist of cannabinoid agonists.[33] It is an agonist at the 5-HT1A receptor[34] and may promote sleep and suppress arousal by interfering with adenosine uptake.[35] CBD shares a precursor with THC and is the main cannabinoid in CBD-dominant Cannabis strains, potentially reducing short-term memory loss associated with THC.[36] Tentative evidence suggests CBD may have anti-psychotic effects, though research is limited.[37][32] CBD and other cannabinoids have shown antimicrobial properties, potentially addressing antimicrobial resistance.[38]

Cannabinol

[edit]
Main article: Cannabinol

Cannabinol (CBN) is a mildly psychoactive cannabinoid acting as a low-affinity partial agonist at CB1 and CB2 receptors.[39][40][41] CBN interacts with other neurotransmitter systems (e.g., dopaminergic, serotonergic), requiring higher doses for physiologic effects like mild sedation compared to THC.[42] Isolated in the late 1800s, its structure was elucidated in the 1930s, and chemical synthesis was achieved by 1940.[43]

Biosynthesis

[edit]

Cannabinoid production begins with an enzyme combining geranyl pyrophosphate and olivetolic acid to form CBGA. CBGA is converted to CBG, THCA, CBDA, or CBCA by four separate synthase, FAD-dependent dehydrogenase enzymes. There is no enzymatic conversion of CBDA or CBD to THCA or THC. Propyl homologues (THCVA, CBDVA, CBCVA) follow an analogous pathway from divarinolic acid.[29][13]

Double bond position

[edit]

Each cannabinoid may exist in different forms depending on the double bond position in the alicyclic carbon ring. Under the dibenzopyran numbering system, the major form of THC is Δ9-THC, and the minor form is Δ8-THC. In the alternate terpene numbering system, these are Δ1-THC and Δ6-THC, respectively.

Length

[edit]

Most classical cannabinoids are 21-carbon compounds, but variations in the side-chain length attached to the aromatic ring exist. In THC, CBD, and CBN, the side-chain is a pentyl (5-carbon) chain. Propyl (3-carbon) chain variants are named with the suffix varin (THCV, CBDV, CBNV), while heptyl (7-carbon) chain variants are named phorol (THCP, CBDP).

Cannabinoids in other plants

[edit]

Phytocannabinoids occur in plants like Echinacea purpurea, Echinacea angustifolia, Acmella oleracea, Helichrysum umbraculigerum, and Radula marginata.[44] Echinacea species contain Anandamide-like alkylamides, with at least 25 identified, some showing affinity for CB2 receptors.[45][46] These are concentrated in roots and flowers.[47][48] Yangonin in kava has significant CB1 receptor affinity.[49] Tea (Camellia sinensis) catechins show affinity for human cannabinoid receptors.[50] Beta-caryophyllene, a terpene in cannabis and other plants, is a selective CB2 receptor agonist.[51] Black truffles contain anandamide.[52] Perrottetinene, a moderately psychoactive cannabinoid, is found in Radula varieties.[53] Machaeriol A and related compounds occur in Machaerium plants.[54]

Most phytocannabinoids are nearly insoluble in water but soluble in lipids, alcohols, and other non-polar organic solvents.

Cannabis plant profile

[edit]

Cannabis plants vary widely in their cannabinoid profiles due to selective breeding. Hemp strains are bred for low THC content, often for fiber, while medical strains may prioritize high CBD, and recreational strains target high THC or specific balances.[13] Quantitative analysis uses gas chromatography (GC), or GC combined with mass spectrometry (GC/MS), to measure cannabinoid content. Liquid chromatography (LC) can differentiate acid (e.g., THCA, CBDA) and neutral (e.g., THC, CBD) forms.[6] Legal restrictions in many countries hinder consistent monitoring of cannabinoid profiles.

Pharmacology

[edit]

Cannabinoids are administered via smoking, vaporizing, oral ingestion, transdermal patch, intravenous injection, sublingual absorption, or rectal suppository. Most are metabolized in the liver by cytochrome P450 enzymes, mainly CYP 2C9.[55] Inhibiting CYP 2C9 can extend intoxication.[55] Δ9-THC is metabolized to 11-hydroxy-Δ9-THC and then 9-carboxy-THC, detectable in the body for weeks due to their lipophilic nature and storage in fat.[56][57] The entourage effect suggests that terpenes modulate cannabinoid effects.[58]

Modulation of mitochondrial activity

[edit]

Cannabinoids influence mitochondrial processes, including calcium regulation, apoptosis, electron transport chain activity, mitochondrial respiration and ATP production. Mitochondrial dynamics—encompassing the processes of fusion and fission, as well as alterations in morphology and organelle mobility, are also affected by cannabinoid exposure.[59] In addition, cannabinoids have been shown to modulate mitochondrial biogenesis through the dysregulation of PGC-1α levels.[60] These effects are complex, involving direct membrane interactions and receptor-mediated pathways, but a unified hypothesis is lacking due to conflicting data.[61]

Cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals

[edit]

Nabiximols (Sativex) is an aerosolized mist with a near 1:1 ratio of CBD and THC, used for multiple sclerosis-related pain and spasticity.[62] Dronabinol (Marinol, Syndros) and Nabilone (Cesamet) are synthetic THC analogs for HIV/AIDS-induced anorexia and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.[63] CBD drug Epidiolex is approved for Dravet and Lennox–Gastaut syndromes.[64]

Separation

[edit]

Cannabinoids are extracted using organic solvents like hydrocarbons or alcohols, which are flammable or toxic, or supercritical carbon dioxide, a safer alternative.[65] Isolated components are separated using wiped film vacuum distillation or other distillation techniques.[66]

History

[edit]

Cannabinol (CBN) was the first cannabinoid isolated in the late 1800s, with its structure elucidated in the 1930s and synthesized by 1940.[43] In 1942, Roger Adams discovered Cannabidiol (CBD),[67] followed by Raphael Mechoulam's identification of CBD stereochemistry in 1963 and THC stereochemistry in 1964.[68] CBD and THC are produced independently from the precursor CBG, not via conversion.[29]

Emergence of derived psychoactive cannabis products

[edit]
Further information: Delta-8-Tetrahydrocannabinol § Legality_in_the_United_States

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 allows hemp-derived products with ≤0.3% Δ9-THC to be sold legally in the US, leading to widespread availability of cannabinoids like Δ8-THC, Δ10-THC, HHC, and THCP.[69] These compounds lack the extensive research of Δ9-THC, posing potential risks and challenges for drug testing due to novel metabolites and high potency (e.g., THCP's 33× binding affinity).[70][71] A 2023 paper proposed the term "derived psychoactive cannabis products" to distinguish these substances.[72]

Endocannabinoids

[edit]
Further information on the functions and regulation of the endocannabinoids: Endocannabinoid system
Anandamide, an endogenous ligand of CB1 and CB2

Endocannabinoids are substances produced within the body that activate cannabinoid receptors. After the discovery of the first cannabinoid receptor in 1988, researchers identified endogenous ligands.[18][73]

Types of endocannabinoid ligands

[edit]

Arachidonoylethanolamine (Anandamide or AEA)

[edit]
Main article: Arachidonoylethanolamine

Anandamide, derived from arachidonic acid, is a partial agonist at CB1 and CB2 receptors, with potency similar to THC at CB1.[74] Found in nearly all tissues and plants like chocolate, it also acts on vanilloid receptors.[75][76]

2-Arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG)

[edit]
Main article: 2-Arachidonoylglycerol

2-AG, a full agonist at CB1 and CB2, is present at higher brain concentrations than anandamide, potentially playing a larger role in endocannabinoid signaling.[74][77]

Other endocannabinoids

[edit]

Other endocannabinoids include noladin ether, NADA, OAE, and LPI, each with varying receptor affinities and effects.[78][79][80][81]

Function

[edit]

Endocannabinoids act as lipid messengers, released from one cell to activate cannabinoid receptors on nearby cells.[82] Unlike monoamine neurotransmitters, they are lipophilic, insoluble in water, and synthesized on-demand rather than stored.[83] They act locally due to their hydrophobic nature, unlike hormones. The endocannabinoid 2-AG is found in bovine and human maternal milk.[84] Cannabinoids enhance sweet taste by increasing Tlc1 receptor expression and suppressing leptin, impacting energy homeostasis.[85]

Retrograde signal

[edit]

Endocannabinoids are retrograde transmitters, released from postsynaptic cells to act on presynaptic cells, reducing conventional neurotransmitter release (e.g., GABA or glutamate).[86]

"Runner's high"

[edit]

The runner's high may be attributed to endocannabinoids rather than endorphins.[87]

Synthetic cannabinoids

[edit]
Main article: Synthetic cannabinoid

Synthetic cannabinoids, historically based on herbal cannabinoids, have been developed since the 1940s.[88] Modern compounds may not resemble natural cannabinoids but are designed to interact with cannabinoid receptors.[89] They are used to study structure-activity relationships but pose health risks when used recreationally.[90] Examples include Dronabinol, Nabilone, and Rimonabant.[63]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cannabinoid

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Cannabinoids are a class of chemical compounds that bind to and activate cannabinoid receptors (CBRs), which are G-protein-coupled receptors primarily expressed in the (CB1) and (CB2). These compounds encompass three main categories: endogenous cannabinoids (endocannabinoids) such as and produced naturally by the body; phytocannabinoids derived from plants like , including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and (CBD); and engineered to mimic their effects. The , which these compounds modulate, plays a key role in regulating physiological processes including pain sensation, appetite, mood, memory, and immune function through and . While phytocannabinoids like THC exhibit psychoactive properties leading to and potential risks such as dependence and exacerbation in vulnerable individuals, non-intoxicating ones like CBD have shown therapeutic promise in conditions like and based on clinical evidence. Synthetic variants, often more potent, have raised concerns due to unpredictable toxicity and overdose risks.

Endocannabinoid System

Cannabinoid Receptors

Cannabinoid receptors primarily consist of CB1 and CB2, both class A G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) featuring seven transmembrane domains that couple to inhibitory Gi/o proteins to modulate intracellular signaling. These receptors exhibit tissue-specific expression patterns conserved across vertebrates, reflecting evolutionary adaptations for and immune , as evidenced by phylogenetic analyses and receptor models in that reveal disruptions in neural and inflammatory processes. While CB1 and CB2 are the canonical receptors, putative additional sites such as GPR55 have been proposed based on binding and functional assays with cannabinoid ligands, though their remains debated due to inconsistent profiles and lack of definitive genetic validation. The CB1 receptor predominates in the central nervous system, with highest densities in the , , and hippocampus, alongside expression in the and peripheral nervous tissues. Structurally, its inactive state features a ligand-binding pocket stabilized by toggle switches like F3.36 and W6.48 residues, enabling conformational shifts upon activation that facilitate Gi/o engagement. Signaling initiates rapid inhibition of , reducing cyclic AMP levels, alongside modulation of voltage-gated ion channels and mitogen-activated protein kinases, as confirmed through crystallographic and mutagenesis studies. In contrast, the CB2 receptor is predominantly expressed on peripheral immune cells, including macrophages, B cells, and dendritic cells, as well as in the brain, with minimal presence in neurons under basal conditions. Its GPCR architecture supports analogous Gi/o-mediated signaling, including suppression, but emphasizes roles in cellular migration and modulation without the central psychoactive implications of CB1 activation. Knockout studies in mice demonstrate CB2 influences on hematopoietic repopulation and inflammatory responses, underscoring its non-redundant expression profile. GPR55, an orphan GPCR, has garnered attention as a potential third cannabinoid receptor due to its activation by certain endocannabinoids and lysophospholipids in heterologous systems, leading to intracellular calcium mobilization via Gq/13 or G12/13 pathways. However, pharmacological discrepancies, such as variable responses to classical agonists and absence of clear phenotypes mirroring CB1/CB2 deficits, have fueled debate over its bona fide status, with some evidence pointing to context-dependent roles in sensory neurons and bone cells rather than canonical cannabinoid signaling. Evolutionary tracing suggests GPR55 diverged early from CB receptors, potentially serving distinct lipid-sensing functions conserved in mammals.

Endocannabinoid Ligands

Endocannabinoid ligands are endogenous lipid-derived signaling molecules produced on-demand within cells to activate cannabinoid receptors, primarily CB1 and CB2, in a process distinct from the vesicular storage and release of classical neurotransmitters. Unlike exogenous cannabinoids such as phytocannabinoids from Cannabis sativa, these ligands are synthesized post-translationally from membrane phospholipid precursors in response to physiological stimuli, act locally as retrograde messengers, and are rapidly degraded to terminate signaling, ensuring precise spatiotemporal control. The primary endocannabinoids are N-arachidonoylethanolamide (anandamide, AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG), with tissue levels typically in the low nanomolar to micromolar range, as quantified by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry in brain and peripheral tissues. Anandamide, chemically arachidonoylethanolamide, was isolated from porcine in 1992 and identified as the first endogenous cannabinoid ligand capable of binding CB1 receptors with affinity similar to Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol. It functions as a partial agonist at CB1, exhibiting lower intrinsic compared to full agonists. AEA biosynthesis occurs via enzymatic pathways involving N-acylphosphatidylethanolamine-specific phospholipase D (NAPE-PLD), converting N-arachidonoyl-phosphatidylethanolamine precursors derived from , triggered by calcium influx or neuronal activity. Degradation is predominantly mediated by fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH), which hydrolyzes AEA to arachidonic acid and ethanolamine, with FAAH inhibition elevating tissue levels by over 10-fold in models. Levels of AEA fluctuate dynamically; for instance, acute stress reduces circulating AEA concentrations, as measured by in human plasma, potentially contributing to heightened anxiety responses. 2-Arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG), the most abundant endocannabinoid in the at concentrations 100- to 1000-fold higher than AEA, is synthesized from diacylglycerol (DAG) via sn-1-diacylglycerol lipases (DAGLα and DAGLβ), often following C-mediated of phospholipids in response to or receptor activation. It displays higher potency at CB2 receptors relative to CB1 and serves as a full at both, facilitating broader and retrograde suppression of synaptic transmission. Primary degradation occurs through (MAGL), accounting for ~85% of 2-AG in the , yielding and ; genetic or pharmacological MAGL elevates 2-AG levels substantially, as evidenced by in tissue. Acute stress paradigms, such as restraint or swim tests in rodents, transiently increase 2-AG levels in limbic regions, supporting its role in buffering stress reactivity. Additional minor endocannabinoid ligands include N-arachidonoyl dopamine (), which activates CB1 alongside transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 () channels, and virodhamine (O-arachidonoylethanolamine), the ester-linked isomer of AEA exhibiting partial agonist activity at CB2 but antagonistic effects at CB1. These compounds contribute to tonic signaling in specific contexts, such as sensory neurons for NADA or vascular tissues for virodhamine, though their physiological roles remain less defined due to lower abundance and dual receptor profiles compared to AEA and 2-AG. Mass spectrometry-based profiling in stressed states reveals variable minor ligand dynamics, often overshadowed by dominant shifts in 2-AG and AEA.

Physiological Functions

The endocannabinoid system maintains physiological through lipid-mediated signaling that fine-tunes neuronal excitability, balance, and immune responses across multiple organ systems. Endocannabinoids such as and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) are synthesized on demand in postsynaptic neurons and act retrogradely to suppress presynaptic , a demonstrated by depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition (DSI) and excitation (DSE) in electrophysiological recordings from hippocampal and cortical slices. This retrograde mechanism, reliant on CB1 receptor and transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) modulation, prevents synaptic overload and supports adaptive plasticity without constitutive tonic activity in baseline states. In the hypothalamus, endocannabinoid signaling via CB1 receptors integrates with orexigenic and anorexigenic pathways to regulate appetite and energy expenditure; for instance, elevated hypothalamic 2-AG levels promote feeding by enhancing N-acylphosphatidylethanolamine phospholipase D (NAPE-PLD)-dependent anandamide synthesis, as shown in rodent models where CB1 agonism increases meal initiation latency inversely with tone. Similarly, the system modulates pain perception through descending periaqueductal gray pathways and stress responses in the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, where stress-evoked endocannabinoid release dampens hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis hyperactivity and attenuates corticotropin-releasing hormone-driven anxiety, evidenced by reduced glucocorticoid surges in CB1-deficient mice under restraint. Post-exercise elevations in circulating 2-AG and levels, observed in human runners after 45-60 minutes of moderate-to-high intensity aerobic activity, correlate with improved mood and reduced fatigue, supporting the hypothesis of endocannabinoid involvement in "runner's high" , though direct remains unestablished due to variable correlations across studies and lack of experiments in humans. In peripheral tissues, CB2 receptor activation on immune cells like macrophages inhibits pro-inflammatory release (e.g., TNF-α, IL-6) and promotes resolution in lipopolysaccharide-challenged models, fostering basal immune without exogenous perturbation. Neuroprotective functions arise from this anti-excitotoxic signaling, where endocannabinoids limit glutamate overflow and mitochondrial stress , preserving neuronal integrity under physiological workload as quantified by reduced calcium influx in cultured cortical neurons.

Dysregulation and Disease Associations

Dysregulation of the (ECS) manifests in altered levels of endocannabinoids, receptor densities, or enzymatic activity, with empirical associations to multiple disorders supported by assays, postmortem analyses, and genetic polymorphisms. In anxiety disorders, and peripheral measurements indicate reduced concentrations, which negatively correlate with symptom severity, as observed in cohorts with and comorbid anxiety. This deficit in endocannabinoid tone may reflect impaired on-demand signaling, though causal directionality remains unestablished without longitudinal genetic validation. Similarly, in , elevated circulating endocannabinoids such as and signal ECS hyperactivity, potentially exacerbating disruptions; the FAAH C385A polymorphism, reducing hydrolase activity and elevating , associates with higher BMI and weight gain susceptibility in populations, diverging from models where FAAH deficiency confers leanness. In schizophrenia, postmortem brain examinations consistently reveal CB1 receptor dysregulation, including increased density in the posterior cingulate cortex and decreased immunoreactivity in prefrontal areas like Brodmann area 46, alongside region-specific variations in endocannabinoid levels. These alterations, documented across multiple cohorts, suggest disrupted retrograde signaling in cortical circuits, though inconsistencies across brain regions preclude uniform hyperactivity or hypoactivity models without confirmatory functional imaging in vivo. For epilepsy, particularly temporal lobe epilepsy, CSF anandamide levels are diminished in untreated patients, accompanied by CB1 receptor downregulation in the hippocampus, impairing neuroprotective mechanisms against excitotoxicity as evidenced by histological and biochemical assays. Genetic variants in ECS-related genes, such as CNR1 and FAAH, further link polymorphisms to seizure susceptibility in case-control studies. Developmental ECS flux during heightens vulnerability to substance use disorders, with 2023–2025 investigations highlighting altered circulating endocannabinoid profiles—such as reduced in non-suicidal self-injury cases overlapping with early addictive behaviors—and immature receptor maturation windows that amplify exogenous cannabinoid impacts on reward circuitry. These associations, drawn from longitudinal youth cohorts, underscore sensitive periods where ECS imbalances precede dysregulated dopamine-endocannabinoid interactions, though prospective RCTs are absent to affirm causality beyond correlative biomarkers. Overall, while genetic and biochemical evidence implicates ECS perturbations, interpretations must account for heterogeneous findings and avoid extrapolation to therapeutic causality absent randomized intervention data.

Classification of Cannabinoids

Endogenous Cannabinoids


Endogenous cannabinoids, also known as endocannabinoids, are lipid-derived signaling molecules endogenously produced in mammalian cells through de novo enzymatic synthesis from membrane precursors. The primary endocannabinoids are N-arachidonoylethanolamine (, AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG), which activate cannabinoid receptors to modulate diverse physiological processes. Unlike phytocannabinoids in plants, which are constitutively synthesized and stored in specialized structures like trichomes, endocannabinoids are generated on-demand in response to cellular stimuli such as increased intracellular calcium or neuronal . This activity-dependent production ensures rapid, localized signaling without vesicular storage. AEA biosynthesis involves the conversion of N-arachidonoyl-phosphatidylethanolamine (NArPE) to AEA by N-acyl phosphatidylethanolamine-specific (NAPE-PLD), following initial N- of by an N-acyltransferase (NAT). In contrast, 2-AG is primarily formed from sn-2-arachidonoyl-diacylglycerol (DAG) via diacylglycerol lipase-α or -β (DAGLα/β), often downstream of (PLC) activation hydrolyzing phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2). These pathways operate post-synaptically in neurons and other cells, enabling retrograde diffusion to presynaptic terminals. Termination occurs via enzymatic : amide hydrolase (FAAH) degrades AEA to and , while (MAGL) primarily breaks down 2-AG. Endocannabinoids mediate both phasic and tonic signaling modes. Phasic release involves transient, stimulus-evoked bursts that suppress release via retrograde action on presynaptic CB1 receptors, as seen in depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition or excitation (DSI/DSE). Tonic signaling reflects basal endocannabinoid tone maintaining steady-state suppression of synaptic transmission, measurable in slices where CB1 antagonists enhance evoked potentials, indicating ongoing low-level endocannabinoid influence independent of acute stimuli. This baseline tone, quantified by increased inhibitory postsynaptic currents upon receptor blockade, contributes to homeostatic control of excitability in regions like the hippocampus and . While synthesis pathways are conserved across mammals, human-specific genetic variations influence endocannabinoid longevity. The FAAH C385A polymorphism (rs324420), resulting in a proline-to-threonine substitution at codon 129, reduces FAAH expression by approximately 50% in homozygous carriers, elevating circulating AEA levels and altering pain sensitivity, emotional reactivity, and addiction risk. This variant, present in about 38% of individuals of European descent as heterozygotes or homozygotes, exemplifies how subtle enzymatic differences can modulate endocannabinoid signaling efficacy without altering core biosynthetic machinery.

Phytocannabinoids

Phytocannabinoids constitute a class of terpenophenolic compounds produced by , predominantly Cannabis sativa, through the condensation of olivetolic acid—a derived from hexanoyl-CoA—and , an isoprenoid precursor from the methylerythritol phosphate pathway. This yields (CBGA), the central precursor that cyclizes into acidic forms such as (THCA) and (CBDA) via species-specific synthases. Over 120 distinct phytocannabinoids have been isolated from C. sativa, reflecting extensive chemical diversity arising from , oxidation, and of these precursors during plant maturation or storage. Δ⁹-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive phytocannabinoid, acts as a at (CB₁) with a binding affinity (Kᵢ) of approximately 10 nM, mediating , analgesia, and through Gᵢ-protein signaling. In contrast, (CBD) lacks psychoactivity and exhibits or negative allosteric modulation at CB₁ and CB₂ receptors, potentially inhibiting endocannabinoid via amide hydrolase (FAAH) blockade without direct agonism. (CBN), an oxidative degradation product of THC formed through exposure to oxygen, light, heat, and over time—which reduces overall cannabinoid potency and shelf life—displays mild psychoactivity as a low-affinity at both CB₁ (higher potency than CB₂) and contributes to effects at concentrations exceeding those of THC in aged plant material. Empirical isolation of these compounds relied on chromatographic techniques; THC was first purified and structurally elucidated from extracts in 1964 by Raphael Mechoulam's group using and spectroscopic analysis, enabling subsequent pharmacological assays. While remains the dominant source, trace cannabinoid-like compounds occur in other plants such as spp. (alkylamides mimicking CB₂ ) and spp. (prenylated bibenzyls), but yields are minimal—often below 0.1% dry weight—and bioactivity remains unverified in mammalian models due to structural deviations from canonical phytocannabinoids. β-Caryophyllene, a in species like (Piper nigrum), qualifies as the sole confirmed phytocannabinoid outside , selectively activating CB₂ as a full without CB₁ affinity. These non- occurrences underscore biosynthetic convergence but lack the potency or diversity observed in hemp or marijuana varieties, limiting their empirical relevance.

Synthetic and Semi-Synthetic Cannabinoids

Synthetic cannabinoids are laboratory-synthesized compounds designed to mimic or enhance the pharmacological effects of phytocannabinoids, often through structural modifications to improve receptor affinity, selectivity, or metabolic stability. These include classical cannabinoids, which resemble the dibenzopyran structure of Δ9-THC, and non-classical variants that deviate from this scaffold while retaining cannabimimetic activity. Semi-synthetic cannabinoids, by contrast, involve chemical modification of naturally extracted phytocannabinoids, such as or , to yield derivatives with altered potency or . Potency is typically assessed via radioligand binding assays using tritiated ligands like [3H]CP 55,940, where lower inhibition constants (Ki) indicate higher CB1 receptor affinity; for instance, many synthetics exhibit subnanomolar Ki values compared to Δ9-THC's 40 nM range, though such enhancements can introduce off-target binding to non-cannabinoid receptors, potentially exacerbating toxicity. Classical synthetic cannabinoids, developed primarily in the 1970s–1980s for research into cannabinoid mechanisms, include potent THC analogs like HU-210. Synthesized at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the late 1980s, HU-210 features a dimethylheptyl side chain modification that confers 100–800 times greater potency than Δ9-THC in behavioral and analgesic assays, with CB1 Ki values around 0.5–1 nM versus THC's higher threshold. This compound's high efficacy as a full CB1 agonist, demonstrated in GTPγS binding studies, made it a tool for probing receptor signaling but highlighted risks of prolonged effects due to slow dissociation kinetics. Non-classical synthetics, such as CP 55,940 developed by in 1974, adopt bicyclic or phenolic structures lacking the classical pyran ring, yet bind potently to CB1/CB2 with Ki ≈ 0.5–1 nM. Radiolabeled CP 55,940 facilitated early receptor characterization in the 1980s, enabling the 1990 of the CB1 gene by displacement assays in rat brain membranes, which confirmed G-protein-coupled signaling. These compounds' structural flexibility allowed for stereospecific potency, but modifications often reduced subtype selectivity, leading to broader physiological impacts observed . Semi-synthetic cannabinoids have proliferated since 2020, often derived from minor phytocannabinoids like CBD via acid-catalyzed isomerization to Δ8-THC or further acetylation to analogs such as Δ8-THC-O-acetate. Δ8-THC, first synthesized in the 1940s but resurging in pharmaceutical exploration, exhibits ~70% of Δ9-THC's psychoactivity with enhanced stability, as quantified in stability assays showing resistance to oxidation. Recent developments (2023–2025) include derivatives from hemp-extracted precursors, with European monitoring identifying 18 novel semi-synthetics in 2024 alone, many featuring reduced THC forms or acetyl groups for altered lipophilicity and receptor engagement. Binding data reveal these often match or exceed classical synthetics' affinities (Ki <1 nM), but empirical assays underscore off-target risks, such as unintended GPR55 activation, from imprecise modifications.

Pharmacology and Mechanisms

Receptor Binding and Signaling

Cannabinoids primarily interact with the orthosteric binding sites of cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, which are G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) coupled to Gi/o proteins, leading to inhibition of adenylyl cyclase and reduced cyclic AMP (cAMP) levels. Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive phytocannabinoid, acts as a partial agonist at CB1 with high affinity (Ki ≈ 40 nM), eliciting suboptimal G-protein activation compared to full agonists like CP55,940, as measured in radioligand binding and GTPγS assays. This partial agonism contributes to dose-dependent signaling efficacy, where THC recruits β-arrestin-2 to the phosphorylated CB1 receptor, promoting receptor internalization and desensitization that attenuates prolonged G-protein signaling, evidenced by β-arrestin translocation assays and structural data from cryo-EM complexes showing steric hindrance of G-protein coupling.31385-X) Cannabidiol (CBD), in contrast, exhibits low orthosteric affinity for CB1 and CB2 (Ki > 1 μM) but functions as a negative or , suppressing constitutive receptor activity without direct competition at the primary binding pocket, as demonstrated in cAMP accumulation assays where CBD reduces basal signaling in CB1-expressing cells. This inverse agonism diminishes agonist-induced responses, such as those from THC, potentially explaining CBD's lack of euphoric effects and its antagonism of CB1/CB2-mediated pathways in functional antagonism studies using isolated tissues and recombinant systems. Unlike THC, CBD shows minimal β-arrestin recruitment, favoring modulation of G-protein pathways without strong desensitization. Biased signaling profiles among cannabinoids arise from differential engagement of G-protein versus β-arrestin pathways, quantified via downstream readouts like cAMP inhibition (reflecting Gi/o activation) and phospho-ERK or β-arrestin recruitment assays. For instance, THC and synthetic agonists like WIN55,212-2 display bias toward β-arrestin-2 at CB1, enhancing desensitization over sustained G-protein signaling, while endocannabinoids like anandamide show relative preference for G-protein-mediated GIRK channel activation over cAMP suppression in electrophysiological and BRET-based assays. Recent cryo-EM structures (2024) reveal allosteric sites extracellular to the orthosteric pocket, where positive allosteric modulators (PAMs) like ago-BAM bind to stabilize active conformations and enhance orthosteric ligand efficacy without intrinsic agonism, offering potential for pathway-specific tuning as seen in G-protein coupling efficiency measurements. Negative allosteric modulators, conversely, reduce agonist potency at these sites, providing therapeutic avenues to dampen CB1 hyperactivity with fewer side effects.

Biosynthesis and Metabolism

Phytocannabinoids are biosynthesized in trichomes via a pathway initiating with hexanoyl-CoA to form 3,5,7-trioxododecanoyl-CoA, followed by condensation and cyclization to olivetolic acid, which prenylates with via aromatic prenyltransferase to yield olivetolyl-type intermediates; subsequent oxidation and cyclization by Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase produce acidic precursors like THCA. These acidic forms predominate in planta, where minimal spontaneous occurs under physiological conditions, preserving stability; activation to neutral, bioactive cannabinoids such as THC requires non-enzymatic , typically induced by heat (e.g., 105–120°C for 30–60 minutes), releasing CO₂ and enabling receptor binding. , ingested acidic phytocannabinoids like THCA exhibit lower potency until partial in the or liver, though efficiency varies with and temperature. Endocannabinoids, including (AEA) and (2-AG), arise via on-demand biosynthesis from membrane lipid precursors in response to neuronal activity or calcium influx; AEA derives from N-arachidonoyl-phosphatidylethanolamine hydrolyzed by N-acyl-phosphatidylethanolamine-hydrolyzing (NAPE-PLD), while 2-AG forms from sn-1-diacylglycerol via diacylglycerol lipase-α or -β (DAGL-α/β). Unlike constitutive phytocannabinoid production, this activity-dependent synthesis ensures transient signaling, with 2-AG levels reaching micromolar concentrations post-stimulation compared to nanomolar for AEA. Metabolism of phytocannabinoids occurs predominantly in the liver via enzymes, with Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) hydroxylated by to (11-OH-THC), an equipotent that crosses the blood-brain barrier more readily, thereby extending psychoactive duration beyond parent THC's 1–2 hour plasma peak. *3 polymorphisms reduce enzyme activity by 80–90% in homozygous carriers, yielding 2–3-fold higher THC area-under-curve exposure and prolonged half-lives (up to 5–7 days in poor metabolizers versus 20–30 hours in extensive metabolizers), influencing dosing variability and overdose risk. Endocannabinoid proceeds through : FAAH terminates AEA to and , while MAGL (85% of 2-AG ) and α/β-hydrolase domain-containing 6/12 (ABHD6/12) yield and from 2-AG, with FAAH also contributing ~15% to 2-AG breakdown. Pharmacological inhibition of these degradative enzymes elevates endocannabinoid tone; however, FAAH inhibitors like PF-04457845 demonstrated no significant efficacy in phase II/III trials for or anxiety despite preclinical promise, attributable to compensatory mechanisms and adverse events including skin reactions. MAGL inhibitors, such as ABX-1431, advanced to phase I but yielded mixed results in early Parkinson's trials, with limited translation to broad therapeutic outcomes due to off-target accumulation and gastrointestinal tolerability issues. Individual genetic variability in FAAH (e.g., C385A polymorphism reducing activity by 40%) correlates with altered levels and sensitivity, underscoring pharmacogenomic influences on inhibitor responses.

Effects on Cellular Processes

Cannabinoids influence mitochondrial function primarily through CB1 receptor activation, which suppresses biogenesis and respiration in cellular models. In white adipocytes, CB1 receptor blockade enhances mitochondrial biogenesis via eNOS induction, indicating that agonist activation, as with Δ9-THC, conversely limits oxidative capacity and ATP production under high-dose conditions, confirmed by flux assays measuring respiratory chain activity. Similarly, cannabidiol (CBD) perturbs mitochondrial dynamics in vitro, dose-dependently reducing membrane potential (IC50 of 10 μM) and promoting caspase-mediated apoptosis independent of classical receptors. These effects arise from cannabinoid modulation of calcium homeostasis, which regulates mitochondrial bioenergetics and cell fate in neurons and glia. At the synaptic level, cannabinoids disrupt mechanisms, particularly long-term depression (LTD). In hippocampal slices, Δ9-THC and synthetic agonists impair endocannabinoid-dependent LTD via CB1 desensitization following chronic exposure, altering presynaptic glutamate release probability as measured by paired-pulse ratios and whole-cell patch-clamp . Chronic adolescent administration in mice further attenuates plasticity in ventral tegmental area synapses, where CB1-mediated LTD fails to engage, leading to persistent imbalances in excitatory-inhibitory transmission evidenced by reduced frequency facilitation in field potential recordings. These findings from repeated dosing paradigms highlight dose- and duration-dependent impairments without recovery in adult stages. Cannabinoids also modulate inflammatory signaling at the cellular level by inhibiting pathways in immune cells. In activated macrophages, CBD and other phytocannabinoids suppress nuclear translocation, reducing pro-inflammatory transcription as quantified by luciferase reporter assays and Western blots for p65 . This effect occurs independently of CB1/CB2 in some models, involving direct interference with activity, and is corroborated by decreased TNF-α release in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated cultures. Recent in vitro data from 2025 demonstrate that high-potency cannabinoids, including vaporized extracts mimicking street products, elevate neuronal excitability through altered synaptic remodeling in hippocampal cultures. Exposure disrupts dendrite arborization and spine density, increasing action potential firing rates as tracked via multi-electrode arrays, with effects persisting post-exposure due to downregulated CB1 signaling. These findings, derived from flux cytometry and calcium imaging, underscore potency-dependent impacts on membrane excitability beyond receptor affinity alone.

Therapeutic Applications

FDA-Approved Cannabinoid Drugs

The U.S. (FDA) has approved four cannabinoid-based prescription drugs, consisting of synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a THC analog, and purified (CBD), primarily for , appetite-stimulating, and antiseizure effects. These approvals, dating from 1985 to 2018, were granted based on clinical evidence of efficacy in narrowly defined indications, with mechanisms involving at cannabinoid receptors (for THC-based drugs) or modulation of ion channels and neurotransmitter release (for CBD). As of 2024, no additional cannabinoid drugs have received FDA approval, underscoring regulatory caution amid broader unsubstantiated claims for cannabis-derived products.
Drug NameActive IngredientInitial FDA Approval YearPrimary Indications
Marinol (and generics)Synthetic THC (dronabinol)1985Nausea and vomiting from cancer chemotherapy unresponsive to conventional treatments; expanded in 1992 to anorexia with weight loss in AIDS patients.
SyndrosSynthetic THC (dronabinol oral solution)2016Same as Marinol: chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting and AIDS-related anorexia.
CesametSynthetic THC analog (nabilone)1985Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting refractory to standard antiemetics.
EpidiolexPurified CBD2018Seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, (approved June 25, 2018), and complex (expanded July 31, 2020) in patients aged 2 years and older.
Dronabinol acts as a at CB1 and CB2 receptors, mimicking endogenous THC to suppress emesis via pathways and stimulate appetite through hypothalamic effects. similarly binds CB1 receptors with higher affinity than , providing benefits but with comparable psychoactive risks. Epidiolex's antiseizure mechanism involves enhanced transmission, reduced excitability via voltage-gated sodium channels, and serotonin receptor modulation, independent of direct CB1 agonism, as evidenced by randomized controlled trials showing median seizure frequency reductions of 37-42% versus placebo in pivotal studies for Dravet and Lennox-Gastaut syndromes. These drugs are classified under the — and as Schedule III, Epidiolex as Schedule V—reflecting assessed abuse potential balanced against medical utility.

Evidence from Clinical Trials

Clinical trials, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses thereof, have demonstrated moderate evidence for cannabinoids in alleviating chronic pain, though effect sizes remain small relative to opioids. A 2025 meta-analysis synthesizing 32 to 36 RCTs reported small to moderate reductions in pain intensity across various chronic pain conditions, with follow-up periods typically limited to two weeks or less. In neuropathic pain trials, nabiximols (Sativex), a THC:CBD oromucosal spray, reduced pain scores and allodynia in 125 patients compared to placebo, achieving clinically meaningful relief in approximately 30% of participants who reported at least a 30% reduction from baseline. However, comparative analyses indicate cannabinoids yield similar analgesic efficacy to opioids for non-cancer chronic pain but with lower discontinuation rates due to fewer severe adverse events, underscoring modest incremental benefits over established treatments. Evidence from RCTs for cannabinoids in treating anxiety and depression remains weak, with recent s identifying methodological flaws including favoring positive outcomes. A 2025 of eight small RCTs concluded insufficient evidence for the efficacy of CBD or THC in managing mood or anxiety disorders, as most trials failed to demonstrate superiority over after accounting for expectancy effects. Meta-analyses from 2023-2025 further highlight associations between cannabinoid use and elevated depression risk (odds ratio 1.29), but causal directionality is unclear, and therapeutic trials show negligible symptom reductions, potentially inflated by selective reporting in underpowered studies. For minor cannabinoids like (CBG), clinical evidence is preliminary and confined to early-phase trials focused on rather than broad therapeutic endpoints. A 2022 vehicle-controlled clinical study involving 20 participants applying 0.1% CBG topically for two weeks demonstrated and skin health improvements, but larger Phase II trials remain absent or inconclusive for models. models support CBG's potential to mitigate atopic dermatitis-like symptoms, yet human RCTs are limited by small sample sizes and lack of long-term data. Key barriers to robust RCT evidence include challenges in maintaining blinding due to cannabinoids' psychoactivity, which often leads to unblinding and inflated responses. A 2022 meta-analysis of 20 cannabinoid trials involving 1,459 participants found significantly higher placebo-induced reductions compared to non-cannabinoid RCTs, compromising outcome validity. Critiques from 2021-2024 emphasize that subjective endpoints exacerbate expectancy biases, with psychoactivity enabling participants to discern active treatment, thus undermining double-blind integrity in up to 50% of trials. These issues, compounded by short trial durations and heterogeneous dosing, limit generalizability and highlight the need for objective biomarkers in future studies.

Specific Conditions and Empirical Outcomes

Epidiolex, a purified oral solution, demonstrated efficacy in reducing convulsive seizure frequency in randomized controlled trials for , with a median reduction of 42.9% versus 21.8% for (p=0.04) in a phase 3 study involving 120 patients. Similar results were observed in Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, where drop seizures decreased by 21.8% with compared to 4.3% with across two trials. These outcomes reflect class 1 evidence for these pediatric epilepsies, but extensions to generalized seizures, such as absence epilepsy, lack comparable randomized data; one open-label study suggested limited benefit for typical absence seizures, with no significant responder rates beyond those on standard therapies like . In , (Sativex, a THC:CBD oromucosal spray) reduced symptoms by approximately 20-30% in patients resistant to first-line antispastics, as measured by numeric rating scale improvements in pivotal trials; one of responder analyses showed odds ratios of 2.32 for clinically relevant relief versus . Symptom scores improved from baseline means of 6.9 to 3.9 in early responders after 12 weeks, but no trials indicate disease-modifying effects, such as slowed progression or lesion reduction on MRI. Some studies failed primary endpoints for clinician-rated , highlighting variability dependent on patient-reported versus objective measures. Cannabinoids like and serve as adjuncts for (CINV) refractory to standard prophylaxis, with meta-analyses confirming superior complete response rates ( 3.82 for acute CINV) over in highly emetogenic settings. guidelines endorse them for breakthrough symptoms, yet efficacy wanes with tolerance, necessitating dose escalation or rotation, and they do not extend to preventing delayed CINV consistently. Claims of cannabinoids curing cancer lack support from survival or tumor regression data in clinical trials; systematic reviews of case reports find insufficient controls or endpoints to substantiate antitumor , with preclinical effects not translating to human outcomes.

Limitations of Current Research

The classification of and its cannabinoids as Schedule I substances under the has imposed stringent regulatory barriers, including mandatory DEA registration, limited sourcing of research-grade materials, and protracted approval processes, which hinder the conduct of large-scale, standardized clinical trials and impede the development of consistent dosing protocols. As of October 2025, proposed rescheduling to Schedule III remains stalled amid legal challenges, postponed hearings, and administrative delays, perpetuating these constraints despite recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2023 acknowledging lower abuse potential and accepted medical uses. Many cannabinoid studies suffer from predominant short-term designs, with median durations under 24 weeks, which underreport adverse events compared to longer-term investigations and fail to capture chronic risks such as or dependency trajectories. Preclinical reliance on animal models exacerbates translational gaps, as only about 5% of findings successfully predict outcomes due to species-specific differences in receptor expression, metabolism, and behavioral responses; for instance, agonists showing promise in for conditions like anxiety have faltered in phase III trials, revealing overstated efficacy. Industry sponsorship introduces conflicts of interest, with analyses indicating a "funding effect" where cannabis company-backed studies report more favorable results, such as exaggerated CBD benefits, potentially skewing evidence toward market-driven narratives over rigorous scrutiny. Non-FDA-approved products compound these issues through widespread mislabeling and unsubstantiated health claims; a 2024 review found most commercial CBD items inaccurately dosed or promoted deceptive therapeutic effects, undermining consumer trust and complicating empirical validation of real-world exposures.

Risks and Adverse Effects

Acute Physiological and Psychological Effects

Acute administration of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive cannabinoid in , induces dose-dependent physiological responses primarily through activation of CB1 receptors in the central and peripheral nervous systems. Common effects include , with heart rate increases of 20-50% observed at oral THC doses exceeding 5 mg, correlating with peak plasma concentrations in pharmacokinetic models that predict cardiovascular strain via sympathetic activation. Dry mouth () arises from reduced secretion, evident at similar low-to-moderate doses due to CB1-mediated inhibition, while and conjunctival injection reflect . Impaired , including deficits in fine and hand-eye tasks, manifests dose-dependently above 5 mg THC equivalents, as demonstrated in controlled psychomotor assessments. Psychological effects of acute THC exposure exhibit biphasic patterns, with low doses (e.g., <5 mg) often producing euphoria, relaxation, and subjective stress reduction via modulation of amygdalar activity, whereas higher doses (>10 mg) trigger anxiety, , and in a significant subset of users. High-potency products, containing THC concentrations >10-20%, elevate the acute risk of transient psychosis-like symptoms, including hallucinations and delusions, particularly in novel users or those with predisposing factors, as evidenced by 2025 systematic reviews linking such formulations to unfavorable outcomes beyond traditional strains. These responses stem from THC's disruption of prefrontal and limbic circuitry, with causality supported by placebo-controlled human laboratory studies showing dose-proportional exacerbation. Cognitively, acute THC intoxication impairs encoding, capacity, and sustained , with deficits quantifiable via tasks like the Grooved Pegboard or digit span tests at doses as low as 5-7.5 mg, reflecting CB1 antagonism of hippocampal and prefrontal glutamatergic signaling. These impairments are transient, typically resolving within 24-48 hours post-exposure as THC metabolizes to inactive and further conjugates, distinguishing them from persistent deficits in chronic use. Controlled trials confirm reversibility without residual effects in healthy adults, though vulnerability varies by baseline and concurrent factors like .

Long-Term Health Consequences

Long-term use of smoked is associated with respiratory symptoms such as , sputum production, and wheezing, with cohort studies indicating an elevated risk of (COPD), particularly among heavy users or those co-using . In a 2023 analysis of a large cohort, marijuana smoking accelerated forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) decline beyond alone in older adults, linking it to structural lung damage akin to that from combustion byproducts. Regular , independent of , correlates with greater odds of in longitudinal data, driven by irritant effects on airways and . Chronic cannabinoid exposure via use has been linked to cardiovascular adaptations and risks, including persistent in some users due to impaired vascular tone and sympathetic modulation. User registries and clinical observations document orthostatic symptoms in habitual consumers, potentially exacerbating ischemia in vulnerable individuals through reduced cerebral . Longitudinal suggests cumulative lifetime use may elevate incident risk, though mechanisms involve both acute and chronic hemodynamic shifts. Endocrine disruptions from prolonged cannabinoid use include reduced testosterone production in males, as evidenced by assays showing lowered serum levels and testicular atrophy in chronic users. A 2022 primate study demonstrated that daily THC edibles decreased testes size and testosterone by up to 50% over months, mirroring human endocrine patterns of suppressed Leydig cell function. Human cohort data indicate inconsistent but dose-dependent declines in testosterone, with heavy use correlating to hypogonadism-like states via cannabinoid receptor interference in the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. With rising potency in commercial products exceeding 20-30% THC by 2025, longitudinal MRI studies reveal amplified structural changes, including cortical thinning and altered integrity in heavy users. A 2025 analysis of over 1,000 participants found that lifetime high-potency exposure associated with persistent reductions in prefrontal during cognitive tasks, persisting beyond . These findings, from cohort , underscore dose-escalated alterations, with heavier use linked to greater deviation from normative trajectories in young adults.

Dependency and Withdrawal

Cannabis use disorder () is defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition () as a problematic pattern of use resulting in clinically significant impairment or distress, requiring at least two of 11 criteria—such as tolerance, withdrawal, unsuccessful efforts to cut down, or continued use despite social or health problems—within a 12-month period. Approximately 9% of individuals who use develop , rising to 17% among those who initiate use in and 25-50% among daily users, reflecting neuroadaptations that sustain compulsive consumption. Tolerance to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive cannabinoid, arises from chronic exposure leading to downregulation and desensitization of cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) receptors in brain regions like the and , reducing responsiveness and requiring escalating doses for equivalent effects. This neuroadaptation mirrors mechanisms in other substance dependencies, involving altered signaling in the mesocorticolimbic pathway, which contributes to the reinforcing properties of and complicates dose control. Withdrawal in CUD manifests as a cannabis withdrawal syndrome, with core symptoms including irritability or , anxiety or nervousness, disturbed (including vivid dreams), depressed mood, and loss or , typically onsetting 1-2 days after cessation, peaking at 2-6 days, and resolving within 1-4 weeks. Clinically significant withdrawal occurs in 12-47% of frequent users, with higher rates (up to 50% or more in inpatient studies of heavy users) linked to daily consumption levels exceeding 1 gram of cannabis or equivalent THC potency. These symptoms drive , as affected individuals often resume use to alleviate discomfort, underscoring the physiological basis of dependency. Longitudinal studies provide correlational evidence for the gateway hypothesis, wherein early use predicts higher odds of progression to harder drugs like or opioids, with hazard ratios from cohort analyses ranging 2-4 times elevated risk; however, this association attenuates when controlling for shared vulnerabilities such as genetic predispositions to , environmental stressors, or polysubstance exposure, suggesting common liability factors rather than unidirectional causation from . Quit rates among those with remain low without structured intervention, with occurring in fewer than 20% of cases annually per follow-up data from treatment-seeking samples, and the noting that dependency develops in about 30% of regular users overall, often necessitating behavioral therapies like for sustained abstinence.

Vulnerabilities in Specific Populations

Adolescent cannabis users exhibit heightened vulnerability to cognitive impairments due to ongoing brain development, particularly in the where synaptic pruning and myelination occur. Longitudinal data from the cohort, tracking over 1,000 individuals from birth to age 38, revealed that persistent users who began before age 18 experienced an average IQ decline of 8 points, alongside deficits in executive function, , and processing speed, effects not observed in those initiating use in adulthood or non-users. These outcomes persisted even after controlling for confounders like alcohol use and , suggesting a causal role for cannabis in disrupting neurodevelopmental trajectories during . Individuals with psychotic disorders, such as , face amplified risks from use, including exacerbated symptom severity and . A multicenter of 229 patients with first-episode found that continued use post-onset doubled the hazard of compared to abstinence, with users requiring 2.5 times more days to achieve remission. Genetic factors interact with this vulnerability; those with familial predisposition to show 2-4 times higher odds of onset or with regular use, independent of polygenic risk scores alone, as high-potency THC modulates signaling in vulnerable neural circuits. Prenatal cannabis exposure correlates with fetal growth restriction and related perinatal complications, challenging claims of safety. A of over 5,600 pregnancies demonstrated that maternal use during was linked to reduced fetal growth trajectories, lower (by approximately 200 grams), and increased placental , effects evident from mid-pregnancy onward. Multicenter biological sampling data from 8,049 pregnancies further confirmed associations with small-for-gestational-age infants (adjusted 1.36) and , attributable to cannabinoid-induced disruptions in placental function and nutrient transfer rather than confounding maternal factors. Among older adults, use elevates fall risk due to impaired balance and , compounded by age-related declines in . Analysis of national health survey from adults aged 50 and older indicated that current users had a 22% higher prevalence of falls in the past year compared to non-users, with chronic use correlating to instability and slower reaction times. Limited randomized underscore this, showing acute THC administration increases sway and postural in those over 65, though long-term studies remain sparse amid rising use rates in this demographic.

Recreational and Societal Use

Patterns of Consumption

In the United States, past-year use among adults aged 19 to 30 reached historically high levels in 2023, with approximately 43% of young adults aged 19 to 22 reporting use, the highest rate observed in over three decades. Among this age group, daily or near-daily use stood at 10.4%, surpassing similar patterns for alcohol. For the first time in 2023, women aged 19 to 30 reported higher past-year use prevalence than men in the same cohort. Common methods of consumption among current adult users include , reported by 77% to 83%, followed by edibles at 37% to 41% and vaping at 34% to 42%. Data from 2022 indicate as the predominant route at 79.4%, with eating edibles at 41.6% and vaping at 30.3%, reflecting a shift toward non-combustion methods over prior years. Vaping of , including delta-9-THC variants, has shown increases among adolescents and young adults, with past-year rates reaching 22% for those aged 19 to 30 in 2023. High-potency THC products, often exceeding 20% THC concentration, have become prevalent in markets, with product potency rising over the past decade and contributing to patterns of concentrated use. This trend aligns with broader shifts toward extracts and concentrates, which appeal to frequent users seeking higher cannabinoid delivery. Globally, cannabis use prevalence varies widely, ranging from under 1% in some Asian and African regions to over 30% in parts of and . Users accessing for purposes exhibit higher frequencies of daily or near-daily consumption, at around 33%, compared to 11% among those using primarily for other reasons. In regions with established medical frameworks, patterns emphasize standardized dosing, while broader access correlates with elevated overall prevalence among adults. In the , remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the , denoting high abuse potential and no accepted medical use, though the (DEA) proposed rescheduling it to Schedule III in December 2024 following a 2023 recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This shift would recognize moderate abuse potential and accepted medical applications, facilitating research and pharmaceutical development but not authorizing recreational use or broad , with the process stalled amid appeals and administrative changes as of October 2025. At the state level, 24 states and the District of Columbia had legalized recreational by October 2025, creating a of regulations that conflicts with federal and perpetuates enforcement challenges. Despite these expansions, an illicit persists, often comprising over half of total consumption due to high legal taxes, regulatory barriers, and product pricing that render licensed sales uncompetitive in many regions. Internationally, the World Health Organization's Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) reviewed cannabis-related substances in its 48th meeting on October 20–22, 2025, but prior assessments, including a 2019 evaluation, have not recommended full descheduling, citing insufficient evidence for broad therapeutic endorsement beyond specific formulations amid ongoing concerns over dependency risks and variable potency. Policy tensions extend to economic impacts, with the U.S. generating approximately $30 billion in revenue in 2025, yielding billions in state tax revenues while federal enforcement costs remain substantial due to unresolved banking restrictions and interstate commerce prohibitions.

Economic and Cultural Impacts

The of for recreational and medical use has generated substantial economic activity, with the U.S. industry supporting 425,002 full-time jobs as of 2025, a slight decrease from the prior year despite overall revenue expansion to $30 billion. This growth reflects investments in cultivation, retail, and ancillary services across states with legal markets. Counterbalancing these gains, cannabis use correlates with economic drawbacks, including reduced probabilities among users—particularly males—and elevated risks of involuntary job separation, stemming from impairment effects like , disorientation, and diminished concentration that hinder workplace performance. Culturally, the post-2010s era witnessed a marked destigmatization of , evolving from associations with and criminality to mainstream integration via pop culture, music, and media portrayals that normalized recreational use. trends amplified this shift, fostering public acceptance and industry branding that positioned cannabinoids as lifestyle elements, though empirical data on impairment underscores the need for tempered expectations amid promotional narratives. Legal markets have displaced some black-market activity, with studies showing mixed effects on : certain analyses report no overall increase in rates or even declines in violent offenses like due to reduced underground incentives, while others link retail expansion to rises in and violent crimes. Illicit supply chains persist, introducing adulteration hazards such as rare instances of contamination in , which have led to overdoses, particularly among adolescents.

Controversies and Debates

Overstated Therapeutic Claims

Numerous commercial (CBD) products have been marketed as remedies for conditions including , anxiety, and , despite limited empirical support for broad efficacy. A 2024 analysis of commercially available CBD products found that most contained inaccurate labeling and made misleading therapeutic claims unsupported by . Similarly, a UK-based study published in 2024 concluded that CBD performs no better than for relief, with potential harm from unregulated formulations. These findings highlight how marketing often outpaces verification, as the U.S. (FDA) has approved CBD only for specific syndromes via Epidiolex, rejecting broader over-the-counter claims due to insufficient evidence. Clinical trials have revealed safety risks that undermine enthusiastic therapeutic narratives, particularly regarding hepatotoxicity. A 2025 FDA-sponsored randomized trial demonstrated that daily CBD doses of 100 mg—common in consumer products—elevated liver enzymes in a significant proportion of participants, with elevations persisting beyond four weeks in some cases and indicating potential subclinical injury. A systematic review of 2023 similarly associated CBD use with liver enzyme elevations and cases of drug-induced liver injury, especially at higher doses exceeding 1,000 mg daily, though even lower exposures showed inconsistencies in safety profiles across studies. These adverse outcomes, often downplayed in promotional materials, stem from CBD's metabolism via cytochrome P450 enzymes, which can lead to idiosyncratic toxicity without clear dose-response predictability. The ""—the hypothesis that combinations of cannabinoids, , and other compounds yield superior therapeutic outcomes compared to isolates—remains largely correlational rather than causally established. Proponents attribute enhanced efficacy to synergistic interactions, but double-blind clinical trials have failed to provide hard evidence, with results often anecdotal or confounded by expectancy biases. A 2023 review noted that while full-spectrum products may modulate effects in preclinical models, studies show mixed or null results for superiority, lacking mechanistic validation beyond observational associations. This , popularized in for whole-plant extracts, has not been substantiated as a reliable causal driver of amplified benefits in rigorous, controlled settings. Anecdotal testimonials proliferating on platforms often exaggerate cannabinoid benefits while overlooking and influences, which empirical data reveal as substantial confounders. A meta-analysis of 20 randomized trials involving 1,459 participants found that responses accounted for 67% of reported pain relief in cannabinoid studies, with significant reductions in perceived intensity under sham conditions alone. Such effects are amplified by media hype and user expectations, as positive coverage persists regardless of true therapeutic signals, leading to self-reported successes that do not differentiate active compounds from inert substitutes. These uncontrolled narratives, lacking or blinding, fail to establish and contribute to overstated perceptions detached from verifiable trial outcomes.

Research Barriers and Funding Issues

The classification of cannabis-derived cannabinoids as Schedule I substances under the imposes stringent federal regulatory hurdles, including mandatory pre-approval from the (DEA) for possession, use, and distribution in research, alongside applications to the (), leading to significant delays in study initiation often exceeding one year. This scheduling, predicated on assertions of high abuse potential and lack of accepted medical use, restricts access to research-grade materials, which must be sourced exclusively from government-contracted growers like the , limiting product diversity and potency compared to commercial markets. The proposed rescheduling to Schedule III, initiated by the Department of Health and Human Services' recommendation in August 2023 and formalized in the DEA's May 2024 rulemaking, aims to alleviate these barriers by easing research protocols, though implementation remains pending as of 2025 and does not fully resolve sourcing monopolies. Federal funding for cannabinoid research is disproportionately channeled through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which in fiscal year 2015 accounted for 59.3% of all National Institutes of Health (NIH) expenditures on the topic ($66 million), yet prioritized studies on abuse liability and adverse effects over therapeutic applications, comprising only 16.5% of NIDA's cannabis-related grants for non-abuse outcomes. This allocation contrasts with NIH funding patterns for tobacco and alcohol, where despite comparable or greater societal harms—such as tobacco's annual attribution to over 480,000 U.S. deaths versus cannabis's lower acute mortality—research dollars for preventive and harm-reduction interventions in those areas exceed proportional investments in cannabis equivalents, reflecting institutional emphases shaped by legal status rather than empirical burden. Overall funding scarcity persists, with researchers citing inadequate support as the primary obstacle, exacerbated by Schedule I constraints that deter private investment and complicate grant justifications amid perceived stigma. Ethical challenges compound these barriers, particularly in trials involving vulnerable populations such as adolescents, where dosing cannabinoids raises concerns over long-term neurodevelopmental impacts, capacity, and equitable risk-benefit assessment under principles of non-maleficence. Institutional review boards often impose heightened scrutiny for pediatric studies, citing insufficient safety data from prior adult trials and potential for psychological harms, which delays or precludes enrollment in protocols testing therapeutic efficacy for conditions like or autism-related behaviors. Product variability further impedes rigorous investigation, as inconsistent THC concentrations across strains and formulations undermine dose-response reproducibility; in response, NIDA's January 2025 roadmap advocates adopting a standardized 5 mg THC unit for clinical studies to facilitate comparable outcomes and policy-relevant findings. This measure addresses methodological gaps but requires broader federal alignment to overcome entrenched sourcing and approval bottlenecks.

Public Health vs. Individual Liberty Perspectives

Public health advocates argue that unrestricted access to cannabinoids, particularly via recreational , exacerbates risks to vulnerable populations, with empirical data showing elevated youth initiation rates post-legalization. In , following recreational legalization in 2018, studies reported a 69% increase in cannabis initiation among youths aged 15-19 within the first few years, rising from approximately 4% to 6.7% annually. Similarly, U.S. analyses of states like Washington post-2012 legalization found significant upticks in adolescent use prevalence and initiation, contradicting pre-legalization predictions of stability. These trends align with causal concerns over adolescent development, where THC exposure correlates with heightened risks of and , as evidenced by longitudinal cohort studies linking early use to doubled odds of schizophreniform disorders in genetically susceptible individuals. Legalization has also correlated with surges in mental health-related emergency department visits, underscoring acute burdens. In U.S. states with recreational markets, cannabis-involved ED encounters rose sharply, particularly for and hyperemesis, with one multi-state review noting up to 88% increases in attributable visits from 2007-2020, accelerating post-legalization. cohorts show disproportionate spikes, including a 2-3 fold rise in psychosis-related hospitalizations in legalized jurisdictions like and . Synthetic cannabinoids, often evading regulations in black markets, have driven overdose clusters, with CDC data documenting nationwide poisoning surges in 2016 across all regions, involving severe outcomes like seizures and renal failure due to their potent, unpredictable receptor . Proponents of stringent controls cite these outcomes to prioritize population-level over access, emphasizing that adolescents' incomplete prefrontal maturation amplifies vulnerability to dependency and motivational deficits. From an individual standpoint, critics of prohibition contend that post-legalization refutes fears of societal collapse, mirroring alcohol Prohibition's (1920-1933) failure to curb consumption while fostering and unsafe adulterated products. Multiple longitudinal studies in early adopter states like and Washington found no significant uptick in overall rates, with violent and property offenses stable or declining 5-10% relative to national trends, attributable to reallocated resources. Advocates emphasize adult autonomy and personal responsibility, arguing that for capable individuals outweighs paternalistic overreach, especially given cannabinoids' lower lethality profile compared to alcohol or opioids—no recorded fatal overdoses from pure THC, per toxicological reviews. This perspective rejects blanket moral panics, advocating age-gated markets to mitigate youth access while affirming that causal risks, though real for developing brains, do not justify denying mature users absent proven externalities like widespread waves.

History

Early Isolation of Phytocannabinoids

Efforts to isolate the active principles of began in the amid its empirical use in tinctures for conditions such as and , though these preparations contained crude extracts without purified compounds. Researchers like those at Cambridge University in the 1890s achieved partial purification through of cannabis resin, identifying a non-alkaloidal fraction, but failed to isolate discrete cannabinoids due to limitations in analytical techniques. The first phytocannabinoid isolated was (CBN), achieved around 1899 from resin, with its structure elucidated in the 1930s and full synthesis accomplished by 1940. , a degradation product of , exhibited mild psychoactive effects but was not the primary intoxicating agent. In 1940, American chemist Roger Adams at the University of Illinois isolated (CBD) from Minnesota wild , marking the first separation of this non-psychoactive compound, though its structure was not fully determined until 1963. A major breakthrough occurred in 1964 when Israeli chemists and Yechiel Gaoni at the isolated Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in pure form from using , followed by structural elucidation via spectroscopic methods and confirmation through synthesis. This work, published in the Journal of the , identified THC as the principal psychoactive constituent responsible for cannabis's euphoric effects, resolving decades of ambiguity in earlier impure isolates. Prior U.S. efforts in the and , including Adams' partial THC derivatives, had not achieved this purity amid growing regulatory restrictions that prioritized over systematic chemical research. These isolations laid the groundwork for understanding phytocannabinoid chemistry, though broader pharmacological exploration remained constrained until later decades.

Discovery of the Endocannabinoid System

In 1988, researchers Allyn Howlett and identified a specific for the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in membranes, demonstrating G-protein-coupled receptor activity distinct from or other known systems. This discovery implied the existence of an endogenous signaling pathway modulated by cannabinoids, laying the groundwork for recognizing the (ECS). The CB1 receptor was molecularly cloned in 1990, first in rats by Tom Bonner's group at the and shortly thereafter in humans by Claire Gérard and colleagues, revealing a seven-transmembrane domain structure typical of G-protein-coupled receptors predominantly expressed in the . These findings confirmed the receptor's role in mediating THC's effects through adenylate cyclase inhibition and modulation, prompting searches for natural ligands. A pivotal advance occurred in 1992 when William A. Devane, collaborating with Raphael Mechoulam's laboratory in , isolated N-arachidonoylethanolamine—named —from porcine brain tissue. competitively bound to the CB1 receptor with high affinity, eliciting cannabimimetic effects , such as hypothermia and reduced spontaneous activity in mice, without relying on pathways, thus establishing it as the first endogenous cannabinoid . This work causally linked plant-derived cannabinoids to an internal regulatory system. The framework was completed in 1995 with the identification of by Mechoulam's team, an ester abundant in canine and rat brain that also activated CB1 receptors, albeit with different pharmacological profiles from , including higher efficacy at certain signaling pathways. Together, these ligand-receptor pairings delineated the core ECS components, enabling subsequent elucidation of its roles in , , , and through and on-demand synthesis.

Modern Synthetic Developments and Policy Shifts

In the early 2000s, like , originally synthesized in the mid-1990s by organic chemist at as part of research into CB1 receptor ligands, began appearing in commercial products sold as "Spice" or herbal incense blends. These aminoalkylindole compounds demonstrated exceptionally high binding affinity to cannabinoid receptors—often 10-100 times greater than delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—functioning as full agonists that elicited intense psychoactive effects far surpassing those of natural . By 2008, was identified in seized smoking mixtures, correlating with rising reports of , including , seizures, and cardiovascular events due to their narrow and lack of partial agonism akin to THC. visits involving surged, with U.S. data indicating over 7,000 cases in 2011 alone, prompting regulatory responses such as Germany's ban on in 2009 and the U.S. DEA's temporary Schedule I placement in 2011, followed by permanent controls on dozens of analogs. Despite bans, clandestine chemists iteratively modified structures—altering tails, linkers, and cores—to evade detection, perpetuating a cycle of novel variants and associated harms into the . The 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act (Farm Bill) redefined as cannabis containing less than 0.3% delta-9-THC by dry weight, legalizing its cultivation and enabling a multibillion-dollar market for (CBD)-derived products without prior FDA approval requirements for non-intoxicating claims. This shift exploded production, with U.S. acreage rising from 78,000 in 2018 to over 500,000 by 2020, but fostered an unregulated sector plagued by inconsistent potency—products often exceeding labeled THC levels—adulteration with synthetic additives, and safety risks like heavy metal contamination. Hemp-derived intoxicants, such as delta-8-THC produced via chemical conversion, exploited legal loopholes, contributing to a 482% increase in related poison control calls from 2020 to 2021. From 2023 onward, federal policy scrutiny intensified with the Department of Health and Human Services' August 2023 recommendation to reschedule marijuana to Schedule III, acknowledging its accepted medical applications and moderate dependence liability relative to Schedule I criteria. The DEA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in May 2024 to implement this, potentially easing research barriers and allowing tax deductions for producers, but the process stalled by late 2024 amid petitions for reconsideration and administrative transitions, remaining unresolved as of October 2025. Parallel developments include early-phase clinical trials for minor cannabinoids like cannabigerol (CBG) and cannabinol (CBN), targeting conditions such as inflammation and epilepsy, with over 55 pipeline candidates reported in 2025; however, these face skepticism over preliminary evidence quality, as systematic reviews highlight small effect sizes and high risk of bias in existing studies, tempering commercial hype against empirical shortfalls.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556062/
  2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26698193/
  3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32980261/
  4. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/STR.0000000000000396
  5. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2338251
  6. https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/synthetic-cannabinoids
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5322940/
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3481536/
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2268199/
  10. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-024-02820-3
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7374105/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3179980/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5075023/
  14. https://www.nature.com/articles/aps2016149
  15. https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/117/3/827/125497/Cannabinoid-receptor-2-and-its-agonists-mediate
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2095107/
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165614709000170
  18. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0902743106
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7855189/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6813823/
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1470919/
  22. https://www.nature.com/articles/4401284
  23. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.658433/full
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3954479/
  25. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21328621/
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14782
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2593941/
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4036321/
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/virodhamine
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051122000230
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3231565/
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4237895/
  33. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/26/6199
  34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12052044/
  35. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.00293/full
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3820295/
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4677118/
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10159215/
  39. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/215/8/1331/11332/Wired-to-run-exercise-induced-endocannabinoid
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2768535/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9855621/
  42. https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-024-05986-8
  43. https://elifesciences.org/articles/81919
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306453008000231
  45. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16710682/
  46. https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201075
  47. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0671-6
  48. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/28/12/2976
  49. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12035-024-04132-5
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11655887/
  51. https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp.70006
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4789136/
  53. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/22/11909
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3150828/
  55. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18481028/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8273699/
  57. https://elifesciences.org/articles/14653
  58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22776995/
  59. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay1502
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7962319/
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10051821/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11506053/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7339067/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11050509/
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8124362/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8290527/
  67. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja01062a046
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2931553/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4582439/
  70. https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.3886
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6354946/
  72. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-90167-w
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6741702/
  74. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-50004-7
  75. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1527-3458.2001.tb00192.x
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cp-55-940
  77. https://www.ilae.org/journals/epigraph/epigraph-vol-21-issue-1-winter-2019/hiding-in-plain-sight-the-discovery-of-the-endocannabinoid-system
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10976172/
  79. https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/european-drug-report/2025/new-psychoactive-substances_en
  80. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acschemneuro.3c00530
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667118223000508
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6515405/
  83. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41401-018-0164-x
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2189767/
  85. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17245363/
  86. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/sj.bjp.0707442
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5436336/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8433814/
  89. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38830102/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5549281/
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006295222003550
  92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19005461/
  93. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-018-0141-7
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11097652/
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2494670/
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3877544/
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3481535/
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8091957/
  99. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2022.1067493/full
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969996122000614
  101. https://www.dovepress.com/cannabidiol-as-a-novel-therapeutic-for-immune-modulation-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-ITT
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2828614/
  103. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jnc.70153
  104. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/14/6/642
  105. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-cannabis-research-and-drug-approval-process
  106. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-including-cannabidiol-cbd
  107. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/018651s029lbl.pdf
  108. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230708/
  109. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/205525Orig1s009lbledt.pdf
  110. https://www.drugs.com/history/syndros.html
  111. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2006/018677s011lbl.pdf
  112. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/210365lbl.pdf
  113. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557531/
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6938286/
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12472909/
  116. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17997224/
  117. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/1/e068182
  118. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348994505_Evidence_for_Use_of_Cannabinoids_in_Mood_Disorders_Anxiety_Disorders_and_PTSD_A_Systematic_Review
  119. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12055028/
  120. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/association-between-cannabis-and-depression-an-updated-systematic-review-and-metaanalysis/CA179B7E5B24AE899DF9AF0C5F097171
  121. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357841510_In_Vitro_and_Clinical_Evaluation_of_Cannabigerol_CBG_Produced_via_Yeast_Biosynthesis_A_Cannabinoid_with_a_Broad_Range_of_Anti-Inflammatory_and_Skin_Health-Boosting_Properties
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11764157/
  123. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799017
  124. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2026-54018-001.pdf?sr=1
  125. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1611618
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7439947/
  127. https://www.epilepsybehavior.com/article/S1525-5050%2823%2900431-6/abstract
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5767492/
  129. https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/87/9/944
  130. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29792372/
  131. https://karger.com/ndd/article/21/3-4/55/825107/Review-of-Available-Data-for-the-Efficacy-and
  132. https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/sativex-does-not-meet-primary-endpoint-on-measures-of-spasticity-for-multiple-sclerosis
  133. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00520-025-09251-w
  134. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.01836
  135. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8864433/
  137. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8783595/
  138. https://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/FINAL-schedule-1-restricted-research.pdf
  139. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/dea-gives-cannabis-rescheduling-update-newsletter-october-8-2025/
  140. https://www.dea.gov/stories/2025/2025-01/2025-01-15/hearing-proposed-rescheduling-marijuana-postponed
  141. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9358949/
  142. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356710365_Challenges_for_Clinical_Cannabis_and_Cannabinoid_Research_in_the_United_States
  143. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002667
  144. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.16172
  145. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12067965/
  146. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20241219/Research-sheds-light-on-the-ethical-complexities-in-conducting-Industry-funded-cannabis-studies.aspx
  147. https://norml.org/blog/2024/07/26/analysis-most-commercially-available-cbd-products-mislabeled-make-misleading-claims/
  148. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/07/ftc-fda-send-second-set-cease-desist-letters-companies-selling-products-containing-delta-8-thc
  149. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221366/
  150. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13318-025-00941-8.pdf
  151. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4547548/
  152. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8655458/
  153. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269881118799953
  154. https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/drugs-and-human-performance-fact-sheets
  155. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037687161730220X
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3473327/
  157. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14203-4
  158. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250901104647.htm
  159. https://scitechdaily.com/high-potency-cannabis-linked-to-schizophrenia-psychosis-and-more-review-finds/
  160. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-024-00261-x
  161. https://www.italianjournalofpsychiatry.it/article/view/545
  162. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.596601/full
  163. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829657
  164. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31537703/
  165. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10484485/
  166. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6878136/
  167. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12412838/
  168. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/6/1925
  169. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303654
  170. https://news.ohsu.edu/2022/01/25/chronic-marijuana-use-negatively-impacts-male-reproductive-health-may-decrease-testicular-function
  171. https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282%2821%2902321-9/fulltext
  172. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022519383902552
  173. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12061635/
  174. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11411392/
  175. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538131/
  176. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0006295223002563
  177. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6223748/
  178. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9110555/
  179. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2764234
  180. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.11.1967
  181. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9046729/
  182. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12209865/
  183. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4291295/
  184. https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/health-effects/cannabis-and-teens.html
  185. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1206820109
  186. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4747759/
  187. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2552797
  188. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/drugs-health-products/does-cannabis-use-increase-risk-developing-psychosis-schizophrenia.html
  189. https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/behind-the-smoke-unmasking-the-link-between-cannabis-and-schizophrenia/
  190. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19858757/
  191. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2812642
  192. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8750873/
  193. https://academic.oup.com/innovateage/article/6/Supplement_1/99/6936866
  194. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/addiction-statistics-demographics/young-adults
  195. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16748
  196. https://record.umich.edu/articles/adult-cannabis-hallucinogen-use-still-at-historic-highs/
  197. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12082860/
  198. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/4/495
  199. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/wr/mm7412a1.htm
  200. https://obc.memberclicks.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6443:nida-study-finds-cannabis---hallucinogen-use-among-adults-remains-at-historic-highs-in-2023&catid=29:insight&Itemid=252
  201. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307414
  202. https://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/doi/10.46234/ccdcw2024.116
  203. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4915997/
  204. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-025-00324-5
  205. https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Marijuana%2520Rescheduling_PHR.pdf
  206. https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty-and-research/drug-enforcement-and-policy-center/research-and-grants/policy-and-data-analyses/federal-marijuana-rescheduling
  207. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/dea-says-marijuana-rescheduling-appeal-process-remains-stalled-under-new-administrator-who-pledged-to-prioritize-the-issue/
  208. https://mjbizdaily.com/map-of-us-marijuana-legalization-by-state/
  209. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/g-s1-46564/cannabis-market-illegal-weed-consumers
  210. https://alcoholstudies.rutgers.edu/cannabis-black-market-thrives-despite-legalization/
  211. https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standards/controlled-substances/who-review-of-cannabis-and-cannabis-related-substances
  212. https://www.tni.org/en/publication/the-whos-first-ever-critical-review-of-cannabis
  213. https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/industry-headlines/news/15745739/us-cannabis-industry-revenue-grows-to-30b-jobs-stall-at-425000
  214. https://5711383.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/5711383/Jobs%2520Report%2520-%25202025/VangstJobsReport2025-FINAL02%2520%282%29.pdf
  215. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3867578/
  216. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6314892/
  217. https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2020/06/15/cannabis-and-work/
  218. https://thefreezepipe.com/pages/cannabis-culture-the-2010s
  219. https://medium.com/%40essencemichigan/the-evolution-of-cannabis-culture-from-stigma-to-acceptance-b000af6d0ecd
  220. https://homenewshere.com/national/entertainment/article_31725c6f-2105-57de-8652-eeb84d19ae79.html
  221. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-020-00056-8
  222. https://www.mpp.org/issues/legalization/marijuana-legalization-is-not-linked-with-increased-crime-rates/
  223. https://news.utdallas.edu/social-sciences/study-medical-marijuana-legalization-doesnt-lead-t/
  224. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235220302361
  225. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000211958
  226. https://pacificsandsrecovery.com/fentanyl-laced-weed/
  227. https://mattersnetwork.org/fentanyl-in-cannabis/
  228. https://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2024/3/26/study-finds-cbd-products-work-no-better-than-placebo
  229. https://www.medpagetoday.com/gastroenterology/generalhepatology/116386
  230. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cbd-liver-damage-study-potential-problems-rcna217186
  231. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36912195/
  232. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/some-of-the-parts-is-marijuana-rsquo-s-ldquo-entourage-effect-rdquo-scientifically-valid/
  233. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10452568/
  234. https://www.leafly.com/news/science-tech/the-entourage-effect-does-it-really-exist
  235. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/health/marijuana-pain-control-wellness
  236. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9706362/
  237. https://nida.nih.gov/research/resources-grants-contracts/nidas-role-in-providing-cannabis-research
  238. https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/asprescribed/2024/05/from-prohibition-to-prescription-dea-issues-proposed-rule-to-reschedule-marijuana
  239. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/
  240. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5896809/
  241. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-025-00264-0
  242. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8929429/
  243. https://utahcanna.org/the-ethical-tightrope-navigating-pediatric-medical-cannabis-research/
  244. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7250053/
  245. https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2025/01/new-roadmap-cannabis-cannabis-policy-research
  246. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.675033/full
  247. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36243557/
  248. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0044118X231205330
  249. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2832970
  250. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10793079/
  251. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871625001723
  252. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6527a2.htm
  253. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2019.1666903
  254. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10176789/
  255. https://cjil.sog.unc.edu/resource/criminal-justice-system-impacts-of-cannabis-decriminalization-legalization/
  256. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009308400001845
  257. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9658060/
  258. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7605027/
  259. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12210-020-00956-0
  260. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1760722/
  261. https://www.news-medical.net/health/Cannabinoid-Receptors.aspx
  262. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1470919
  263. https://projectcbd.org/science/endocannabinoid-research-timeline/
  264. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/jwh-018
  265. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DAWN105/DAWN105/SR105-synthetic-marijuana.htm
  266. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3799955/
  267. https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.3422
  268. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-farm-bill-hemp-and-cbd-explainer/
  269. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/congressional-testimony/hemp-production-and-2018-farm-bill-07252019
  270. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10864014/
  271. https://jdc.jefferson.edu/mphcapstone_presentation/566/
  272. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cannabinoid-clinical-trial-pipeline-gains-170000823.html
  273. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12422300/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.