Conrad Theodore Seitz

Anandamide is an ubiquitous neurotransmitter found throughout the brain as well as the body; in fact, there are two main types of receptor, CB-1, found in the brain, and CB-2, present in the rest of the body.  It plays multiple roles, in the regulation of pleasure, motivation, and reward receptors, in the uterus and embryo (with peaks of levels at ovulation), regulation of appetite and feeding, the immune system, etc.   The effect of paracetamol (acetaminophen) is even proposed to be related to anandamide stimulation.  Multiple anandamide-like molecules were found in chocolate.

The most potent stimulator of anandamide, however, is the cannbinoid plant, Cannabis sativa, and its delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol.  It is a stable analogue of the brain’s neurotransmitter anandamide that attaches to both types of receptors.  This substance is said to overwhelm anandamide receptors and cause multiple side effects related to attention, memory, concentration, time perception, and appetite, as well as xerostomia.

Anandamide is broken down by an endogenous enzyme, fatty acid amine hydrolase (FAAH.)  There happens to be a mutation that creates an enzyme which is deficient in breaking down anandamide, leading to continued high levels of anandamide in the blood and making the owner of a double mutation (homozygous) in the enzyme resistant to the effects of cannabinoids.  These people are said to be normally less anxious and more optimistic than people without the mutation.

About 20 percent of Americans have homozygous mutations in the FAAH gene, and about 40 percent of a people said to represent a tribe in Nigeria also have the homozygous mutation.  Whether this has any effects on society as a whole is unknown and possibly unanticipated.

The number of locations in which anandamide receptors are found in the body suggests the cannabinol could have many, many uncertain side effects, but there are no indications that others are being overlooked.  We know that cannabinol impairs memory and concentration, raises the heart rate, stimulates appetite, may cause drowsiness, and so on, but despite the ubiquity of the receptor, nothing that could kill you.  Despite all these side effects, some people seem to enjoy using it.  They must be appreciating the known effects of anandamide in the brain related to pleasure, reward, and motivation.

There are a number of states that have decided to go against the federal prohibition on marijuana, even going so far as to legalize the general sale of the drug.  Most have, however, limited marijuana to quasi-medical uses.  The federal government’s agencies have taken an inconsistent approach to state initiatives, but have recently appeared to back off of a more hostile attitude and abjure small raids.  There are even programs to legitimize the bank deposit of funds earned by the sale of marijuana in the few states that have legalized that sale.

All of this represents a societal shift that has taken at least fifty years more than was originally expected.  The comedian Lenny Bruce is said to have commented that marijuana would soon be legalized “because all the lawyers smoke it.”  That was in 1960.

As we already know, there are brain receptors that match numerous drugs which are used and abused by humans.  For example, there are GABA receptors that respond to Valium, nicotinic receptors that accept nicotine, and mu receptors that are activated by morphine.

There is also a brain chemical called anandamide, which activates circuits that relieve anxiety.  This chemical and its receptor are a close match for the active ingredient in marijuana.  People vary in how much of these receptors they produce in their brains, and it turns out that about 20 percent of Americans (and 45 percent of certain Nigerians) have a mutation that decreases the destruction of anandamide, resulting in a “naturally” less anxious condition.   Those who do not possess a double complement of this mutation are “naturally” more anxious and have difficulty extinguishing a fear reaction like the pairing of an electric shock with an audible tone.

Some of the people who are “naturally” anxious indulge in the use of marijuana to relieve their anxiety.  The concern is that these people may have problems with their memory and concentration because of the marijuana.  The whole story, more or less, is told in a New York Times Op-Ed which is found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/opinion/sunday/the-feel-good-gene.html

I hope to expound on this subject further at a later date, since the subject interests me particularly.

I just couldn’t resist quoting this partial page describing emails sent by Ferguson employees to their coworkers.  These came to light, and were cited in the Justice Department investigation of the Ferguson police and “justice” (municipal court) systems.  I can’t imagine someone being so insensitive as to send such “jokes” in the first place; and so stupid as to send them on official email accounts where they work.  I guess they assumed that no-one was going to investigate them.  But, “murder will out” and all evil deeds eventually come to light, even if the individuals involved have long since died.  So:  with the understanding that I heartily disapprove of the sentiments expressed below.

“We have discovered evidence of racial bias in emails sent by Ferguson officials, all of whom are current employees, almost without exception through their official City of Ferguson email accounts, and apparently sent during work hours. These email exchanges involved several police and court supervisors, including FPD supervisors and commanders. The following emails are illustrative:

Here is a quote from the Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department by the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division published on March 4, 2015:

“Under the Constitution, what a person says generally should not determine whether he or she is jailed. Police officers cannot constitutionally make arrest decisions based on individuals’ verbal expressions of disrespect for law enforcement, including use of foul language.   Buffkins v.City of Omaha, 922 F.2d 465, 472 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that officers violated the Constitution when they arrested a woman for disorderly conduct after she called one an “asshole,” especially since “police officers are expected to exercise greater restraint in their response than the average citizen”); Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875, 880 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that the FirstAmendment prohibited a police chief from arresting an individual who pointed at him and told him “move the f*****g car,” even if the comment momentarily distracted the chief from a routine traffic stop); Gorra v. Hanson, 880 F.2d 95, 100 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding that arresting a person in retaliation for making a statement “constitutes obvious infringement” of the First Amendment).

As the Supreme Court has held, “The Constitution protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.” City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill , 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) (striking down as unconstitutionally overbroad a local ordinance that criminalized interference with police by speech)”

These court decisions and, particularly, the statement by the Supreme Court just quoted, allow the public a broad degree of freedom of speech when directed at police officers.  They contradict what most parents would tell their children, that is, don’t be disrespectful towards policemen.  Common sense would suggest that one should not aggravate a policeman, particularly since they are not actually capable of “exercising greater restraint in their response than the average citizen.”

This is because policemen are constantly on edge and operating in fear when dealing with the public– something of which the “average citizen” simply is not aware.  This fear is revealed when talking to policemen in private, anonymously, and “off the record.”  The policeman is especially fearful when dealing with a person “of color”, that is an African-American or “black” individual, in fact, anyone who is dark complected or has brown skin.

This is one reason why the administration of justice is so badly broken in the United States.  It comes as a result of the background of the policeman: usually a poor, lower class white person who has little education and has few other opportunities for employment.  The primary qualifications for becoming a policeman are usually high school graduation and a perfectly “clean” arrest record.  Black people generally are handicapped in this respect because they are frequently arrested without cause and convicted without proof, resulting in a record which prevents them from becoming policemen.

It is not difficult for someone inclined towards interpersonal violence to avoid being arrested simply by choosing the right victims.  Bullying is usually not punished by law enforcement; it is overlooked if not actively encouraged in certain situations.

The low salary paid to policemen is a factor in that it discourages individuals who have any other alternatives from applying for such a job.  The fact that policemen usually carry semi-automatic pistols also encourages individuals who are inclined towards violence because it provides a societally sanctioned opportunity to shoot someone.

Despite these factors, there are many policemen who never draw or fire their weapons and who treat the public with respect and even deference.  Unfortunately, based on the report just cited, none of them are encouraged to continue as policemen at Ferguson, nor any other small town in Missouri or any other state.  The report details the pressures put on policemen to arrest as many people as possible in order to provide revenue for the administration of city government.

The report details instances of false arrest, infringement of constitutional rights, harassment, and imposition of payments on individuals least able to pay.  The report also makes it clear that these instances are the rule rather than the exception.

The sole purpose, it appears, of law enforcement in Ferguson (and most other small cities in St. Louis county) is to collect individuals who can be fined in order to pay for a significant portion of the city’s expenses.  By law in Missouri, a city is not to collect more than 30% of its revenue from fines.   In Ferguson, out of 21,000 people, the police have initiated arrests that lead to over $2 million a year in court revenue (in 2012), and the city administration is projecting increases of as much as 10% a year.  While this amount complies with state law limiting percentage of revenue, it represents a heavy burden on a population of which 25% of individuals take home less than poverty level incomes.

An odd statistic: in 1990, the census recorded Ferguson as 75% white, but in 2010, it was 67% black.  93% of arrestees are black.  Of 54 sworn police officers, 4 are black, and none of the city councilmembers are black.  One reason for this disparity is that blacks vote in much smaller percentages than whites; the reasons behind this lack of voting are unknown to those who have written about it.

Clearly, voting is essential to a democracy, and just as clearly, the United States population has failed to exercise their democratic responsibilities.  For example, in the 2014 “off year” elections, only 35% of eligible voters actually cast ballots.  In presidential elections, a small majority of those eligible do vote, but this is hardly a laudable result.

In my humble opinion, the most important thing wrong with the United States government is that it fails to represent the people because voters don’t participate in elections.  If everyone who was eligible really voted, we would have a much greater degree of accountability in our government.

In some countries, voting is a legal requirement; Australia is an example.  This does not guarantee that the government will be perfect, nor even dramatically better.  It does, however, guarantee that government has a real mandate from the people, which will surely increase its respect and legitimacy.  More importantly, it would make it more likely that government will obtain its operating revenue from those most able to pay: those who are well off.  In Ferguson, the poorest suffer the greatest burden of policing, which is most often illegitimate and unfair.

By an odd coincidence, the minimum wage in Australia is the equivalent of $15 an hour, there is universal health care, and employment laws require that employees be given full time work wherever possible (in contrast to WalMart, where the vast majority of employees are “temporary” and “part time” without any benefits, and a significant portion have to get food stamps and other government assistance.)

Here’s a switch on my previous deadly serious posts: a video of a group of “teenage” dolphins “tormenting” a pufferfish to induce it to release its deadly toxin.  Pufferfish are slow, clumsy fish that have a potent defense: when threatened, the fish “puffs” up or swells itself to several times its normal size, and releases a deadly neurotoxin known as tetrodotoxin into the water.  Eating the fish can kill you: it is known as the “second most deadly vertebrate” (presumably after the cobra snake.)

The video, apparently taken with a hidden camera, shows a half dozen young dolphins searching out and capturing a puffer fish.  They then take turns swimming around with the fish’s tail clasped in their jaws.  The fish swells up and releases a small visible cloud of material, which then dolphins then gather around to ingest.  After taking in the material, the dolphins appear to become much less active, and gather together near the surface with their snouts poking up.  The puffer fish swims away.

The producers of the video claim that this shows the dolphins are deliberately ingesting sublethal doses of the puffer fish venom and beoming intoxicated as a result.  There is no other obvious explanation for this behavior.   The puffer fish, although slow and apparently defenseless, is lethal to eat and is avoided by all carnivorous fish, as well as by the dolphin, which normally eats smaller fish as a staple of its diet.

The Japanese traditionally eat portions of the puffer fish, which are prepared with extreme care by licensed chefs.  Supposedly, a sublethal dose of the toxin causes tingling and numbness, although the effects are not described as enjoyable.   Lethal doses will cause paralysis and death within a few minutes by suffocation; occasional deaths have been described for those who eat inexpertly prepared dishes containing the poisonous glands of the fish.

Here is the address of the video, which is an advertisement for a Discovery channel show on dolphin behavior as captured by hidden cameras: http://time.com/3735476/teenage-dolphin-stoners/   I find the explanation quite believable and very entertaining.  It is another example of the clearly highly intelligent behavior of this large brained sea mammal.  Fortunately for us, dolphins do not have hands or fingers and thus are unable to write or manipulate nuclear material.  Thus, they are no threat to us and I believe can be studied with a view to better understanding of the ways of intelligent beings who are fully adapted to, and comfortable in, their natural environment.  I think it is unlikely that they can teach us pacifism; they can kill others of their own species under unusual circumstances and it is romantically idealistic to think that, just because they don’t wage war, they are Ghandi-esque.

Here’s a quote from a New York Times article published yesterday that explains how excessive drug prescribing happens:

”

A Chicago psychiatrist pleaded guilty last month to taking illegal kickbacks of nearly $600,000 to prescribe an antipsychotic drug for his patients. The doctor, Michael J. Reinstein, also agreed to pay $3.79 million to the federal government and the State of Illinois to settle a lawsuit asserting that he had been involved in the submission of at least 140,000 false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. Law enforcement officials said he had prescribed clozapine for thousands of older and indigent mentally ill patients at 30 nursing homes and other sites.

The lawsuit said drug companies had paid kickbacks, consulting fees and entertainment expenses for Dr. Reinstein as part of an effort to induce him to write prescriptions for clozapine.

Last March, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries and a subsidiary, IVAX Pharmaceuticals, agreed to pay $27.6 million to settle allegations that they had violated federal and state False Claims Acts by making payments to Dr. Reinstein.

Investigators from the Government Accountability Office said in 2011 that Medicare officials were doing little to monitor the use of prescription drugs by Medicare patients. But Medicare also designates antipsychotic medications as one of six “protected classes,” meaning that drug insurance plans must cover all or substantially all drugs in that therapeutic class.

”

The article can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/us/psychiatric-drug-overuse-is-cited-by-federal-study.html

Why do drug insurance plans have to cover all drugs in the class of antipsychotics?  Is there evidence that all such drugs are vitally necessary in the treatment of anybody, particularly the elderly?  In fact, there is evidence for the opposite: elderly patients who receive antipsychotics have higher death rates than those who do not.

The General Accountability Office(GAO) (the one branch of government that tries to ensure our tax dollars are spent wisely) has said that Medicare officials are “doing little to monitor the use of prescription drugs by Medicare patients.”  That means that there are no controls on drug prescriptions to the segment of the population that uses the most drugs: the elderly and disabled.

Congress should listen to the GAO and force Medicare to do more to monitor and control the use of prescription drugs; tolerating the behavior of drug companies revealed by this lawsuit is criminal negligence.  The psychiatrist who admitted to receiving huge kickbacks for prescribing antipsychotics is only the tip of the iceberg.   The GAO and the Justice Department should get together and enforce some rational behavior by Medicare.  Congress should establish a department within Medicare devoted to the study of the rational use of prescription drugs.

According to a report in yesterday’s New York Times, the New Jersey prosecutor has settled a ten year environmental damage case against Exxon Mobil when the case was on the verge of being decided by a judge.  The settlement is for a small fraction of what the state had originally demanded: $250 million as against $8.9 billion.

This settlement seems odd, when the judge in the case was almost ready to announce his assessment of damages.  However, the governor of New Jersey is Republican Chris Christie, long known for his bizarre behavior.  Just last year, he shut down most of the entrance lanes to a heavily used bridge into New York for four days, creating massive traffic jams that tied up commuters for hours at a time.  He denied responsibility for this action, blaming high level staff members, but it seems obvious that it could not be done without his express approval.   The reason: the Democratic mayor of the town at the entrance to the bridge had refused to endorse him.

No direct contributions from Exxon to Christie have been uncovered, but they did contribute $500,000 to the Republican Governor’s Association last year while Christie was serving a one-year term as its chairman.

Some observers would suggest that Christie would be willing to do Exxon a favor for free, considering the possibility that he will be without a job soon and his prospects for a Republican nomination for President have been poisoned by the bridge scandal.  But that would be cynical.

All this information is not really public, but has been based on anonymous sources who learned of the amount of the settlement recently.  Read the story and decide for yourself: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/nyregion/exxon-mobil-settles-with-new-jersey-over-environmental-damage.html

Wie-Hock (Willie) Soon, who is a PhD in aerospace engineering and a part-time employee of the Smithsonian who works at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics Center, has been publishing papers that try to cast doubt on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) for over a decade.  A week ago, the New York Times published a piece based on disclosures made by Greenpeace and the Center for Climate Investigations.  These groups made Freedom of Information Act requests for disclosure of Dr. Soon’s correspondence related to his employment by the Smithsonian, a government body.  The letters reveal that he has had over $1.2 million in funding over the last decade from groups with vested interest in industries that produce carbon dioxide.  These groups include a company that holds numerous coal-fired power plants and the notorious Koch brothers (who made most of their money from oil-related investments.)  In addition, he has recently begun to receive money from a group that was organized specifically to anonymize money donations from wealthy individuals and groups who are mostly conservative in outlook.

Dr. Soon’s “scientific” papers attempt to show that the sun is responsible for most of the global warming that has been observed over the last 200 years.  In fact, objective scientists estimate that the sun may be blamed for perhaps 10 percent of observed warming, while human activities are causing at least 50 to 80 percent of the changes we have seen.  The sun has in fact gone through a period of reduced heating related to very low sunspot activity over the last fifteen to twenty years.

The problem with Dr. Soon’s funding is that he has published at least 11 papers since 2008 that attempt to cast doubt on AGW, papers that omit any information about his funding sources.  At least eight of those papers directly violate the disclosure policies of the journals in which they were published.  This sort of behavior could have the following consequences: the papers could be retracted, and Dr. Soon could face sanctions from his employer.   The Smithsonian Institution being a government entity, there is considerable red tape involved in his employment there.  There will of course be investigations by his employer, and these processes could take a lot of time.  The investigations could even reveal more dirt about Dr. Soon and his funding.

The reason this is particularly entertaining is that Senator James Inhofe, a loud critic of AGW, has repeatedly cited Dr. Soon as a reliable skeptic who is brave enough to beat back against the “global AGW conspiracy” that the Senator has been trying to “expose.”

The Senator is a thorn in the side of environmentalists and other proponents of action against AGW, and his speeches in the Senate and elsewhere are loaded with references to those scientists who publicly cast doubt on AGW.  Most, if not all, of those scientists are beholden to industry sources for their livelihoods.  There is little to respect in the Senator’s claims, and little to respect in these scientists.