From: Steele, Kirk A (SteeleKA@nafm.misawa.af.mil)
Date: Wed Jan 30 2002 - 00:34:13 MST
What, we didn't specifically evolve to exploit the naturally occuring
recreat-receptors? Shoeless Walt, say it isn't so.
Kirk
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Watts [mailto:wlwatts@home.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:56 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: Pot to become a womans issue - a humerous diversion
- we all gotta relax after all
Blunderov wrote:
> PS. Don't let anyone tell you that pot is not addictive! Whilst it is
> not common, it is definitely possible to become addicted. Those
> cannabinoid receptors can bitch like hell if they do not get their
> accustomed daily allowance. On this,at least, I can speak with some
> authority.
Please be careful with word usage, folks. This is not the first time
I've seen the term "cannabinoid receptors" on the list. Using these two
words together make it sound like there is an ACTUAL cannabis
chemoreceptor in the central nervous system!!
Yeah, right! I believe they are located about 2cm ventrally from those
other well-known chemoreceptors, the ecstasy receptors.
Feel free to keep using the term, just keep in mind the cellular
receptor sites that exhibit the classic lock-and-key type of
chemoreceptive agonistic excitation in the presence of THC are clearly
not evolved for that purpose.
As are most things in evolution, those particular receptor sites have
been exapted for a "higher" purpose by homo hedonist.
Walter
<don't bogart that exaptation, my friend.......>
-- Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc. "To err is human. To really screw things up requires a bare-naked command line and a wildcard operator."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT