One caveat for the locomotor studies is that the arena was not as large compared with the size of a lobster as the similar ratio for typical open field studies conducted in rodents. Similarly, the water depth was limited to that necessary to cover the lobster to facilitate the video tracking for this initial investigation. Nevertheless, the animals were able to express movement, turn around, change direction, etc., and traveled about 20 m after the vehicle exposure condition. It would be of interest in future studies to assess locomotor behavior in a larger arena or to assess behavior in a deeper aquatic environment. In the nociception experiment, lobsters were observed to respond to warm water immersion of claw, tail or antenna in a temperature-dependent manner . This provides evidence of thermal nociception in the lobster for the first time , and is consistent with prior work which has shown thermal nociception in crayfish, using a warm metal stimulus on the claw and antenna . No response to immersion in maintenance temperature salt water was observed in this study, using the 15 s cutoff. . At temperatures from 40 to 48 °C, however, the lobsters made distinct motor responses upon immersion of the tail, the claws or the antenna. Tail immersion resulted in a clear response of legs and claws and/or a strong flick of the tail which was in many cases repetitious . These latter behaviors can be considered within escape responses of lobsters and crayfish, dry racks for weed with evidence from the latter more plentiful. In the crayfish, sudden onset stimuli evoke tail movements associated with lateral and/or medial giant neuronal activity whereas more gradual stimuli evoke tail movements which do not involve the lateral or medial giant .
This study observed a range of apparent behavioral responses including gradual movements, strong flips and repeated flipping of the tail suggesting a diversity of sensory experiences from the sudden to the gradual. Additional experimentation would be required to further dissociate the thermoceptive responses under various conditions but the critical factor for this study was the detection of the hot water stimulus. Immersion of the claws or antenna also resulted in a distinct movement to remove the appendage from the water, consistent with thermoception. Temperature dependent differences in response latency were observed for the warm water challenges, with 40 °C less noxious than 44 or 48 °C. This graded response is what is observed with a similar nociceptive assay in rats and further enhances confidence in the specificity of the response to the noxious stimulus. The pronounced difference in sensitivity between the crusher and cutter claws provides another important validation of the model. Prior reports have focused on claw morphology and muscle fiber type and this extends this by demonstrating a clear behavioral insensitivity of the crusher compared with the cutter claw. Finally, the effect of THC vapor exposure on thermal nociception was minimal under the tested conditions. Surprisingly, despite the locomotor effect of 30 min of THC vapor exposure, there was no impact relative to vehicle vapor exposure on the latency of the response to warm water immersion . It required 60 min of exposure to THC to produce any significant effect , which was very small in magnitude. Although THC has limited anti-nociceptive impact in rodents relative to opioids and has a limited dose-effect range due to this low ceiling, it is typically more robust in rodents than what was observed here.
The present results and the work on lobster neuromuscular junctions suggest that THC has specific neuropharmacological effect, however, there does not appear to be a vertebrate endocannabinoid receptor expressed in the lobster or crayfish ; this is similar to behavioral effects in Drosophila melanogaster which likewise lack CB1/2 analogs. This turns attention to the possibility that THC acts in the lobster via temperature activating transient receptor potential channels. THC appears to function as a ligand at TRPV2, TRPV3, TRPV4, TRPA1, and TRPV8, as reviewed , and the Caribbean spiny lobster expresses 17 TRP channels including TRPA and TRPV homologs . A further clue is provided by the fact that another cannabis constituent which does not have substantial activity at endocannabinoid receptors , cannabidiol , also had inhibitory effects in Turkanis and Karler , and CBD modulates several THC sensitive TRPs . One apparent concern for this interpretation is that mammal TRPA1 is activated by noxious low, but not high, temperature. Nevertheless, thermosensitive TRPs may be a particularly good candidates for any anti-nociceptive effects in decapod crustaceans given that TRPA1 from invertebrates are indeed activated by high temperature. In some work, TRPV1 activates at about 48 °C , in other work over 43 °C as reviewed . There may be species differences in the activation temperature and as a comprehensive review observes that while TRPA1 activation temperatures vary across species/ortholog, activation is always above the preferred temperature of the species . Overall, the likely activation temperature for TRP homologs in the lobster are likely to accord with the temperature range established here for thermal nociception, i.e., observed at 40 °C and above, but not at 22 °C . A prior finding, however, that capsaicin did not influence the apparent thermal nociceptors in crayfish may suggest that whatever small effect was produced on nociception here was not mediated by a capsaicin sensitive TRP channel, such as TRPA1 or TRPV1. Alternately, the fact that TRPV1 can desensitize to capsaicin may have resulted in an apparent divergent result for noxious heat and capsaicin stimuli, presumably as a consequence of the specific methods used and potentially the species/ortholog in question. Finally, it is possible that there may be an as yet undiscovered ortholog of mammalian cannabinoid receptors in the lobster.
For example, the invertebrate C. elegans expresses a cannabinoid-like receptor that appears to mediate effects of the endogenous cannabinoid agonists 2-arachidonoylglycerol and anandamide . There are a few limitations to this study that may be useful to address in any future work. In the lobster behavior experiments, housing for the range of 4–21 days prior to a given assessment was never explicitly tested for potential effects. No major changes were noticed, but it is not impossible this would contribute. Likewise, we selected a fixed housing temperature, within the range described for this species in their natural habitat, so any effect of housing at one or the other end of their temperature range was not determined. As mentioned above, the locomotor assessment was conducted in an arena too small to divide into zones, e.g. Center vs Periphery, that in the context of a rodent test would permit assessment of anxiety-like avoidance of the center; a larger arena might facilitate such investigations. The nociception assay provides strong evidence for detection of a warm water stimulus, hydroponic rack system however it is possible that additional analysis of the response of the tail would provide further insight. Because the main goal was to determine if any response would be made, and there is no available information on how lobsters would respond to a thermally noxious stimulus, it was decided to operationalize the first clearly detectable response as the target latency. Future studies which determine the consistency of the strong flip, repeated flipping or the slower withdrawal response, both between and within individuals, would further define this response. In conclusion, these data confirm a method for studying the effects of aerosol THC exposure in a lobster model. Duration-dependent levels of THC were observed in the species’ tissues and a reduction in locomotor behavior was produced. The animals also responded in a temperature-dependent manner to the immersion of tail, claw or antenna in a hot water bath, indicating thermal nociception. This latter conclusion was further enhanced by the observation of differential sensitivity in the cutter and crusher claws. Further experimentation will be required to fully investigate other behavioral outcomes, including anxiety-like measures. Despite emerging scientific evidence on the adverse health risks of marijuana smoke, many people think that marijuana smoke is less toxic than tobacco smoke. Marijuana smoke contains chemicals known to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity, many of which are also in tobacco smoke. Indeed, except for the psychoactive ingredient — THC versus nicotine — marijuana smoke is similar to tobacco smoke. This similarity makes it likely that marijuana use will have comparable health effects as tobacco, a prediction supported by recent findings that marijuana and tobacco secondhand smoke exposure both have adverse cardiovascular effects. For example, combustible marijuana use and secondhand marijuana smoke exposure significantly impair blood vessel function, similar to tobacco, in ways that would increase the risk of atherosclerosis , heart attack, and stroke. Marijuana smokers are also at an increased risk of respiratory problems including chronic bronchitis, as marijuana smoke is associated with inflammation of the large airways, increased airway resistance, and lung hyperinflation.
Marijuana smokers also report increased rates of respiratory infections and pneumonia compared to nonsmokers. Increased marijuana use may produce other adverse effects such as long-lasting detrimental changes in brain function in adolescents, increased risk for addiction , and elevated risks of mental health disorders . Increased marijuana use also may result in increased traffic accidents from driving while impaired by marijuana. Aerosolizers are used for both nicotine and marijuana, and do not involve combustion, so produce fewer toxic chemicals than combusted products. While not fully understood, e-cigarettes do, however, expose users and bystanders to nicotine, ultrafine particles, and other toxins. Research on the health effects of marijuana leaf aerosolizers, THC concentrate aerosolizers, and liquid THC-filled e-cigarettes is hampered by the same factors that hamper research on marijuana in general. However, there is evidence on the adverse health risks of flavorants used in both e-cigarettes and marijuana products , which contain the chemical diacetyl. Marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, in which the use, sale, and possession of cannabis is a criminal offense under federal law, and which has resulted in a huge deficit in knowledge on marijuana use and secondhand exposure, whereas tobacco is now one of the most comprehensively researched substances. In addition, because, at least at the present time, adults who use marijuana often also use tobacco, it is difficult to separate the effects of these two products. These factors also make it difficult to study the possible medical benefits from certain forms and chemical components of marijuana. It is important to emphasize, however, that the current situation in which there is relatively little evidence on the health effects of marijuana, is not the same as evidence of little or no adverse effect. In California tobacco is legal, but its use is increasingly denormalized, while marijuana is illegal but becoming more socially accepted. This reality is reflected by the fact that, in California, more youth are now using marijuana than tobacco. Between 2011-2013, 24% of 11th graders and 15% of 9th graders reported past 30 day marijuana use, compared to 12% of 11th graders and 7% of 9th graders for past 30 day cigarette use. If current tobacco and marijuana use trends in California continue, with tobacco use continuing to fall and marijuana use continuing to increase, and as retail marijuana becomes legal in more places and time passes, we are likely to develop a more detailed and precise understanding of the associated health risks. Arguments for marijuana policy reform generally are centered on social justice, public safety, and the economic impact of marijuana criminalization. Some marijuana policy reformists argue that legalizing retail marijuana for recreational use will eliminate the incarceration of responsible users and nonviolent dealers and shrink or eliminate existing illicit markets without significantly increasing the health harms and costs of marijuana use. Others advocate for policy change somewhere between incarceration and legalization, often advocating for decriminalizing possession and lesser penalties for production and distribution. Full legalization advocates generally envision a commercial marijuana regulatory framework modeled on state alcohol regulations. They also argue that the revenues from new marijuana taxes will cover the costs not only of overseeing and regulating legal sales but also will cover programs to prevent youth initiation and control abusive use associated with increased access to marijuana, with revenue to spare for the state government general fund. Whether these predictions materialize will depend on how the production, distribution, marketing, and sale of the newly-legalized marijuana market are structured and regulated, and what the new legal marijuana industry looks like and how it operates.