Andrew Huberman· PhD
It’s unfortunate receptors in the brain were named “nicotinic” or “cannabinoid” because, along with the fact that tobacco & cannabis are plants, it gives the impression that the use of those plants is somehow “natural”.
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
It’s unfortunate receptors in the brain were named “nicotinic” or “cannabinoid” because, along with the fact that tobacco & cannabis are plants, it gives the impression that the use of those plants is somehow “natural”.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
nicotinic receptors in an annoying way in the same way that cannabinoid receptors are called cannabinoid receptors but then everyone thinks oh you know those receptors are there so because we're supposed to smoke pot or those receptors are there because we're supposed to ingest nicotine no the drugs that's right right exactly receptor was named after the drug and so the important thing to know is that whether or not it's basal forebrain or predunculopontine nucleus or a locust ceruleus that at least in the brain because we're not talking about muscle where acetylcholine does something else via nicotinic receptors there in general it just tends to be a signal to noise enhancer