Volume 49, Issue 4 p. 588-594
Free Access

The effect of cannabinoids on intestinal motility and their antinociceptive effect in mice

G. B. CHESHER

G. B. CHESHER

Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
C. J. DAHL

C. J. DAHL

Australian Government Analytical Laboratory, Department of Science, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Search for more papers by this author
M. EVERINGHAM

M. EVERINGHAM

Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
D. M. JACKSON

D. M. JACKSON

Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
H. MARCHANT-WILLIAMS

H. MARCHANT-WILLIAMS

Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
G. A. STARMER

G. A. STARMER

Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: December 1973
Citations: 93

Summary

  • 1

    After oral administration to mice, pethidine, Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), Δ9-THC, a cannabis extract and cannabinol had a dose-dependent antinociceptive effect when measured by the hot-plate method. Cannabidiol was inactive at 30 mg/kg. Δ8-THC, Δ9-THC and pethidine did not differ significantly in potency, but Δ9-THC was 6·5 times more active than cannabinol.

  • 2

    After oral administration, three different cannabis extracts, Δ8-THC, Δ9-THC and morphine produced dose-dependent depressions of the passage of a charcoal meal in mice. Δ8-THC and Δ9-THC were equipotent and were about five times less potent than morphine. Cannabidiol was inactive up to 30 mg/kg. The effect of the three cannabis extracts on intestinal motility could be accounted for by their Δ9-THC content.

  • 3

    The antinociceptive effect of pethidine and the effect of morphine on intestinal motility were antagonized by nalorphine whilst the effects of the cannabis extracts and the pure cannabinoids were not.

  • 4

    From these results it is concluded that although cannabis and the narcotics share several common pharmacological properties, the mode of action of each is pharmacologically distinct.