Anxiety is a serious problem that many individuals experience. Anxiety before public speaking, social anxiety, or anxiety when you are alone can trigger problems like reduced sleep quality, low mood, and stress. An effective way to help yourself is to use CBD oil for anxiety.

If you didn’t know, CBD is an active compound found in the cannabis plant that has healing properties to help individuals with stress, arthritis, sleep issues, and many more ailments in the modern world.

CBD comes in many forms – oils, capsules, gummies, etc. However, Oil is the most versatile form of CBD, and many prefer to use it.​

How does CBD Oil help with Anxiety (backed by research)

CBD and The Endocannabinoid System

The Endocannabinoid System (ECS) is a cell signaling system , present throughout the brain and body.

ECS consists of:

• Endocannabinoids – Anandamide and 2- AG
• Receptors (CB1 and CB2)
• Enzyems

The ECS not only helps with anxiety but also influences many important functions of the body such as:

• Memory
• Sleep
• Metabolism
• Recovery

Research-Backed Findings

1) Helps to reduce anxiety during stressful situations

In a study  where individuals with  social anxiety  disorder were given 600mg CBD and others were given a placebo before a simulated public speaking test. The individuals who took the 600mg CBD experienced lower anxiety compared to the ones who took the placebo.

2) Influences brain regions involved in fear and anxiety 

 CBD can reduce anxiety and change the activity in brain regions that are involved in emotional regulation (amygdala, hippocampus).

3) Promotes a sense of calm 

CBD can promote a calming effect through serotonin signaling. This means CBD interacts with a specific serotonin receptor called 5-HT1A; this receptor, when activated, can help to regulate anxiety responses.

4) Supports emotional balance 

CBD can enhance the body’s endocannabinoid signaling, which helps to increase anandamide levels,  as anandamide helps with mood regulation and stress resilience.

5)  Can produce calming effects without sedation

Many other conventional anti- anxiety medications try to calm anxiety but also give strong sedation, whereas CBD can reduce your anxiety without giving much sedative effects.

Conclusion

Anxiety can be exhausting when you have to deal with it, but with promising results from CBD research, it becomes a natural method to alleviate anxiety.

Research on CBD oil in alleviating anxiety has good results. Studies suggest that CBD can support mood regulation through the endocannabinoid system, serotonin receptors, and brain regions involved in fear, stress, and anxiety responses.

Even though anxiety can be difficult to handle, there is a solution for it.

Before you purchase a CBD product, make sure to consult with a medical practitioner.

Source link

“Cannabis companies should consider various pitfalls to ensure not only legal compliance, but to maximize potential benefits.”

By Meeren Amin, William Bogot and Douglas W. Charnas, Fox Rothschild LLP

With rescheduling of medicinal marijuana and potential relief coming for recreational use, cannabis companies should be aware of tax benefits available to the industry.

One such incentive for companies not subject to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 280E—which blocks tax benefits to entities that sell Schedule I and II substances—is the IRC § 41 R&D (research and development) tax credit. The R&D tax credit provides a dollar-for-dollar reduction of tax owed for qualifying companies. It is not industry specific and can be claimed by a qualifying company in any sector, including cannabis.

The R&D tax credit was enacted in 1981 to incentivize U.S. companies to increase R&D activity. For years the credit was extended temporarily by Congress at the end of each calendar year. However, in 2015, Congress made it permanent. And then in 2025, lawmakers breathed even more life into the credit by eliminating the requirement that R&D expenditures be amortized over a five-year period.

Now, with IRC § 280E on the chopping block as cannabis moves toward Schedule III status, certain companies in the industry can claim the credit that others have taken advantage of for years. Having said that, careful planning is required when considering the R&D tax credit.

Cannabis companies should consider various pitfalls to ensure not only legal compliance, but to maximize potential benefits.

Pitfall #1: Thinking you don’t qualify for the credit because you don’t do research in a laboratory.

The R&D tax credit is not industry specific. Instead, to qualify for the credit, a company must meet each part of a four-part test:

1. A company needs to develop a new or improved product, process, software, technique, formula or invention. Practically, this means that many cannabis companies can qualify by developing a new or improved product.
2. The research needs to eliminate uncertainty about a product’s capability, method or appropriate design. Often, research will qualify by means of having uncertainty as to a product’s ultimate design.
3. The research must involve a process of experimentation. This does not need to be in a laboratory, but instead simply requires evaluating alternatives through system trial and error.
4. The research must be technological in nature, in that it requires the use of principles of hard science.

This formulaic approach to determining qualification for the credit allows companies in many industries—from pharmaceutical companies to architectural firms—to claim the R&D tax credit. Cannabis companies involved in breeding, cultivation, growing, extraction and product development could potentially qualify for the credit if they meet the four-part test and do not fall under any applicable exclusions.

Pitfall #2: Not maintaining proper records of research activities and expenditures.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) commonly attacks R&D credit claims for a lack of substantiation. Taxpayers have the burden to prove they are entitled to the credit, so they must adequately substantiate their claims.

Cannabis companies that qualify can claim the tax credit on qualified wages or supply costs. However, companies must have evidence of wages and supply costs to claim the R&D tax credit.

Evidence of supply costs includes receipts of goods and logs showing how supplies are used in the research process. Since supplies that are later sold to customers would not qualify for the credit, cannabis companies need to track how research supplies are used.

Evidence of wages usually requires detailed activity logs. Most small and mid-sized operators do not require employees to keep a log of activities, but to be able to withstand IRS scrutiny, companies should require employees involved in research to track their time using a consistent methodology.

Maintaining detailed records or R&D activities is difficult for rapidly growing businesses. While granular level records may not be necessary, it is important for cannabis companies to consult with their tax advisors on the level of detail needed and how to implement tracking systems.

Pitfall #3: Relying on unscrupulous or shady promoters of R&D tax credits.

The R&D tax credit is complicated and can be overwhelming. There are a number of reliable firms that can determine qualification, draft a study and calculate the credit. Unfortunately, there are a large number of firms that do not perform the necessary due diligence and are not credible. These firms sometimes charge large contingency fees and make guarantees about eligibility. Their calculations are often greatly overstated for the purpose of generating high fees. These firms may seem credible but can be overly aggressive in their approach.

With the emergence of the cannabis companies as potential new credit claimants, these companies will likely be aggressive in their pitch. However, poor work on the front end can lead to adverse determinations by the IRS.

Cannabis companies need to properly vet the firms they hire to conduct R&D studies and then have those studies reviewed by a third party. Credit experts can analyze the work done by firms to help strengthen the front-end studies. Companies that are not careful face the risk of losing the credit, while also owing promoters huge fees.

Pitfall #4: Not separating non-IRC § 280E and IRC § 280E activities.

As of now, only state-licensed medical marijuana is not subject to IRC § 280E and thus eligible for the R&D tax credit. That means research related to recreational use marijuana is not eligible for the R&D tax credit.

This makes it difficult for most eligible companies who are involved in both medicinal and recreational uses, as they need to separate their research activities relating to the two. This may be almost impossible for vertically integrated companies. But other companies can use entity structuring to help allocate costs and ensure segregation of qualifying and non-qualifying research activities.

The R&D tax credit is a very powerful incentive that certain cannabis companies can now claim. However, it is a major area of focus for the IRS due to the complexity of the credit and the aggressive positions pushed by certain promoters. While this may cause concern to companies seeking to claim the credit, careful due diligence and reliance on advisors can help businesses ensure that their credit claims are well supported.

Meeren Amin is a partner in the Taxation & Wealth Planning Department at Fox Rothschild. William Bogot is co-chair of the Cannabis Law Practice at Fox Rothschild. Douglas W. Charnas is counsel in the Taxation & Wealth Planning Department at Fox Rothschild.

Photo courtesy of National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Source link

A significant shift is provided by a summary spearheaded by Angela Difeng Wu at the University of Oxford, which collated results from 14 systematic reviews between 2014 and 2023. By focusing on the highest-quality data, the researchers definitively sliced through years of competing interpretations. They revealed a clear trend: nicotine vaping products are more effective than any pre-existing method for cessation.

There is no shadow of a doubt: Vaping works

This is consistent with previous work from the Cochrane Collaboration, whose living systematic review has consistently found greater quit rates among smokers using nicotine e-cigarettes compared to other cessation aids. Likewise, clinical trials published in high-impact journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine show vaping can nearly double quit success rates compared to traditional NRTs under real-world conditions.

Where vaping goes up, smoking goes down

This long-term drop in smoking — down from more than 40 per cent of adults in the 1960s to about 10 per cent today — is largely due to various factors, including public health campaigns. But vaping seems to be accelerating this trend among certain groups, especially among those having a tough time quitting by traditional means.

Addressing the “Evidence Gap”

The evidence supporting the role of vaping in smoking cessation is now strong, but remains woefully incomplete. The Oxford University overview introduced an “evidence and gap map” to show where more research is needed.

Also, most previous studies were conducted in high-income countries. That leaves open the question of how applicable the findings are to low- and middle-income settings, where smoking practices, health care systems and access to alternatives may be lacking.

In fact, the main reason vaping should be considered is to reduce exposure to combustion-related toxins. This distinction is fundamental. Policies or messaging that confuse smoking and vaping jeopardise harm reduction efforts by discouraging smokers from switching to safer alternatives.

The latest science reveals a clear winner in quitting success rates

This emerging consensus around the efficacy of vaping marks a dramatic shift in the anti-tobacco landscape. There has been uncertainty shaping debates for years. Today, the balance of evidence is tipping in a similar direction. Nicotine vapes may not be a miracle solution, but for adult smokers wanting to quit, they are pretty close. They provide a potentially effective alternative, one backed by both clinical evidence and real-world results.

For the harm reduction community, one path ahead is obvious: promote access to safer alternatives, responsible use, and ensure that evidence-based public health strategies are grounded in evidence, not perception.

Understanding the Different Types of Scientific Studies on E-Cigarettes

Source link

The scientific discourse about nicotine is changing quickly. Previously seen through a narrow prism of addiction, new research from a range of fields — from neuroscience to clinical medicine — is painting a much more multifaceted picture. For proponents of tobacco harm reduction (THR), this expanding body of evidence confirms a familiar maxim: it is not the nicotine per se, but rather its delivery mechanism that largely dictates harm.
Sadly, this distinction is seldom reflected in public messaging and policy frameworks. And in some instances, it is even hidden — a risk that could hinder efforts to shift smokers away from cigarettes that burn.

More flawed vape research

..if research does not clearly distinguish between product categories, it risks perpetuating the myth that all nicotine use is equally harmful.

A recent observational analysis published in The American Journal of Physiology Heart and Circulatory Physiology shows just how easily nuance can go missing. The study found a link between nicotine use and increased blood pressure levels. But many leading experts, including Nicola Lindson, Jamie Brown and Peter Hajek, were quick to point out a serious error.

The study design was flawed, and the participants had only been asked about nicotine use in the most recent five days, which meant that they hadn’t provided information about long-term smoking history. This is a major limitation, considering that dozens of vapers are former smokers, and inflation of these histories makes it more challenging to disentangle the effects of vaping itself.

For one thing, lumping together smokers and vapers into the same analytical categories threatens to distort results. The harmful effects of smoking are already well known as major cardiovascular risk factors. That means that the stronger bad effects resulting from smoking will inform these groups and outweigh the relatively weak signalling coming from vaping when they are combined. In fact, experts said the results for exclusive vapers were not statistically significant and much less pronounced than in smokers.

Public health agencies and peer-reviewed research have consistently highlighted the risk gradient between smoking and vaping. But if research does not clearly distinguish between product categories, it risks perpetuating the myth that all nicotine use is equally harmful.

Nicotine and cognitive health

In addition to risk reduction, new research is delving into nicotine’s potential effects when used under controlled conditions.
Carefully administered low doses of nicotine have been found to improve factors like working memory and mood in people with mild cognitive impairment. A more general review published in Frontiers in Ageing Neuroscience emphasises nicotine’s effects on the brain’s cholinergic system, an important system for attention and learning. This body of work suggests a dose-dependent relationship, with modest levels potentially enhancing cognitive performance. Yet, higher doses induce diminishing or negative effects.

Neuroscience discussions, including in outlets popularised by Andrew Huberman, have also explored the effects of nicotine on acetylcholine receptors and dopamine pathways, which are permissive of focus and motivation. And while researchers emphasize that nicotine should not be recreationally used for cognitive enhancement, they do highlight that the effects of nicotine are not uniform. Its impact is highly context-dependent, shaped by dose and delivery.

This expanding complexity poses a challenge for regulators.
In clinical environments, nicotine can be prescribed in specific, controllable doses. In the real world, though, that ability to regulate how much you consume is influenced by what products exist. Traditional cigarettes leave little room for control and deliver a host of harmful byproducts with nicotine.

In contrast, many reduced-risk products allow tighter control over dosage and usage behaviours. Limiting access to those alternatives may thus make it harder, not easier, for individuals seeking to align their use with safer parameters. The dissonance between our understanding of science and the constraints we face in the real world is becoming increasingly clear.

More insights from medical research

Interestingly, similar advances in other areas of biomedical research demonstrate that compounds once thought straightforward or well understood can unlock unexpected therapeutic potential. According to a recent study published in Liver Research, nicotinic acid—a variant of vitamin B3—was shown to mitigate liver damage from ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) markedly. This potentially life-threatening complication can occur during surgical or transplant procedures. Nicotinic acid helped protect the liver in both animal studies and human liver cells. It worked as well as, or even better than, well-known antioxidants like N-acetylcysteine.

What makes it interesting is how it works. Instead of just acting as an antioxidant, nicotinic acid directly supports the health of mitochondria—the parts of cells that produce energy. It helps remove damaged mitochondria and supports the body’s creation of new, healthy ones. As a result, researchers observed reduced inflammation, decreased cell death, and lower levels of ferroptosis, an iron-mediated form of cell injury. Liver cells also maintained better energy balance, which helped keep their normal functions.

Meanwhile, new research into the wider effects of nicotine emphasises that in both science and policy, precision matters — as does context and proportion. The story has changed around nicotine. From cardiovascular studies to neuroscience and cellular biology, discoveries are upending old assumptions and exposing a more complicated reality.

The policy disconnect that needs correcting

For policymakers, the challenge is not to discount risk but to properly recognise it—and to design systems that accurately account for relative harm. For the harm reduction community, the narrative is unchanged: access to safer alternatives in a supportive environment with straightforward messaging and evidence-based information about compliance products is a critical driver for mitigating disease burden from smoking.
Science is ever-evolving, and regulations need to keep pace.

Source link