|
We Update
Daily!
Everything That A Sick Patient
Needs
To Know And Learn
About Medical Marijuana!
Is Right
Here At OnlinePot
******************************
Custom Search
******************************
Chris S. Kenoyer. Owner &
MMJ Patient,
Medical Activist,
Online Patients Advocate,
Online News Journalist
And News Reporter
My
Personal Medical Bio
Email Us Here
olpwebs(AT)yahoo.com
Or Email Securely
Here
olpwebs(AT)hush.ai
*************************************
Do you have a site or business
targeted to the Cannabis
Scene? Get Noticed Here!
24/7 365 Days A Year Sales
5.05+ Million Hits In October!
A Brand New Record Here!
Advertise
Right Here
On OLP
Ad Rates As Low As Just $50 a Year
*************************************
OLP
Legal
Disclaimer
Guest Book
Table
Of Contents
Lists Every Page
All
Members
Of The Press
To translate text or
a web page go
to:
Language Tools
Google
Translations
Website
Submissions
Are
Gladly Accepted Here
****************************************
Is "CBD" A Possible
Cure For Breast Cancer?
And All The Other Many
Forms
Of Cancer's?
Learn
More About " CBD"
From a BBC News Report
Visit Our Sister Websites!
Listen Right Here Online!
To The Original 1930-50's
Reefer Madness
Radio
Shows And Programs
Maine
Patients Coalition
Online Store! Get Your Own
Pro- Medical Marijuana T-Shirt!
Selling Out Fast!
*************************************************
Evidence
Eliminator Software
"DOD" Secured Hard
Drive Wipes!
Download It Right Now. Before It's
To
Late To Protect Yourselve!
& No Possibility of Forensic Recovery
Evidence
Eliminator Is Rated,
Worlds
#1 PC Security Software!
Click
Here To Download A Free Demo
Of The " Evidence
Eliminator" Software
*********************************************
Navigational Links
OnlinePot's Main Home
Page
*************************************************
Parody
Cartoons & US
Government Grown Pot,
Term Papers,
School
Reports, & Thesis's On
Marijuana & Cannabis
****************************************
Amsterdam
A to Z
****************************************
Canadian
Websites
****************************************
Medical Marijuana, Cannabis
Topics Dealing
In California Main
Brand New Cali Section Start Page
Currently Under Construction
****************************************
Church's
& Pot Cannabis Marijuana
****************************************
Listings For Co-Ops,
Clinics, Dispensary's,
Buyers Clubs For MMJ
****************************************
Doctors & Clinics
****************************************
Cooking Recipes
****************************************
Drug
Testing A To Z
****************************************
Pot Games
****************************************
100's
Of Marijuana
Cannabis Grow Guides
****************************************
Latest Medical
Marijuana
Cannabis News Feeds
****************************************
All About Hash A- Z
****************************************
Cannabis
Legal Info,
State, Federal Laws, State
&
Federal Supreme Court Rulings
****************************************
Prisoners
Of The
Medical Marijuana
War!
****************************************
Other
MMJ Websites
****************************************
Medical
Marijuana
Studies,
Research
Report's, Medical
Cannabis Clinic Study's
****************************************
Tips To Help Avoid Being
Scammed
or Ripped Off Online
With Online Scammer's MOM's
& Other
Online Predators!
Just Updated!
****************************************
The Politics Of
Contraband
Medical Marijuana In The Mail
****************************************
The
"
Hall Of Shame" Section
All The Online Scammers, &
Thief's,
& Online MOM Predator's & Scammers
The MOM Scammers To Avoid Online
****************************************
Online Medical
Marijuana Patients
Online MOM Providers
****************************************
Medical
Marijuana
Patients Survey Form
****************************************
Politics,
Voters Rights
How To Contact Your
Local Area's Politicians
****************************************
Medical
Marijuana,
Cannabis Strains Info
****************************************
The Original OG
Marijuana Strain Guide
****************************************
Over
Grow's 800+
FAQ's:
Frequently Asked Questions
On Marijuana
Cultivation
****************************************
Marijuana & Pot Songs
Just Updated!
****************************************
Patients
Spiritual
Guidance,
Free Online
Crisis Help Center
****************************************
Award Winning Online
Marijuana Seed Banks
****************************************
Maximum
Computer
PC Security & Personal
Internet Security Tips
And Safety Guides
Just Updated!
****************************************
Traveling
Tips, & Guides
For Safer Traveling, B&B's,
Check Points, Do's & Don'ts
****************************************
Vaporizers
A To Z
****************************************
Marijuana
Cannabis
Online Video's & Movies
****************************************
1999-2009 Copyright ©
All Rights Reserved.
No part of this site maybe used or
reproduced in whole or in part
without
the written consent of the
Copyright
Owner Chris Kenoyer
www.onlinepot.org
OnlinePot assumes no legal
liability
for
any products, or
information or news
posted, services
offered,
Or any contests
or give away's offered.
| |
Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Research Study
[Revised February 2000]
September 21, 2000 update:
Return
Back To Main Medical Page
OnlinePot's Review Of The Vapor Tower Vaporizer
Smokeless
Cannabis Vaporizer Delivery Systems Found
Safer And
More Effective, Research Study Proves
Listings Of Different Vaporizers
& Where To Buy Them
Vaporization of
Cannabinoids:
a Preferable Drug Delivery Route
STUDY SHOWS VAPORIZER CAN DRASTICALLY REDUCE TOXINS IN MARIJUANA SMOKE
http://www.maps.org/mmj/Gieringer-vaporizer.pdf
In A Vap Vaporizers
www.inavap.com
If you are a Vaporizer Company &
Have A Vaporizer
that you would like us to put it thru the wringer & see how it holds up. & Then Write A Review
about Your New Vaporizer. Please do not hesitate to email us olpwebs@yahoo.com
Dale Gieringer, Ph.D.
California NORML, 2215-R Market St. Suite 278
San Francisco CA 94114 tel: (415) 563-5858
E-mail: canorml@igc.apc.org
September 21, 2000 update: MAPS and CA-NORML are sponsoring a new
vaporizer study. Testing and data analysis have been completed. A detailed
report will be issued soon. The design and cost of additional studies are
currently being discussed with the analytical lab.
The new study is a $25,000 proof of principle study designed to determine if
marijuana vaporizers can indeed reduce particulate matter and carbon monoxide as
compared to the combustion of marijuana. We have a very high-tech lab doing the
research, but unfortunately the lab wants to remain anonymous. They are
concerned about becoming known as a place with marijuana (all they have is 5
grams!), but the major reason for their reluctance to get publicity is due to
industrial espionage. They do lots of work for major pharmaceutical companies
who want discretion, so they don't advertise. I was personally recommended to
them by an organic chemistry company that is making psilocybin for MAPS for a U.
of Arizona study of psilocybin in the treatment of OCD.
Anyway, the results of the vaporizer study do show substantial reductions in
particulate matter and in carbon monoxide. I conceive of this study as
contributing to the argument in favor of permitting patients to grow and use
their own marijuana, instead of having to purchase patented, FDA-approved
cannabinoid or marijuana-extract products from Unimed or GW Pharmaceuticals.
Vaporizers are the only non-smoking marijuana delivery systems that can be used
with home-grown marijuana. We are trying to create evidence to show that there
is a favorable risk/benefit ratio from using high-potency marijuana in
vaporizers.
The main tradeoffs that patients will face are slightly highly but probably
not clinically significant health risks but lower price from high-potency
marijuana delivered in vaporizers as compared to Unimed or GW products. Efficacy
will probably be similar. The health effect of wealth (the impact on the health
of patients from the extra money they save from using home-grown in vaporizers
as compared to other products) will, perhaps, outweigh the additional health
risks. This is all speculative and there is certainly a major need for
FDA-approved products that can be paid for by insurance, since home-grown used
with vaporizers will probably not become approved by FDA anytime soon, at least
not in the current political climate.
See also:
Why Marijuana
Smoke Harm Reduction?
The Struggle to Do Medical
Marijuana Research
Medical
Cannabis Potency Testing Project
Contrary to popular impression, waterpipes don't necessarily
protect smokers from harmful tars in marijuana smoke, according to a new study
sponsored by MAPS and California NORML (National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws). The reason is that waterpipes filter out more psychoactive THC
than they do other tars, thereby requiring users to smoke more to reach their
desired effect. The study does not rule out the possibility that waterpipes
could have other benefits, such as filtering out gases, but it suggests that
other methods, such as the use of high potency marijuana, vaporizers, or oral
ingestion are needed to avoid harmful toxins in marijuana smoke.
Seven Devices Tested
The study, which was supported by the Drug Policy Foundation and private
donors, was conducted at a research lab with expertise in the analysis of
various chemical properties of tobacco and marijuana. Researchers tested the
smoke from seven different sources: a regular rolled joint, a joint with a
cigarette filter, three different waterpipes, and two vaporizers, designed to
heat marijuana to a temperature where psychoactive vapors form without producing
smoke. The waterpipes included a standard bong (Picture
#1), a small portable device with a folding pipestem (Picture
#6), and a battery-operated model with a motorized paddle to thoroughly mix
the smoke in the water (Picture
#3). The first vaporizer (Picture
#5), commercially produced in Canada, consisted of a battery-powered metal
hot plate inside a jar to trap the marijuana vapor. The second (Picture
#4) was a homemade, hybrid apparatus, in which vapors were produced by a hot
air gun and then drawn through a beaker of water, thereby combining vaporization
with water filtration. The smoke was produced from standard NIDA-supplied
marijuana drawn through a smoking machine adjusted to mimic the puff length of
marijuana smokers.
Focus: Cannabinoid/Tar Ratio
The study focused on two key components of the smoke: (1) total solid
particulates, or tars, which are noxious waste by-products of burning leaf like
those from tobacco; and (2) cannabinoids, the chemicals distinctive to
marijuana, including its major psychoactive ingredient,
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and its two commonest chemical relatives,
cannabinol (CBN) and cannabidiol (CBD), which are only weakly psychoactive but
may have medical benefits.
Like tobacco, marijuana tars are rich in carcinogenic compounds known as
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are a prime culprit in smoking-related
cancers. However, cannabinoids themselves are not carcinogenic. An obvious way
to protect smokers' health is therefore to minimize the content of smoke tars
relative to cannabinoids.
One way to do this is to increase the THC potency of the marijuana. Assuming
smokers adjust their smoke intake to the cannabinoid dosage, the higher the
concentration of cannabinoids, the lower the amount of tars they are likely to
consume.
Another strategy is to try to reduce the tars in the smoke with some kind of
filtering device. Obviously, this is beneficial only to the extent that THC
isn't also reduced, thereby inducing users to smoke more to compensate. A major
aim of the study was to determine the efficacy of various smoking devices at
reducing the concentration of tars relative to cannabinoids. The performance of
each device was accordingly rated in terms of the cannabinoid-to-tar ratio in
its smokestream.
Joints and Waterpipes
Surprisingly, the unfiltered joint outperformed all devices except the
vaporizers, with a ratio of about 1 part cannabinoids to 13 parts tar. This
disturbingly poor ratio may be explained by the low potency of the NIDA-supplied
marijuana used in the study, which was around 2.3%.
Disappointingly, waterpipes performed uniformly worse than the unfiltered joint.
The least bad waterpipe, the bong, produced 30% more tar per cannabinoids than
the unfiltered joint. Ironically, the pipe with the electric mixer scored by far
the worst of any device. This suggests that water filtration is actually
counterproductive, apparently because water tends to absorb THC more readily
than noxious tars. Like the waterpipes, the cigarette filter also performed
worse than the unfiltered joint, by about 30%. Researchers speculate this is
because cannabinoids are exceptionally sticky and adhere to other solids. Hence,
any filtration system that picks up particulates is likely also to screen out
cannabinoids.
Vaporizers
The vaporizer results appeared more promising, but confusing. The two vaporizers
were the only devices to outscore unfiltered joints in terms of raw cannabinoid/tar
ratio. The electric hotplate vaporizer did best, with a performance ratio about
25% higher than the unfiltered joint. The hot air gun was just marginally
superior, but might have done better had it not been for its water filtration
component.
However, the situation was complicated by the fact that the cannabinoids
produced by the electric hotplate vaporizer were unusually high in CBN, leaving
30% less THC as a percentage of the total cannabinoids than with the other
smoking devices. Since CBN is not psychoactive like THC, recreational users
might be expected to consume more smoke to make up for the deficit. (The
situation may be different for medical users, who could experience other,
medicinal benefits from CBN). For this reason, it seemed advisable to recompute
the performance efficiencies of the vaporizers in terms of THC, rather than all
cannabinoids. When this was done, the electric hotplate
vaporizer turned out to have a lower THC/tar ratio than the unfiltered joint,
while the hot air gun was still marginally higher.
The reason for the excess CBN from the hotplate vaporizer remains unexplained.
Because CBN is produced from THC by chemical oxidation, it has been suggested
that the device somehow exposed the sample to too much oxygen. However, there is
no evidence that this was the case. As for the second, hybrid vaporizer, it
seems likely that its performance could have been improved by deleting its water
component.
The results clearly indicate that more developmental work needs to be done on
vaporizers. Theoretically, an ideal vaporizer could minimize production of tars
by holding the temperature above the point at which THC vaporizes, but below
that where carcinogenic hydrocarbons are produced by combustion [Note]
In practice, both vaporizers produced over ten times more tars than cannabinoids,
indicating that there is plenty of room for improvement.
In the late 1970s, a vaporizer known as the Tilt appeared on the market.
According to the manufacturer, laboratory tests showed that it released 80% more
THC and 79% less tar than a regular pipe, a performance ratio almost ten times
better than any observed in this study. It is to be hoped that these impressive
results can be replicated in the future. Unfortunately, the Tilt was withdrawn
from the market in the early 1980s due to the passage of anti-paraphernalia
laws.
As for waterpipes, the prospects for improvement appear more dubious. It has
been suggested that the performance of waterpipes could be improved by using
liquids other than water or by changing the temperature of the liquid. However,
it seems doubtful whether such tactics would circumvent the basic problem of
separating the tars from the sticky cannabinoids.
Are Waterpipes Counterproductive?
The study results are obviously discomforting to waterpipe enthusiasts, many
of whom prefer the cooler, milder smoke they produce, and have naturally assumed
it is also more healthful. Unfortunately, however, the study indicates that
waterpipes may actually be counterproductive in increasing consumption of
carcinogenic tars.
Nonetheless, it is still premature to judge that waterpipes are actually
unhealthful, since they may filter out other, non-solid smoke toxins occurring
in the gas phase of the smoke, which was not analyzed in the study. Noxious
gases known to occur in marijuana smoke include hydrogen cyanide, which
incapacitates the lung's defensive cilia; volatile phenols, which contribute to
the harshness of the taste; aldehydes, which promote cancer; and carbon
monoxide, a known risk factor in heart disease. Previous studies indicate that
water filtration may be quite effective in absorbing some of these [Nicholas
Cozzi, Effects of Water Filtration on Marijuana Smoke: A Literature Review, MAPS
Newsletter, Vol. IV #2, 1993]. If so, waterpipes might still turn out to have
net health benefits.
MAPS and California NORML are planning to undertake a second phase of the
waterpipe study for the purpose of analyzing the gaseous phase of marijuana
smoke.
In the meantime, the easiest way for most smokers to avoid harmful smoke
toxins may be simply to smoke stronger marijuana. This strategy is apt to be
more effective than any smoke filtration device. By simply replacing the low,
2.3% potency NIDA marijuana used in this study with high-quality 12%-sinsemilla,
smokers could presumably reduce their tar intake by a factor of five while still
achieving the same effect. Further improvements could be had by using pure THC
or hash oil, which has been tested at potencies of 60%.
The notion that high-potency marijuana is less harmful directly contradicts
official government propaganda, which maintains that marijuana has become more
dangerous since the '60s due to increased potency. This claim appears to rest
less on scientific evidence than on the desire to frighten the public. A careful
analysis of government data by Dr. John Morgan has shown that the supposed
increase in potency has been greatly exaggerated [American Marijuana Potency:
Data Versus Conventional Wisdom, NORML Reports (1994)]. In any case, however,
there is no good reason to presume that higher potency marijuana is more
harmful, given the potential respiratory benefits of reduced smoke consumption.
The hazards of excessive potency are purported to be an increased risk of acute
overdose and greater susceptibility to dependency. However, both problems can be
avoided if users adjust their dosage to potency. For most users, such hazards
may well be outweighed by the benefits of reduced smoke consumption.
Research in Australia
The Australian government is currently conducting another study that may cast
further light on the effects of potency variations. The study is designed to
determine baseline THC, tar, and carbon monoxide levels from marijuana and
marijuana-tobacco mixtures smoked through joints and waterpipes. The samples
being tested come from police seizures in six different Australian states.
Researchers say that they have observed "incredible" variations in tar
and THC potency among different samples. Their report is expected shortly.
THC Transfer Rate
The MAPS-NORML study provides new information on the efficiency of different
devices in delivering THC from marijuana to the user. Previous studies have
shown that 60% - 80% of the THC burned in joints or waterpipes is lost in
slipstream smoke, adhesion to the pipestem and bowl, pyrolysis, etc. [Mario
Perez-Reyes, Marijuana Smoking: Factors that Influence the Bioavailability of
Tetrahydrocannabinol, in C. Nora Chiang and Richard Hawks, ed., Research
Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, NIDA Research Monograph 99, 1990]. The
percentage of total THC delivered to the user is called the THC transfer rate.
The unfiltered joint scored surprisingly well in smoking efficiency, coming in
second place with a transfer rate close to 20%. The portable waterpipe did
slightly better, and the bong slightly worse. The other devices did notably
worse. The vaporizers and electric waterpipe did especially poorly, with
transfer rates less than one-third that of the top three devices. Thus, heavy
smokers could literally be blowing most of their stash away with bad pipes.
Note:
Contrary to the initial version of this article, which erroneously stated that
THC vaporizes at 155º C, the Merck Manual lists the vaporization point of THC
as 200º in vacuum. The vaporization point at normal atmospheric pressure
appears to be unknown, but is thought to be in the range 250-400º.
California NORML
2215-R Market St. #278
San Francisco, CA 94114
CANORML@igc.apc.org
Return
Back To Main Medical Page
| |
|
