New marijuana study on long term lung function

  • #26
1,104
25
Use a vaporizer to inhale MJ and many of these studies become almost irrelevant. It ridiculous that marijuana continues to be illegal, especially for medical use.
 
  • #27
24
0
Use a vaporizer to inhale MJ and many of these studies become almost irrelevant. It ridiculous that marijuana continues to be illegal, especially for medical use.
Aged cigarette smoke actually has been shown to be much more carcinogenic. So there is reason to believe vaporizers would be worse for you since the smoke has aged more.

Also, what is the difference in the smoke from a vaporizer and a gravity bong? Vaporizer is kind of superfluous in my opinion.
 
  • #28
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,193
256
Aged cigarette smoke actually has been shown to be much more carcinogenic. So there is reason to believe vaporizers would be worse for you since the smoke has aged more.

Also, what is the difference in the smoke from a vaporizer and a gravity bong? Vaporizer is kind of superfluous in my opinion.
no, vaporizer's don't burn the cellulose, just the oils. Bong burns the cellulose and lets plenty of smoke through. You can't really even see the smoke with a good vaporizer.

I'm curious, what do vaporizers have to do with aged smoke?
 
  • #29
24
0
no, vaporizer's don't burn the cellulose, just the oils. Bong burns the cellulose and lets plenty of smoke through. You can't really even see the smoke with a good vaporizer.

I'm curious, what do vaporizers have to do with aged smoke?
Haven't looked into much about vaporizers but I assumed they reach a temperature just enough to vaporize the THC but not other carcinogenic plant matter. Do you know the purity of vaporized smoke and smoke from a GB?

This doesn't look clear to me:
Volcano_Vaporizer.jpg


So I'm saying that the more you let the smoke sit, the more carcinogenic the smoke is (if you can extrapolate from cigarette studies).
 
  • #30
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,193
256
Since you're targeting the smoke point of THC and not burning the cellulose (there's still a bud leftover after you vaporize it) you have to be careful about what you extrapolate from a cigarette study (which doesn't have THC and which does burn cellulose). I don't know any numbers.

Posting a single picture is pointless. There's lots of problems with that kind of comparison; in that bag there's a bigger volume than in a bong and besides not knowing the camera's specificity, it's a darkly lit room. Additionally, the temp is set up pretty high on that vaporizer (6.5/9). We also don't know what kind of marijuana is in the vaporizer, how it was grown, or if that was even marijuana smoked in it. These all make a lot of difference. Additionally, the temperature could be set high because of wet bud. How much is steam?

The theory of the bong is that the water filters it, but the water doesn't actually filter everything. As bubbles pass through the water, only the contents on the edge of the bubbles get held behind, so it's actually quite a crude filter. If you have a way to percolate the bubbles and diffuse them more, then you are getting a better filter.

So lots of variables in the end, really. But I am willing to bet (not that I would personally know :) that if you compared vaporizer and bong smoke in a proper comparison, the bong smoke would have many more impurities per psychoactive substance.
 
  • #31
24
0
Since you're targeting the smoke point of THC and not burning the cellulose (there's still a bud leftover after you vaporize it) you have to be careful about what you extrapolate from a cigarette study (which doesn't have THC and which does burn cellulose). I don't know any numbers.
I've never even seen a vaporizer before so I'm not expert on the smoke it contains. A internet picture is the best I can do. I would assume the density of smoke correlates with it's carcinogenicity so I need to see the smoke you're talking about.

The theory of the bong is that the water filters it, but the water doesn't actually filter everything. As bubbles pass through the water, only the contents on the edge of the bubbles get held behind, so it's actually quite a crude filter. If you have a way to percolate the bubbles and diffuse them more, then you are getting a better filter.
Right, surface area is much higher with smaller bubbles, and surface area matters most in this case. I think the only point of a gravity bong is to allow the smoke to cool.

How about rectal administration haha (from pdf above):
Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Cannabinoids said:
3.1.4 Rectal Administration
With rectal application, systemic bioavailability strongly differed depending on suppository formulations. Among formulations containing several polar esters of THC in various suppository bases, THC-hemisuccinate in Witepsol H15 showed the highest bioavailability in monkeys and was calcu-lated to be 13.5%.[50] The rectal bioavailability of this formulation was calculated to be about as twice as high as oral bioavailability in a small clinical study.[25]
I don't know why they would use monkeys - I have several friends who would have volunteered after wasting their last 5 bucks on a cannoli and scratch and sniff stickers.
 
  • #32
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,193
256
haha, wow, who'd have thought... now they just need to come out with cannabis toilet paper.
 

Related Threads on New marijuana study on long term lung function

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
94K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
17K
Replies
24
Views
10K
Top