Vaporizer Curiousity

[boe~pimp]

i'm wondering if someone can help me out..

i've been a smoker since i can't remember when (hows the irony? ) and i'm totally oblivious to the concept of vapourisers? can someone tell me what they are and how they work? the benifits? affects? etc.

thanks alot

~Boe~

[Oz]

I've used them before and found it quite weird being mainly a pipe & bong smoker.

 

They didn't seem to provide any hit! & kind of had a weird taste but once you can get past that, (but then again the 2 I've tried were both kinda cheap...) I guess they really are the way to go for health reasons.

 

The following may help too...

 

Source: MAPS

 

MAPS/NORML Study Shows Vaporizers Reduce Toxins in Marijuana Smoke

 

By Dale Gieringer, Ph.D.

NORML California State Coordinator (canorml@igc.apc.org)

MAPS Bulletin, Spring 2001. Volume XI, Number 2.

 

Medical marijuana patients may be able to protect themselves from harmful toxins in marijuana smoke by inhaling their medicine using an electric vaporizer, according to initial results of a study by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) and California NORML. Research expenditures to date are roughly $50,000.

The study showed that it is possible to vaporize medically active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) by heating marijuana to a temperature short of the point of combustion, thereby eliminating or substantially reducing potentially harmful smoke toxins that are normally present in marijuana smoke. Vaporizers may therefore substantially reduce what is widely regarded as the leading health concern associated with marijuana, namely respiratory harm due to smoking. In addition, many medical marijuana patients say they prefer vaporizers because they deliver smoother, less irritating medication.

 

MAPS and NORML sponsored the study in the hopes of helping medical marijuana patients and others reduce the health risks of smoking marijuana. A major obstacle to approval of natural cannabis by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its 1999 report, "Marijuana and Medicine," was that smoking is an "unhealthy" delivery method. The IOM report failed to note the possibility of vaporization. The MAPS-NORML study tested a device called the M1 Volatizer®, an aromatherapy vaporizer developed by Alternative Delivery Systems, Inc. It consisted of an electric heating element in a chamber that radiates heat downwards over a sample of marijuana contained in a standard bowl. Output from the vaporizer was analyzed and compared to smoke produced by burning the sample.

 

The vaporizer produced THC at a temperature of 200° C. (392° F.) while completely eliminating three measured toxins - benzene, a known carcinogen, plus toluene and naphthalene. Temperatures of around 200° C. appear to be most efficient for vaporization. The potency of the cannabis in the study was on the order of 10% - 12%. Significant amounts of THC (around 5%-6%) begin to be released at 180° C., with slightly more (7% or 8%) at 200° C. Carbon monoxide and smoke tars were both qualitatively reduced by the vaporizer, but additional testing is needed to quantify the extent of the decrease.

 

The vaporizer study was undertaken as a follow-up to a previous MAPS-NORML marijuana smoking device study, which concluded that vaporizers offered the best prospects for smoke harm reduction: /news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html

 

MAPS and NORML are currently seeking support for further research and development of vaporizers. Research is presently underway to explore the optimal temperature and conditions for vaporization. An additional $85,000 is needed to provide accurate measurement of carbon monoxide and other toxins, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Further studies may be needed to explore alternative device designs and the effects of different consistencies, potencies and preparation methods of the samples of marijuana.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study

 

By Dale Gieringer, Ph.D. (canorml@igc.apc.org

MAPS Bulletin, Summer 1996. Volume VI, Number 3.

 

The following is an extract from the above title see the source document for the full study

 

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.

[Oz]

Picture of Marijuana Vaporizer (Picture from http://www.marijuanavaporizer.com/ )

[boe~pimp]

thanks heaps mate sound pretty crap

intresting stuff but with transfer rates etc. i'm a pretty hardcore bong freak so i don't venture to far out of the 'water pipe method'

i think saying that if the THC transfer rate is more/less affects the quality of you're high is a bit poor but as i prefer the high from a good old billy than a j, having said that it also depends on how i'm feeling

once again, cheers bud

toke it easy

~Boe~

[pipeman]

I'm only a newbie smoker but I much prefer my vaporizer to a pipe or billy. No coughing and no sore throat, and about the same amount of bud gets me higher than a waterpipe.

 

The key to a vaporiser IMO is waiting until a decent amount of vapour has collected in the chamber before toking it up. then wait a few minutes before the chamber fills with vapours again. You may get 4-5 good tokes in about 20-30min, and I need to give the thing 10 minutes to cool down before starting again. Its a slower process than firing up the billy and requires some patience, and obviously isn't the best in a group situation.

 

I don't find the taste unpleasent, but I have heard that people mix mint or other herbs in the bowl for taste.

[Gruntus]

I've been researching vapes for ages on this and other boards. My personal leaning (for aethetics and usability) is towards the Eterra/Aromazap style. I've had prompt email replies to all my (many) queries about these models and their praise is plentiful on Overgrow (use the search facility for these keywords). There are also vapes that require heat guns and glass bongs (great if you have three hands and enjoy wielding heavy dangerous equipment for your recreational pursuits) and others that have domes and tubes (like hookas) that operate on a different principle and (I'm told) are less efficient. I'm going to get the Aromazap shortly - I can tell you more then. Picture attached (from www.aromazap.com).

[boe~pimp]

yer kewl bananas fellas, thanks for the feedback, i've been smokin billies for a fair few years now and personally i don't get sore throat or coughing unless the gear is real shit, and obviously, ideally i stay away from shit mull.

thanks once again for the feedback but

toke it easy

~Boe~

[Jim]

that wasnt a bad read ey...

me being a bong person and only ever really a bong person that info was sort of boosting confidence into my health! i havent been smoking habitually for very long, only bout half a yr, but been growin it for a while, bongs are just too good, the high, the smoothness, the taste... its all good.

[Gruntus]

bongs are just too good, the high, the smoothness, the taste... its all good

 

But they're not that efficient .. an amount of the vapourised thc never makes it out of the bong (depends on the design) and the reality is you're still inhaling a lot of unneccesary crap (including potential carcinogens). I find myself in the position of loving cannabis but not enjoying smoking (ugh..) - sure, I could ingest it but I'm not always that patient (we live in times of instant gratification after all). That's why I'm getting a vape

[Brainstorm]

Yo Gruntas, make sure you give a review after you've used your vaporiser for a while, I've been have a bit of a look at them myself - I'm not too worried about the bad effects of smoke being a tobacco smoker for the last 20 odd years - the thought of getting a better hit is enticing though