• Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

[MEGA] JWH-018 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is JWH-018 really far more powerfull when vaporised rather than burnt?
 
phatass said:
Is JWH-018 really far more powerfull when vaporised rather than burnt?
Click to expand...
No, in my opinion it is not, at least when you can really equate JHW-018 with Spice in this issue (and I am just daring to do so). SWIM vaporized it on 193°C. The effect (and there was one) was not stronger than smoked.

Moreover, I would be pleased, if the one who said that JHW-018 is 2000 times more dangerous than a cigarette, added a serious source to his frightening statement. I would really like to have a comparation between JHW-018 and for example cured meat or even cigarettes concernig the dimension of the cancerogenic potential, but 1. with a source added and 2. not with such a bad result for JHW-018 ;)
 
Last edited:
I have a 3gram bag of spice diamond that I opened like 2 days ago. I don't know if I should smoke it or not. Jwh-018 seems to be really dangerous, but I really like the high spice gives.
 
deep7 said:
No, in my opinion it is not, at least when you can really equate JHW-018 with Spice in this issue (and I am just daring to do so). SWIM vaporized it on 193°C. The effect (and there was one) was not stronger than smoked.

Moreover, I would be pleased, if the one who said that JHW-018 is 2000 times more dangerous than a cigarette, added a serious source to his frightening statement. I would really like to have a comparation between JHW-018 and for example cured meat or even cigarettes concernig the dimension of the cancerogenic potential, but 1. with a source added and 2. not with such a bad result for JHW-018 ;)
Click to expand...

three different PAHs present in high concentrations in
cigarette smoke: 1-methylanthracene (1-MA; 1500 ng/
cigarette), benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P; 25 ng/cigarette),
and phenanthrene (PA; 362 ng/cigarette)

You need about 3 mg of jwh-018 and maybe half the jwh-018 molecule is the naphtha. That would mean a 1000 times more dangerous.
 
Does exposure to a given amount of a given carcinogenic molecule within a brief period equate to exposure to the same amount over a longer period in terms of likelihood of an outcome of cancer, or would it be either less or more likely?
 
illerrre said:
three different PAHs present in high concentrations in
cigarette smoke: 1-methylanthracene (1-MA; 1500 ng/
cigarette), benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P; 25 ng/cigarette),
and phenanthrene (PA; 362 ng/cigarette)

You need about 3 mg of jwh-018 and maybe half the jwh-018 molecule is the naphtha. That would mean a 1000 times more dangerous.
Click to expand...
I just did some little research to this issue and found out, that the cancerogenic potential of 1-methylanthracene is mainly in the unmetabolized 1-methylanthracene itself: These results indicate that a prominent component of cigarette smoke, namely methylanthracenes with distinct structural configurations, could be a potential etiological agent contributing to the epigenetic events of pancreatic cancer. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17266035)

This makes me mistrust the validity of your comparison of JHW-018 with 1-methylanthracene, which namely belongs to the "dangerous" PAHs, but seems to act cancerogenig even in the first way - in its unmetabolized form - and this by directly influencing the differentiation of (pancreatic) cells (see source).

Please consider that I am not very well schooled in this whole topic about metabolism pathways and the ways of cancer-generation, that is to say in chemistry at all. I only want to give some (likely helpful) suggestions.
 
Last edited:
So...if you smoke it once a week, how bad is that? Will it most likely cause cancer, but wouldn't it take a while? I mean, I hope that your lungs can recover from like 10 times of smoking spice.
 
deep7 said:
No, in my opinion it is not, at least when you can really equate JHW-018 with Spice in this issue (and I am just daring to do so).[1] SWIM [2] vaporized it on 193°C. The effect (and there was one) was not stronger than smoked.

Moreover, I would be pleased, if the one who said that JHW-018 is 2000 times more dangerous than a cigarette, added a serious source to his frightening statement.[3] I would really like to have a comparation between JHW-018 and for example cured meat or even cigarettes concernig the dimension of the cancerogenic potential, but 1. with a source added and 2. not with such a bad result for JHW-018 ;)
Click to expand...

[1] I agree to the extend that the same amount will cause the same effects, doesn't matter by which route you apply it . But - and that is maybe what phatass pointed to: You need more starting material when smoking, because JWH-018 easily decomposes upon overheating. Therefore, one will loose more material when smoking due to pyrolysis (and a portion of the pyrolysis-products gets inhaled as well...yammi yammi).

[2] Just one kind hint: That SWIM-thing is neither helpful nor welcome here. Just let it go... :)

[3] While I support the scepticism towards these compouds, I would disagree with the mentioned relationship (...1:2000). The current state of information does not allow for such blatant comparisons.

Peace! Murphy
 
So, sure, cigarettes may produce much less (by weight!) potentially carcinogenic metabolites.
Big fucking deal.
Are we ignoring the fact that some molecules are going to be much more efficacious than others in their carcinogenic and genotoxic capabilities? Is one molecule not more likely to be an DNA intercalator (for example) than another? The playing field is not level here.

To everyone wanting to know whether because they've smoked a cannibimimetic smoking mix X times in the past;
No-one can tell you how long you have to live, nor whether you will get cancer, nor how long it will take, nor how bad it will be.... nor whether you will win the lottery next week for that matter. Stop asking, it's nonsensical.

And yes, -018 will be more potent if vaporised rather than smoked. Since smoking almost inevitably results in destruction/rearrangement/etc of active material (it's HOT!) i'd have thought that was pretty obvious.
 
Last edited:
Can spice be vaporized?

I know that chillin xxx a.k.a skunk a new breed of weed cannot be vaporized so what does that mean? Obviously chillin xxx a.k.a skunk anbow isn't sprayed with jwh-018. Is there any other jwh-xxx that cannot be vaporized?
 
Look at the structures. You can easily google them. JWH-018 is very simple, it's almost entirely carbon and hydrogen.

Yes, the simpler ones are more dangerous, but it's impossible to say whether or not the others are also dangerous.
 
so in theory skunk anbow probably isn't as dangerous as skunk anbow right?

Cuz skunk anbow doesnt work in vaporizer = not as simple

not as simple = not as dangerous.
 
I am still looking forward to an underpinning of anonymouse99's post. He said that there is no cancerogenity at all for JWH-018 (and he did so not only in this web forum):
A series of pre-clinical ADME/Toxicity studies were conducted on JWH-018 including CYPs, Genotox, hERG, Cytotox, Rodent Tox (LD50, Acute Dose, Repeat Dose & Pharmakinetics). All tests passed within tolerable guidelines. JWH-018 tested negative for genotox (ie cancer) using standard GreenScreen HC both with and without S9 (fraction from liver hepatocytes which metabolizes compounds and looks for genotoxic metabolites).

Further detailed information is forthcoming.
Click to expand...
Even if Mouse seems to know more than the inventor of JWH-018, John W. Huffman, the fact, that JWH-018 is - pursuant to Wikipedia - "currently being researched as a potential analgesic to be administered by transdermal patch", makes me at least doubt the apparently self-evident harmfulness of the substance, which is just being propagandized everywhere.
 
Last edited:
... yes, but as said elsewhere, patents are often applied for even if the applicants of them don't believe there will be a real application of it. More flexibility that way.
I am also beginning to think anonymouse is full of shit, to put it bluntly. Either post the data, or look like a fool for announcing it then bringing nothing to the table.
 
I'm currently traveling during the holidays and thus the delay and difficulties in posting the detailed report. I will post the data as soon as I can, hopefully within the next week.

I'm sure many will either question its authenticity or seek new arguments to further the position that JWH-018 is dangerous.

The claim of absolute safety for JWH-018 is not being made here, as there are other unknowns some of which have already been pointed out. We are simply stating ADME-Tox studies were completed as part of our own due diligence process. The genotox greenscreen with S9 test brings further light to the epoxide cancer concerns, and our data clearly refutes Murphy's theory that JWH causes cancer.

We will also provide analysis data for the JWH-018 used in the studies which clearly demonstrates very high purity of the production.

These studies are quite expensive and a significant step forward to defining the toxicological profile of JWH-018.
 
anonymouse99 said:
I'm currently traveling during the holidays and thus the delay and difficulties in posting the detailed report. I will post the data as soon as I can, hopefully within the next week.

I'm sure many will either question its authenticity or seek new arguments to further the position that JWH-018 is dangerous.

The claim of absolute safety for JWH-018 is not being made here, as there are other unknowns some of which have already been pointed out. We are simply stating ADME-Tox studies were completed as part of our own due diligence process. The genotox greenscreen with S9 test brings further light to the epoxide cancer concerns, and our data clearly refutes Murphy's theory that JWH causes cancer.

We will also provide analysis data for the JWH-018 used in the studies which clearly demonstrates very high purity of the production.

These studies are quite expensive and a significant step forward to defining the toxicological profile of JWH-018.
Click to expand...

Enough of this, either post some real data or shut up.
you clearly have commercial interest here, and this is very similar to the analysis mentioned by delic that is secret classified that supposedly shows that the brown rubbish is 98% pure,

even if you are travelling you should be able to post the name of the company that did the tox trials. as well as some information that gives your claims at least some credibility.
did you test via an inhalational route,
did you test the carcinogenic activity of pyrolysed material? do you even know what is produced during the pyrolysis of JWH 018???

you also give the impression to me that you know next to nothing about toxicology,


Mouse, I call bullshit on this. your challenge is to prove otherwise, I want you to prove me wrong. I desperately want for JWH 018 to be safe otherwise you are party to one of the most dangerous and unethical trials on unsuspecting humans that the world has seen since the CIA in the 1950's.
 
anonymouse99 said:
The genotox greenscreen with S9 test brings further light to the epoxide cancer concerns, and our data clearly refutes Murphy's theory that JWH causes cancer.
Click to expand...
I have to be pedantic and request to get cited accurately: I always used the terms "possibly", "presumably" and alike in combination with "cancer" or "cancerogenic".

As a scientist, I'm willing to readjust my statements in the light of new analytical results. But as Vecktor, MattPsy and others already said: We haven't seen these results yet.
PLEASE stop pointing to a presumable safety when users could take this as granted. Always prove your statements!

- Murphy
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top