Bong Water
- Thread starter DXMKID
- Start date
Nietzche
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2000
- Messages
- 2,881
Best advice I have heard comming from a greenlighter! (Ha ha ha ha ha I have only posted about five times more than you, but in my credit ya'll should have seen the flamming between this guy and another greenlighter, it was disgraceful!)
But yeah, drinking bong water will fo' sure fuck your shit up . . . it just won't make you high! If you enjoy nausea and pucking for about six hours try it!
But yeah, drinking bong water will fo' sure fuck your shit up . . . it just won't make you high! If you enjoy nausea and pucking for about six hours try it!
Instead of just sitting back and letting them do this, why don't you explain how stupid they really are. That is much funner....and it'll make you feel good about yourself cause they will realize that they are lesser.
THC is not soluble in wtaer so it is impossible to get any THC from bong wtaer.
[This message has been edited by FREEBASE (edited 13 May 2001).]
hahahaha whoever told you that is fucking with you, bong water could be the nastiest water on the face of the earth, you drink that shit and it will fuck you up but not in a good way!
~lates, hydra (aim hydra927)
...then again...anything with the word "bong" in it cant be TOO bad...so, drink up?
~lates, hydra (aim hydra927)
...then again...anything with the word "bong" in it cant be TOO bad...so, drink up?
Haha, we got one of my friends to take a "double shot" of bong water once. We were all really ripped anyway, and it was quite possibly one of the funniest things I've ever seen. He didn't puke or anything, just got the most disgusted look on his face I've ever seen.
Anyway, of course it doesn't/won't get you high. That's just fucking stupid. But it is still a good idea to dare your stoned friend into drinking some anyway
------------------
"Only what already is can really be accomplished"--Heidegger
Anyway, of course it doesn't/won't get you high. That's just fucking stupid. But it is still a good idea to dare your stoned friend into drinking some anyway
------------------
"Only what already is can really be accomplished"--Heidegger
I dont think Ill advise them against drinking the bong water. I find it pretty funny to watch them try to choke it down. Its even funnier when they start puking and say that puking is getting them even higher. My friends are pretty messed up tho. Ill just watch and laugh.
I found this a erowid, it talks about how bongs compare to pipes and joints. It also mentions something on bong wate.
MAPS - Volume 6 Number 3 Summer 1996 -
from the Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies
MAPS - Volume 6 Number 3 Summer 1996
Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study
[Revised February 2000]
Dale Gieringer, Ph.D.
California NORML, 2215-R Market St. Suite 278
San Francisco CA 94114 tel: (415) 563-5858
E-mail: [email protected]
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
[email protected]
MAPS - Volume 6 Number 3 Summer 1996 -
from the Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies
MAPS - Volume 6 Number 3 Summer 1996
Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study
[Revised February 2000]
Dale Gieringer, Ph.D.
California NORML, 2215-R Market St. Suite 278
San Francisco CA 94114 tel: (415) 563-5858
E-mail: [email protected]
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
[email protected]
Bobby Bong Water'
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 11, 2001
- Messages
- 40
yeah, my folks told me they use to drink bong water, eat crack & smoke NoDoz back in the day, they said they got all kinds of fuct-up, for real, them niggas are bout it.
^Peppertoo^
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2000
- Messages
- 495
i personally drank bong water once, about half a cup, on a bet for some bud. it tasted like >SHIT< and was all brown like coffee, but i didn't puke. and the dude who dared me was so surprised that instead of the 20 he was supposed to give me he gave me almost a quad.
------------------
Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?
------------------
Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?
Bong water doesnt get you stoned, but for you gays who cant stand the thought of consuming water with a bit of plant and carbon in it then your weak as PISS.
I mean fuk, hold your nose.
wait let me guess, 95% of you are YANKS.
Prancy, Preaching, Girl-like, "EEEWWWW'ing" POOFDAZ.
ehe I think I shall return to the NON PUSsY-FaG AUsSIE Forum where I can read posts without saying to myself "what a faggot..." or "what a dumb slut..." etc etc.
Later PoofdaZ.
------------------
Niques Wisdom
- Don't ever try your best, it's the first step to failure.
-It is far better to be pissed off than pissed on.
-If someones life is in danger, do not help them, this will almost always bring you to the same fate.
[This message has been edited by NiQu3LorD (edited 14 May 2001).]
I mean fuk, hold your nose.
wait let me guess, 95% of you are YANKS.
Prancy, Preaching, Girl-like, "EEEWWWW'ing" POOFDAZ.
ehe I think I shall return to the NON PUSsY-FaG AUsSIE Forum where I can read posts without saying to myself "what a faggot..." or "what a dumb slut..." etc etc.
Later PoofdaZ.
------------------
Niques Wisdom
- Don't ever try your best, it's the first step to failure.
-It is far better to be pissed off than pissed on.
-If someones life is in danger, do not help them, this will almost always bring you to the same fate.
[This message has been edited by NiQu3LorD (edited 14 May 2001).]
CaucasianHomeboy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2001
- Messages
- 146
thanks for that contribution.
Anyways, I found it interesting that excerpt claimed THC to be absorbed by water, all information I've ever found elsewhere has stated otherwise. Anyone know why they would say this?
And an unfiltered joint being the best for you? Bullshit. If that study is some sick fuck's idea of a joke, I think that's pretty lame.
------------------
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which out government was founded."
--Abraham Lincoln -- December, 1840
Anyways, I found it interesting that excerpt claimed THC to be absorbed by water, all information I've ever found elsewhere has stated otherwise. Anyone know why they would say this?
And an unfiltered joint being the best for you? Bullshit. If that study is some sick fuck's idea of a joke, I think that's pretty lame.
------------------
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which out government was founded."
--Abraham Lincoln -- December, 1840
- AIM = CaucasianHomeboy