Science: Use of vaporizers reduces toxins from cannabis smoke

A new study has found that a vaporizer drastically reduces harmful gases in cannabis smoke, delivering a nearly pure stream of cannabinoids with very few by-products of combustion. Smoke of combusted cannabis usually contains similar toxins as tobacco smoke and smoke of other herbal material, which may damage tissues, resulting in chronic bronchitis and cancer.

The study, conducted by Chemic Labs in Canton, Massachusetts, analysed vapors from cannabis heated in the Volcano (manufactured by Storz & Bickel GmbH & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany) and compared them to smoke produced by combusted cannabis. The Volcano is designed to heat material to temperatures of 130° to 230° Celsius where medically active vapors are produced, but below the threshold of combustion. Previous studies have found that vaporizers can reduce harmful toxins in cannabis smoke. However, this was the first study to analyze the gas phase of the vapor for a wide range of toxins.

The analysis showed that the Volcano vapor was remarkably clean, consisting 95% of THC with traces of cannabinol (CBN). The remaining 5% consisted of small amounts of three other components: one suspected cannabinoid relative, one suspected PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon), and caryophyllene, a terpene. In contrast over 111 different components appeared in the gas of the combusted smoke, including a half dozen known PAHs. Non-cannabinoids accounted for as much as 88% of the total gas content of the smoke.

The study was sponsored by the US organisations California NORML, MAPS, and MPP. It used cannabis with a THC content of 4%. A quantitative analysis found that the Volcano delivered 46% of the THC into vapor following three 45-second exposures of the sample to the heat. In earlier studies typical efficiency of cannabis cigarettes was reported to be in the range of 15-40% for experienced users, and was 45% using a pipe.

Dr. Donald Abrams of the University of California, San Francisco, has submitted a grant proposal to the California Center for Medical Cannabis Research in San Diego to test the Volcano in a clinical study.

More information at www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizers.html

source: http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bullet...el.php?id=146#2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Smokeless Cannabis Delivery Device Efficient And Less Toxic

A smokeless cannabis-vaporizing device delivers the same level of active therapeutic chemical and produces the same biological effect as smoking cannabis, but without the harmful toxins, according to UCSF researchers.

Results of a UCSF study, which focuses on delivery of the active ingredient delta-9-tertrahydrocannibinol, or THC, are reported in the online issue of the journal "Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics."

"We showed in a recent paper in the journal 'Neurology' that smoked cannabis can alleviate the chronic pain caused by HIV-related neuropathy, but a concern was expressed that smoking cannabis was not safe. This study demonstrates an alternative method that gives patients the same effects and allows controlled dosing but without inhalation of the toxic products in smoke," said study lead author Donald I. Abrams, MD, UCSF professor of clinical medicine.

The research team looked at the effectiveness of a device that heats cannabis to a temperature between 180 and 200 degrees C, just short of combustion, which occurs at 230 degrees C. Eighteen individuals were enrolled as inpatients for six days under supervision in the General Clinical Research Center at San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center.

Under the study protocol, the participants received on different days three different strengths of cannabis by two delivery methods - smoking or vaporization - three times a day.

Plasma concentrations of THC were measured along with the exhaled levels of carbon monoxide, or CO. A toxic gas, CO served as a marker for the many other combustion-generated toxins inhaled when smoking. The plasma concentrations of THC were comparable at all strengths of cannabis between smoking and vaporization. Smoking increased CO levels as expected, but there was little or no increase in CO levels after inhaling from the vaporizer, according to Abrams.

"Using CO as an indicator, there was virtually no exposure to harmful combustion products using the vaporizing device. Since it replicates smoking's efficiency at producing the desired THC effect using smaller amounts of the active ingredient as opposed to pill forms, this device has great potential for improving the therapeutic utility of THC," said study co-author Neal L. Benowitz, MD, UCSF professor of medicine, psychiatry and biopharmaceutical sciences. He added that pills tend to provide patients with more THC than they need for optimal therapeutic effect and increase side effects.

Patients rated the "high" they experienced from both smoking and vaporization and there was no difference between the two methods by patient self-report of the effect, according to study findings. In addition, patients were asked which method they preferred.

"By a significant majority, patients preferred vaporization to smoking, choosing the route of delivery with the fewest side effects and greatest efficiency," said Benowitz.

----------------------------
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release

source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/71112.php

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Volcano is to Vaporizer
As Porsche is to Automobile


Nine out of 10 doctors who recommend medicinal cannabis advise their patients that vaporization is a safer delivery method than smoking.
When cannabis leaves and flowers burn, they release toxins -napthalene, benzene, toluene, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and other substances that insult the lining of the throat and lungs.
But vapors released at temperatures below the burning point contain cannabinoids -the medically effective components of the plant- minus most of the toxins. Some flavorful molecules evaporate, too, at a point below combustion.
Markus Storz is an inventor from Tuttlingen, Germany -a town famous for the manufacture of precision medical instruments. His "Volcano" vaporizer consists of an electronic heating element and an air pump inside a cone-shaped stainless steel housing about 9 inches in diameter and 8 inches high. It is designed to apply a precise level of heat to a precise area -a thimble-sized strainer in a black plastic cylinder- that snaps onto the neck of the top of the unit.
A balloon (a polyester oven bag, actually) attached to a quick-release mechanism snaps onto the top of the chamber. The user sets a dial to the desired temperature (180-190O centigrade for cannabis), and after a few minutes a light on the console indicates that the proper level has been reached. A button is pushed to start the pump, which forces air through the heated herb, capturing its evaporated components and wafting them into the balloon.
The filled balloon unsnaps from the heating chamber and snaps onto a mouthpiece/valve that does not allow any contents to be released until it is depressed -i.e., until the user directs a stream of vapor into his or her mouth.
Thanks to the valve design, the Volcano's balloon can retain vapors for intermittent inhalation. The manual suggests that the potency of the vapor begins to diminish within a half hour, but one fan of the Volcano claims she can prepare a balloon at bedtime for use in the morning, without noticeable loss of efficacy.
Volcano advocates say the device enables them to use cannabis more efficiently, i.e. to consume less overall, after they have mastered the technique. "Using small amounts of bud, on the dry side and ground medium-fine, is most efficient," according to David Moore, who runs a store in San Francisco that sells Volcanos at a discount.
Moore is an ardent fan of Storz and his invention. After first seeing one, in the summer of 2002, he headed for Germany to pay his respects and to see if Storz wanted a business partner. Storz had just taken on a partner, Jurgen Bickel, but he was a gracious host and Moore has fond memories of hiking in the green German countryside with him.
" The company was, and remains, a very small, hands-on operation," says Moore. "Markus is a craftsman with the highest standards," says Moore. "That won't change as the demand rises and they gear up to produce more."

Volcanic Activity
" You really have to learn how to use the Volcano," according to Moore. "The ideal setting seems to be '6' for most people (190o. centigrade). Lower you get the flavor, but not the medicinal effect. Higher is too harsh."
Moderate inhalation is recommended. "You can take the slightest sip," says Moore, "and taste the subtle flavors of whatever strain you're using. It's surprising how flavorful and potent the supposedly lower-grade strains can be when inhaled through the balloon."
Flavor, Moore notes, is a function of terpenes, flavonoids and other components of the cannabis plant, not THC and the other cannabinoids.
Because the Volcano is expensive -up to $600 at retail outlets, and even more through www.storz-bickel.com- some consumers buy just the valve set and use a heat gun to achieve the desired temperature. Some stores even sell a sleeve designed to fit over the barrel of a heat gun and receive the Volcano's filling chamber. "The heat gun is a lot more portable than the Volcano," notes another store proprietor.
Moore counters: "With a heat gun you're breathing hot air and whatever toxins come off the heating element. The Volcano is a precision medical instrument, you don't have to worry about overheating or safety issues. Markus chose all his materials with inhalation in mind."
Moore has been selling the Volcano "at a slight loss" to promote use among his patrons at Mendocino Healing Alternatives, which is off Howard St. between 11th and 12th in San Francisco (96 Lafayette St., 415-864-4600).
Storz and Bickel rationalize their pricing structure with a quote from John Ruskin: "There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that person's prey... When you pay too much, you lose a little money -that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do."

source: http://ccrmg.org/journal/04spr/volcano.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Recommendation to Patients: "Don’t smoke, Vaporize"

By Dale Gieringer


Patients receiving physician approval to use cannabis should be warned that chemicals released when the dried leaves and/or flowers are burned put heavy smokers at increased risk for bronchitis and respiratory infections.1
The risk can be avoided, however, by an alternative delivery system: a device called a vaporizer that heats dried cannabis to a temperature where cannabinoid vapors are released, but below the point of combustion, where noxious and carcinogenic smoke toxins are formed. Patients can thus inhale the pharmaceutically active cannabinoids without exposing themselves to harmful respiratory toxins.
Although the principle of vaporization has been known for a long time, until recently there were no scientific studies demonstrating its feasibility. The situation has changed thanks to a pair of studies sponsored by California NORML and MAPS at Chemic Laboratories in Canton, Mass.
The first, completed in 2001, tested a vaporizer known as the M-1 Volatizer, (www.volatizer.com). The M-1 resembles an auto cigarette lighter that is designed to fit over a pipe or bong bowl and heat the sample to the point of vaporization. Efficient vaporization occurs around 180° - 190° C (356° - 374° F) while combustion occurs around 230° C (446° F).
The study found that the M-1 delivered effective levels of THC, CBD and CBN, while completely eliminating three specific toxins —naphthalene, benzene, and toluene— in the solid phase of the vapor. A qualitative reduction in carbon monoxide was also detected.2


Volcano Study
The second vaporizer study, released in April of this year, looked at a much wider range of toxins, focusing particularly on the highly carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a prime suspect in smoking-related cancers. The device tested was the “Volcano” (www.storz-bickel.com), a vaporizer that has become extremely popular with medicinal cannabis users who can afford it —the retail price is around $600 due to its high-tech innovative design.
The Volcano consists of a heater with a sample chamber on top. An air pump blows hot air through the sample into a balloon, where the vapors are collected. After being filled. the balloon is detached and fitted with a valved mouthpiece, through which the vapors are inhaled. The novel design has been patented in the U.S. and internationally by Storz & Bickel GmbH&Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany.
The study compared Volcano vapors to smoke produced by combusted marijuana. The cannabis was the standard product provided to researchers by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, containing 4% THC. Analysis by gas chromatograph mass spectrometer (GCMS) showed that the Volcano vapor consisted almost entirely of THC (95%), with traces of cannabinol (CBN), another cannabinoid. The remaining 5% consisted of small amounts of caryophyllene, a fragrant oil in cannabis and other plants, and two other components of uncertain origin.
In contrast, analysis of the combusted smoke showed a potpourri of at least 111 different gas phase components, including six known PAHs. Non-cannabinoids accounted for as much as 88% of the total gas content of the smoke. 3
A separate study was undertaken to determine the efficiency of the Volcano in delivering THC. Three balloonfuls of vapor were drawn from the sample and analyzed quantitatively via high-pressure liquid chromatography. On average, 46% of the THC from the sample appeared in the vapor. This compares favorably with the efficiency of marijuana cigarettes as observed in other studies, which can fall below 25% due to loss of THC in sidestream smoke.

The efficiency of the Volcano appears to be due to the innovative balloon containment system, which prevents loss of vapor as well as providing a fixed dosage quantity useful for controlled studies. It is possible that higher efficiencies could have been realized by stirring the sample around and drawing another balloonful, as recommended by the manufacturer.
The Volcano study provides the most compelling evidence to date that vaporizers offer an effective means of eliminating the respiratory hazards of marijuana smoking. In its 1999 report on medical marijuana, the Institute of Medicine recommended against long-term use of smoked marijuana because of the health risks of smoking. However, the IOM report was silent on the subject of vaporizers.
Foes of medical marijuana such as the California Narcotics Officers Association have continued to harp on the health hazards of smoking as an objection to legalization. However, advocates can now reply that the vaporizer studies put these objections to rest.
At present, the only FDA-approved method for administering marijuana to human research subjects is via smoking NIDA-supplied cigarettes. NORML and MAPS are supporting efforts to have vaporizers approved by the FDA. Donald Abrams, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, has submitted a grant proposal to the California Center for Medical Cannabis Research in San Diego to test the Volcano in human subjects. If the protocol is funded and the Volcano approved by the FDA for human research, it will be the first human study using a vaporizer.
In the meantime, vaporizers are enjoying growing popularity in the medical marijuana community. Dozens of models are currently on the market, ranging from homemade glass vaporization pipes to sophisticated electronic devices. To avoid the paraphernalia laws, most are discreetly sold as “herbal vaporizers.” .


soure: http://ccrmg.org/journal/03sum/vaporize.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Decreased respiratory symptoms in cannabis users who vaporize.
Earleywine M, Barnwell SS

Department of Psychology, University at Albany, State University of New York, 1400 Washington Ave,, SS369, Albany, New York, 12222, USA. mearleywine@albany.edu.


ABSTRACT: Cannabis smoking can create respiratory problems. Vaporizers heat cannabis to release active cannabinoids, but remain cool enough to avoid the smoke and toxins associated with combustion. Vaporized cannabis should create fewer respiratory symptoms than smoked cannabis. We examined self-reported respiratory symptoms in participants who ranged in cigarette and cannabis use. Data from a large Internet sample revealed that the use of a vaporizer predicted fewer respiratory symptoms even when age, sex, cigarette smoking, and amount of cannabis used were taken into account. Age, sex, cigarettes, and amount of cannabis also had significant effects. The number of cigarettes smoked and amount of cannabis used interacted to create worse respiratory problems. A significant interaction revealed that the impact of a vaporizer was larger as the amount of cannabis used increased. These data suggest that the safety of cannabis can increase with the use of a vaporizer. Regular users of joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes might decrease respiratory symptoms by switching to a vaporizer.

Published 20 April 2007 in Harm Reduct J, 4: 11.

source: http://marijuana.researchtoday.net/archive/4/4/1195.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study
Dale Gieringer, Ph.D.

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 just above 155 C, the point at which THC vaporizes, which is well below the temperature where carcinogenic hydrocarbons are thought to be produced. 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.


California NORML
2215-R Market St. #278
San Francisco, CA 94114
CANORML@igc.apc.org

Source: http://www.ukcia.org/research/pipes.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vaporizing Cannabinoids- Inhaling Safely

Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D.

Phytoinhalation- non burning ingestion of active principles

The usual irritating and toxic breakdown products of burning utilized with smoking are totally avoided with vaporization. Extraction and inhaling cannabinoid essential oils below ignition temperature of both crude and refined cannabis products affords significant mitigation of irritation to the oral cavity, and tracheobronchial tree from pyrollytic breakdown products.

Herodotus first described vaporizing cannabinoids in the 5th century BC:

”The Scythians then take the seeds of this hemp and, creeping under the mats, they throw them on the red hot stones; and, being so thrown, they smolder and send forth so much steam that no Greek vapor bath could surpass it. The Scythians howl in their joy at their vapor-bath. This serves them instead of bathing, for they never wash their bodies with water.”[i]

Purified cannabinoids were noted to boil at 150° - 180° C. (302° - 356° F) by Wood, Spivey, and Easterfield (J Chem S, v lxix, 539) in the 20th Ed. 1918 U.S. Dispensatory.[ii]

Red oil, an extractive product from organic solvents and filtration, was described by Adams in 1940 to boil at 180° - 190° C. (356° - 374° F)[iii]

The Merck Index lists the boiling point of delta 1 Tetrahydrocannabinol as 200° C (392° F)[iv]

The author first recommended vaporizing cannabinoids in 1993[v] with the observation that vaporizing cannabinoids takes place below ignition temperature with much less exposure to the numerous breakdown products of burning. Vaporizers, a video was published in 1999, updated 2002 documenting different devices in use.[vi]

Gieringer in a two part study compared vaporized cannabis with smoked cannabis and different smoking devices and found vaporizers to be free from tars or other breakdown products of combustion.[vii]
The Superior Vaporization Technique McCoy TR[viii] in a thoroughly documented description of using the Vripmaster vaporization device utilizing different adjustable heat guns.

June 2000 at the International Cannabinoid Research Society meeting Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative director Jeff Jones demonstrated a Vripmaster /Steinel HG3002LCD heat gun.

Classic Pharmaceuticals sponsored the first vaporizer contest in Redway on November 11, 2000 with eight entrants and minimal publicity.



Regarding the use of thermostatically controlled heat gun devices, patients report positive feedback regarding efficacy and prefer to smoking cannabis. Instead of losing drug to combustion, which continues after inhalation, the heat gun is turned off and the vaporization halted.

The freedom from breakdown products of burning permits appreciation of aromas and tastes of cannabis. Hot air essential oil extraction process from granulated crude cannabis appears to be the most efficient and temperature controllable. Furthermore, there are significant changes in the composition and rate of vaporization with the increase in temperature. Delicate and distinctive aromas and tastes at the lower temperatures change in character and intensity as temperature increases. For product description it will be appropriate to characterize first aroma, second taste, and psychic effects.

While the Merck Index lists delta 1, 9THC as vaporizing at 392° F, the actual subjective experience is that the vaporization of cannabinoids is a function of temperature and amount. While delta 1, 9 THC may vaporize at that temperature the other cannabinoids go into vapor phases at temperatures significantly below.

Starting at room temperature in a bud trimming room with significant exposed crude cannabis affects me and others not adapted to ambient levels of cannabis vapor. With granulated crude cannabis supplemented with condensed refined resin vaporization takes place at lower temperatures. (190 - 200° F).

Using a Vriptech with a Steinel HG 3002LCD at 360° F appears optimal. Between 360° and 390°F there appears to be irritative pyrollytic degradation products out gassing. There is agreement with users at the 390° F and above there are pyrollytic.

I would strongly recommend that all cannabis centers utilize vaporization to screen and categorize products to better detect pesticide residues or other contaminants.

These cannabis tasters would also better characterize the qualitative properties of the samples and give feedback to the provider as well as inform the customers.

In addition to protecting customers it gives providers quality standards. Similarly, all cannabis cup competition organizers should be encouraged to vaporize the products to permit a more complete and sophisticated description of competing products.

Vaporization constitutes a salient breakthrough in cannabis therapeutics because of safety and avoiding the other disadvantages of smoking cannabis. Additionally, the complexities from the enhanced appreciation of tastes and aromas adds aesthetic dimensions to cannabis products that are obscured by smoking. Improvement of health in marijuana smokers who ingest high impurity product in large amounts appreciate inhaling cannabinoids instead.

Clinical and chemical analysis of vapor from crude cannabis at different temperatures to define and quantify mixtures of cannabinoids and other products is needed. This research will provide empirical bases for optimal medicinal efficacy of different cultivars for specific symptoms inhaled at specific temperatures.

Environmentally, vaporization systems are safe and acceptable in a non smoking environments. The high quality heat guns are essentially the similar to hair dryers and will be suitable for use in hospitals and other health care settings. With proper technique there are minimal emissions compared with smoking.

Semantically, inhaling cannabinoids permits one to self-righteously and honestly say: Me, smoke marijuana? Never.

Tod H. Mikuriya

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

[i] Kimmens AC Tales of Hashish William Morrow & Co NY 1977 Herodotus, histories iv. 73-75 (5th Century B.C.) 270 – 271.

[ii] Remington, JP, Wood, HC, et al The Dispensatory of the United States 20th Ed. 1918 pp 276 281.

[iii] Adams R, Marijuana NY Acad of Med v 18, 1943 Reprinted Marijuana Medical Papers, 1839 - 1972 Ed Mikuriya, TH MediComp Press 1973 345 - 374

[iv] The Merck Index 12th Ed Merck & Co. Whitehouse Station, NJ 1996 p 1573

[v] Mikuriya, TH Vaporization of Cannabinoids: A Preferable Drug Delivery Route mir.drugtext.org/druglibrary/schaffer/hemp/vaporize.htm 12/16/93

[vi] Cannabis Vaporizers video Classic Pharmaceuticals – Godfrey Productions 1999 5min 15 seconds. Presented at First National Clinical Cannabis Therapeutic Conference, Iowa City, 2000 and Biorresouces Hemp 2000, Wolfsburg Germany.

[vii]Gieringer, D Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies
MAPS - Volume 6 Number 3 Summer 1996, Update NORML News Jan 11, 2001

[viii] McCoy TR The Superior Vaporization Technique 1998 10 pp www.vriptech.com rev 4/20/00 ©1998 VripTech Int. 1998

Information Links:

source: http://www.mikuriya.com/can_vapor.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Inhaling cannabis without the smoke
Study shows vaporizer delivers marijuana 'safely and effectivel

Vaporizing cannabis leaves instead of burning them can release the drug's active ingredient just as effectively — while avoiding the harmful toxins inhaled through smoking the drug, according to a pilot study.

The result could be good news for those who choose to use marijuana medicinally.

The potential benefits of marijuana include pain relief for multiple-sclerosis sufferers, a treatment for glaucoma, as an appetite stimulant for AIDS patients and an anti-nausea agent for people on chemotherapy. But smoking isn't a good method of drug delivery because the harmful effects — such as lung cancer and heart disease — outweigh the likely merits of marijuana for all but terminal cases.

Rather than smoking, some use the leaves to make tea or cakes for consumption. But this means that the active agents are metabolized by the liver rather than entering the bloodstream unaltered. Others have focused on extracting active ingredients such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and delivering them alone in a pill or oral spray. However, many think that the isolated ingredients are not as effective as the whole plant, and it is more difficult to customize the dose for each individual with a pill.
Hot stuff

Donald Abrams of the University of California, San Francisco, and his team decided to investigate the benefits of the 'Volcano', a commercially available vaporizer. The device heats marijuana leaves to a temperature between 180 and 200 °C so that THC is released from oils on the surface of the leaf but no actual combustion takes place.

Previous studies have shown that harmful toxins released through smoking cannabis such as carbon monoxide, benzene and a host of compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (many of which are known carcinogens) are not produced by such devices.

Abrams' study is the first to compare the effects of smoking and vaporizing cannabis on human subjects. "We were able to deliver more-or-less equivalent amounts of THC into the bloodstream," he says. The main difference between the two delivery methods was that THC seemed to be absorbed into the bloodstream faster when using the vaporizer1. "The pharmacological and physiological effects were comparable," he says, although a larger study would be needed to prove that they are biologically equivalent.
Slow burn

The first studies to highlight the advantages of using vaporizers for cannabis were published more than five years ago, but the pace of research has been slow, partly because there is only one source of research-approved marijuana in the United States — the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) — which critics accuse of dictating research along a political agenda. A legal ruling this February recommended that the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) end NIDA's monopoly on the production of marijuana for research approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and by the DEA.

Laura Bell of the Multiple Sclerosis Society in the UK says that her society supports cannabinoid research for people with multiple sclerosis. "Smoking cannabis results in exposure to many toxic chemicals," she says. "We welcome research into better and safer delivery methods."

Cannabis leaf is not the only substrate suited to a vaporizer. Other herbal preparations, such as eucalyptus and chamomile can also be used, or any plant with medicinal properties in the volatile compounds of its leaves.

source: http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=3316

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Smokeless cannabis delivery device found efficient and less toxic

A smokeless cannabis-vaporizing device delivers the same level of active therapeutic chemical and produces the same biological effect as smoking cannabis, but without the harmful toxins, according to UCSF researchers.

Results of a UCSF study, which focuses on delivery of the active ingredient delta-9-tertrahydrocannibinol, or THC, are reported in the online issue of the journal “Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.”

“We showed in a recent paper in the journal ‘Neurology’ that smoked cannabis can alleviate the chronic pain caused by HIV-related neuropathy, but a concern was expressed that smoking cannabis was not safe. This study demonstrates an alternative method that gives patients the same effects and allows controlled dosing but without inhalation of the toxic products in smoke,” said study lead author Donald I. Abrams, MD, UCSF professor of clinical medicine.

The research team looked at the effectiveness of a device that heats cannabis to a temperature between 180 and 200 degrees C, just short of combustion, which occurs at 230 degrees C. Eighteen individuals were enrolled as inpatients for six days under supervision in the General Clinical Research Center at San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center.

Under the study protocol, the participants received on different days three different strengths of cannabis by two delivery methods—smoking or vaporization—three times a day. Plasma concentrations of THC were measured along with the exhaled levels of carbon monoxide, or CO. A toxic gas, CO served as a marker for the many other combustion-generated toxins inhaled when smoking. The plasma concentrations of THC were comparable at all strengths of cannabis between smoking and vaporization. Smoking increased CO levels as expected, but there was little or no increase in CO levels after inhaling from the vaporizer, according to Abrams.

“Using CO as an indicator, there was virtually no exposure to harmful combustion products using the vaporizing device. Since it replicates smoking’s efficiency at producing the desired THC effect using smaller amounts of the active ingredient as opposed to pill forms, this device has great potential for improving the therapeutic utility of THC,” said study co-author Neal L. Benowitz, MD, UCSF professor of medicine, psychiatry and biopharmaceutical sciences. He added that pills tend to provide patients with more THC than they need for optimal therapeutic effect and increase side effects.

Patients rated the “high” they experienced from both smoking and vaporization and there was no difference between the two methods by patient self-report of the effect, according to study findings. In addition, patients were asked which method they preferred.

“By a significant majority, patients preferred vaporization to smoking, choosing the route of delivery with the fewest side effects and greatest efficiency,” said Benowitz.

Co-authors include Cheryl A. Jay, MD, UCSF neurology; and Starley B. Shade, MPH; Hector Vizoso, RN; and Mary Ellen Kelly, MPH, UCSF Positive Health Program at San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center.

The study was funded by the University of California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.

The General Clinical Research Center at SFGH is funded by NIH. The UCSF Positive Health Program is a program of the AIDS Research Institute at UCSF. The AIDS Research Institute coordinates all of the HIV/AIDS research, treatment, and prevention activities at UCSF. Combining the best basic science, bench-to-bedside research, behavioral studies, direct care services, and policy development, the ARI at UCSF is one of the premier HIV/AIDS medical, education, and research institutions in the world.

UCSF is a leading university that advances health worldwide by conducting advanced biomedical research, educating graduate students in the life sciences and health professions, and providing complex patient care.

source: http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200705152/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Medical Cannabis Update: Smokeless Marijuana

Physicians' Perspective
Medical Cannabis Update: Smokeless Marijuana
By Dr. Rick Bayer

Oregonians passed the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA) in 1998 and will vote this fall to upgrade the OMMA. [Vote Yes on Measure 33, discussed elsewhere this issue.]

Most Americans support medical cannabis (marijuana) and agree patients should not be arrested for using marijuana under medical supervision. Nevertheless, the most criticized aspect of medical marijuana is the smoke. The question is, can patients benefit from cannabis without inhaling smoke and the cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) created when plants combust?

There are no studies showing cannabis smoking causes cancer or emphysema, but cannabis smoke contains measurable carcino-gens. We know smoking marijuana can cause irritated airways (bronchitis) with cough and chest pain. The prestigious Institute of Medicine issued a report in 1999 agreeing cannabis is medicine but expressing concern about smoke. The highest risks for long-term cannabis smoking are seen in regular users, including patients.

In the past, if one needed immediate benefit from cannabis to control vomiting, one had to smoke it. Eating cannabis or swallowing FDA-approved Marinol (synthetic THC) requires an hour to work. Smoking works almost immediately and so is attractive to those seeking immediate relief from pain, spasm, nausea, etc.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to smoking cannabis called vaporizing that avoids nearly all carcinogens but offers the rapid relief previously found only by smoking. Cannabis releases medicinal vapors above 140°C (284°F) but doesn’t release benzene and other carcinogens until it reaches 200°C (392°F) and will not combust (release smoke) until it reaches 230°C (446°F).

This means if a device gently cooks cannabis at 140° to 190°C (284° to 374°F), one can inhale the herbal medicine in the smokeless vapor without inhaling the carcinogens found in smoke.

Fortunately, smokeless cannabis inhalers are available now. If you know patients who smoke cannabis, make sure they know about vaporizers. At my website www.omma1998.org, link to the medical cannabis bibliography and look under scientific articles online for a detailed discussion of vaporization and vaporizers.

Why don’t all patients use them? The primary obstacle is cost, with the best vaporizer being over $500. Hopefully, as medical cannabis becomes more accepted, relaxation of paraphernalia laws will combine with product demand to make vaporizers affordable.

Another obstacle is some persons do not tolerate inhaling any medicine. Even asthma inhalers irritate our airways, taste bad, and take practice to use correctly. The vapors from standard medical cannabis are almost entirely botanical/natural THC, which does not cause cancer or emphysema but can irritate airways.

One way to minimize risk of irritation to airways is to ingest cannabis by mouth to control predictable symptoms and inhale vaporized cannabis to control unpredictable symptoms. This would include “breakthrough pain” or pain that occurs in spite of the regular dosing of oral pain medicine. This type of protocol would be consistent with modern pain treatment standards.

Like other dried powdered herbal medicines, one can easily make capsules from cannabis after heating 10 or more minutes at about 100° C or 212° F. The mild heating activates raw cannabis by removing a carbon dioxide molecule. But if one uses too much heat, the medicinal components vaporize. Heat activation occurs during the process of vaporizing, smoking, or cooking cannabis, but for capsules, it’s useful to activate the cannabis before ingestion to make it more potent and digestible.

Even on an empty stomach, oral cannabis takes an hour to work but lasts 4 to 6 hours. The cost of cannabis capsules for most OMMA patients is pennies compared to synthetic pharmaceutical THC (Marinol) that can cost more than $20/pill and is without biologically active compounds naturally found in botanical can-nabis. One can only hope the ability to grow one’s own medicine will increase access to medicine for Oregonians as the Oregon Health Plan shrinks and drug costs continue to skyrocket.

Treatment of pain or other symptoms in any patient routinely requires adjustments or titration of dose. Cannabis offers an advantage because no lethal overdose exists, which makes it safer than standard pain treatment medicine offered by the pharmaceutical industry. Cannabis represents a legitimate alternative in many treatment situations. If risks of smoking are removed, the risk of cannabis is the same as THC described at www.marinol.com

With harm reduction technology like vaporization, economy of growing one’s own medicine, and no lethal overdose from cannabis; patients and doctors have another tool to ease human suffering.

Rick Bayer, MD is board-certified in internal medicine and a fellow in the American College of Physicians. His is co-author of Is Marijuana the Right Medicine For You? A Factual Guide to Medical Uses of Marijuana.

source: http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/31/bayer.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~