Marijuana.com

Redline

http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html

i suggest everyone read this. i really don't know where to start.

-it suggestest that water filters out THC and other psychoactive chemicals.

-suggests that joints are the most efficient means of smoking (due to THC transfer)

i was under the impression (and still am) that THC was non-polor and therefore couldn't dissolve into water (polor), this is what gives me the hardest time on this report. so what gives? any comment? thought?

p.s. educated comments only please, (unless a qualitative fact or finding) refrain from: dumb responses... thank you *this message has been writen to help keep the topic ON TOPIC, i mean no ill-will towards anyone, all educated responses welcomed*

__________________
i smoke like the exhaust on a doge viper henessey -styles P.

-=EVERYONE NEEDS TO GO TO THE METHODS OF USE FORUMS AND SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE.=-

tobacco kills

 

hauptmann

Even though thc is not water soluable,that does not mean the water cannot act as a filter. Some particulate matter ends up in the water where otherwise it would be in your lungs. Thus robbing your lungs of whatever thc and other cannabanoids that were in that matter.

Yes it does decrease particulate matter thus decreasing the thc content. However,bongs and other water pipes are made to cool the smoke and make it easier on the lungs, thus increasing the amount of smoke taken in one hit. And I find that bongs are the most efficient way of getting stoned. Try and take a bong hit off your joint!().

Anyways this information has been presented earlier and is accessable through the almighty Erowid.org. Where I presume you may have gotten the link?

__________________
Marijuana.com Community Posting Guidelines

CheebaMonkey

Nothing is completely insoluble in water. However, so very little could dissolve in it that for our purposes it can be considered insoluble.

The solubility of THC in water is about 1-2 µg (Source). So it's extremely insoluble in water.

One idea why is that THC is quite sticky and may get stuck to other smoke particles which can get filtered out, and thus so does the THC.

I still wouldn't say that bongs aren't healthy. Did you read this part?You can read Nicholas Cozzi's article here.

He writes:Since tobacco and cannabis smoke are quite similar, it would make sense that since smoking tobacco out of a water pipe reduces the risk of cancer, the same could be applied to cannabis.

And please Redline don't write stuff out like you did in your last sentence. There is no definitive answer as to why the bongs did what they did. Also, people can voice out their opinions if they wish to.

__________________

Redline

i wanted this thread to stay as technicaly accurate as possible. just a factual thread, there is no harm in that. also, i just asked the poeple not to put opinions in this thread. keeping it factual and bias free. i asked nicely...

i got to thinking about the THC particals themselves, so do they have a static charge on them or are they neutral? i can see how the accual particles themselves can get "stuck" to the water if so. this would also explain why it would stick to the many surfaces of the apparatus. i.e. a bong as alot more surface area than a regular joint does.

ALSO, what about amount burned? we all know that poeple who smoke from bongs smoke until all the matter is completely used up (turns white) whereas joints do not. it burns till blackend then is discarded. so i would deduce that per mass the bong would get more chemicals than the joint. causing an increased amount of chemicals to register with the test. can anyone discard/validate this?

hauptmann

People don't pack the same amount of weed into a bong as they do in a joint.

Also keep in mind when your smoking a joint your also inhaling all that burned paper.

 

CheebaMonkey

Yes, but like I said, there is no definitive answer as to what explains the bongs behavior. So even though THC may be sticky, it isn't completely proven that because of that, it explains why bongs were less efficient. It's an opinion to what explains the bong's behavior, and will remain an opinion until it's proven as a fact.

Scientists come up with opinions, and they call them a hypothesis. If people write out their opinions about the topic, you may get an idea of where to start looking for info. If you say don't post you opinion in here, you're only going to make it harder to find the answers.

Redline

after the experiment is done and the results are in, it stops being opinion and becomes fact. lay off that. i want to get a good technical discussion going here and all your doing is whining about opinions. your first post was awsome, keep it coming. maybe one of us can shed some light or get us thinking criticly about what hasn't been considerd. so please just let the thread be and keep it ON TOPIC. i want facts, proven facts. i think your confusing qualitative facts with opinion. inwhich case i will revise my first post, to reslove the issue.

i want to try and figure out these reults and apply them to our lifestyle.

hauptmann: the trials conducted were with the same amount of cannabis in each. in order to keep the controls the same and variables to a minimum. this wasn't just a bunch of people messing around.

CheebaMonkey

after the experiment is done and the results are in, it stops being opinion and becomes fact. lay off that.

No, not at all. For a theory to be accepted as fact, multiple studies have to come to the same conclusion. If a study finds in favor of the theory, support for it increases. When enough studies have been done to support the claim, it becomes accepted as a fact. Or, better yet, it has to be replicable.

all your doing is whining about opinions.

Again, no. I'm trying to show you that opinions are useful. It's how scientists go about in doing their research. They form an opinion (or an educated guess), and test it out. Sometimes some opinions can be aided by facts such as THC is sticky. Other times it's a wild guess that doesn't have any facts to back it up.

i want facts, proven facts.

And you're not going to find any that clearly explain what happened with the bongs because no studies have been done examining why did the bongs perform poorly. Hence, why they can only be at best considered theories, educated guesses, or opinions.

You're missing the point that opinions are useful, because they can guide you in a direction to look for info. For example, IMO I think this because of that. You write out whatever you want to about the bongs.

Everyone here at CheapTalk has the privilege of posting what they want about the topic as long as it's a beneficial post. It's bad that I had to derail this thread like this, but it was necessary.

teufelfisch

This topic has been discussed before.

According to the study you linked, joints allow more THC to enter your lungs compared to the amount of tar. The key thing here is the other substances in smoke. You get everything in your lungs, not just the tar and THC.

Everything Cheeba said is accurate. Hell, anything Cheeba says is accurate. Bongs filter out a little THC, but they also filter out particulate matter and polar substances like acetaldehyde (see Red's post on health value of seeds). It makes sense they don't filter out more tar, because tar is composed of a bunch of nonpolar substances. If it's more important to you that you get every microgram of THC, smoke a joint. If you're more concerned about the other stuff you may be inhaling, smoke a bong.

Of course, a lot of this is my informed opinion, which, I gather, you don't want. This is coming from my knowledge of chemistry and good old common sense.

This was just one study, done by MAPS and NORML. NORML can't even keep the information on their website accurate. Also, they only used 5g of weed, and didn't test for anything other than tar and THC. Lots of room for error, if you ask me.

__________________
Posting Guidelines~Search~The Medical Garden~Drug Testing Info

CheebaMonkey

Huber, G. L., First, M. W., & Grubner, O. (1991). Marijuana and tobacco smoke gas-phase cytotoxins. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 40(3), 629-636.

On page 633 they write:

Thus a physiologically wetted surface, comparable to only 5 percent or less of the human airway or less than 0.05% of the gas-exchanging surface of the entire lung was capable of complete detoxification of highly water-soluble gas-phase cytotoxins, including acrolein and acetaldehyde.

It was actually 93-100 % for acrolein and 64-72 % for acetaldehyde. But I figure if you exposed it to enough water, you could filter out practically all of the acetaldehyde.

They also write on the same page (and cite their source):

Stale marijuana or tobacco smoke, held for several seconds prior to its introduction into the in vitro bioassay, rapidly loses all of its cytotoxic properties.

You can read the abstract of that study here.