Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Bongs filter out ash.

And in doing so, it condenses the volume of each hit

---

can you explain that.

Quote:

---

still beLIEve said:

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Bongs filter out ash.

And in doing so, it condenses the volume of each hit

---

can you explain that.

---

Quote:

---

NobodyImportant said:
Its funny you posted that because I was just reading the same article

Why would taking 4 or 5 hits worth of THC in one lung full be any worse than taking it in 4 or 5 hits ?

Just gets you high faster

and I really dont know about this studies credibility

they used shitty weed (2.3% average THC content)

They used weird ass pipes, I saw the pictures from this study a while ago, Not one real enthusiast glass on glass bong with proper diffusers and several chambers.

Also they said some of the THC is absorbed into the water, THC is an oil and is not soluble in water, if there was an even semi significant amount of THC in the water it would float to the top and you would have a thin film of THC on your water (which I havent noticed before except when cleaning with 70% iso, then you can see the resin that you clean off your pipe break down in the alcohol and seperate from the water.


I agree with you that you are taking in much more at once through a bong but I dont believe that is a significant factor, if anything one big hit should be healthier than 5 little hits no matter what you smoke through/

BUT one of the things about bongs that I really like about bongs is that the smoke is evenly distributed in the chamber before it enters your lungs, thats not directly related to the water but the water helps as the bubbling helps spread it out and mix it up

---

Quote:

---

Why would taking 4 or 5 hits worth of THC in one lung full be any worse than taking it in 4 or 5 hits ?

---

You're taking 4 or 5 hits worth of SMOKE per unit of THC. So you're still taking in as much THC as you would with one hit, but you're also inhaling 4 or 5 hits-worth of smoke and, subsequently, tar; this is for each bong toke.

That's terrible for your lungs.

Quote:

---

NobodyImportant said:
so your saying that one hit of a bong with .5g of nug somehow makes 5x more smoke and tar but the same amount of THC as hitting .5g through a bowl ???

And thanks for contributing to my bong thread, I care about everybodys opinion and I am pondering your theories right now

I was gonna leave that as a comment and rate you 5 but I guess I rated you already

---

It doesn't matter the total mass of cannabis being smoked. The percentage of THC stays the same throughout the nug. But through a filtered apparatus, such as the bong, you condense the smoke in the total volume of each bong toke to the point where it's density is much like a cloud rather than a smoky breath.



I don't know. I feel like I'm explaining this really badly. I'm really fucking ripped off this Jack Herer right now.






I'm gone.

Quote:

---

The rationale behind the use of a bong is the claim that the cooling effect of the water helps to reduce the chance of burning the mouth, airways, and lungs, thus many claim that using a bong to smoke is safer. The water can trap some heavier particles and water-soluble molecules, preventing them from entering the smoker's airways.[6] Thus the mechanics of a bong function similarly to those of a laboratory gas washing bottle. This "filtration" can lead to the belief that bongs are less damaging than other smoking methods.

However, a 2000 NORML-MAPS study found that "water pipes filter out more psychoactive THC than they do other tars, thereby requiring users to smoke more to reach their desired effect".[7] In the study, smoke from cannabis supplied by the NIDA was drawn through a number of smoking devices and analyzed. An inhalation machine, adjusted to mimic the puff length of cannabis smokers, drew smoke through a standard bong, a small portable bong with a folding stem, a bong with a motorized paddle that thoroughly mixes the smoke with the water, and two different types of vaporizers. Comparisons to traditional non-filtered smoking methods were not included in these experiments.

MAPS[8] also reviewed a study that examined the effects and composition of water-filtered and non-filtered cannabis and tobacco smoke. It found that when alveolar macrophages were exposed to unfiltered smoke, their ability to fight bacteria was reduced, unlike exposure to water-filtered smoke. It also found substantial epidemiological evidence of a lower incidence of carcinoma among tobacco smokers who used water-pipes, as opposed to cigarettes, cigars, and regular pipes. "It appears that water filtration can be effective in removing components from cannabis smoke that are known toxicants... The effectiveness of toxicant removal is related to the smoke's water contact area.

Specially designed water pipes, incorporating particulate filters and gas-dispersion frits, would likely be most effective in this regard; the gas-dispersion frit serves to break up the smoke into very fine bubbles, thereby increasing its water-contact area."[8] This study suggests that a bong's smoke is less harmful than unfiltered smoke.

---

Quote:

---

NobodyImportant said:
and im not trying to say that the study is complete BS, I just believe they got too shitty of weed, used weird pipes, and that when studying an illegal drug is difficult to do in todays society

In particular the water pipes they used would have been the equivalent of me putting a bic pen in the side of a 2 liter coke bottle, no proper diffusion technology

a good bong can probably filter the water 10x better than a single downstem bubbling straight up

See this pic, each of those downstems filters the smoke differently and each produces a different hit

---

Quote:

---

Magash said:
ISO hash is not covered under prop 215 and isn't covered under medical guidelines cause of the butane use to make it. Many clubs don't know this and stock it.

---

ISO hash is made with ISOpropyl alcohol not butane, hence the name ISO hash.

most people refer to the "hash" or "oil" made with butane as BHO or butane honey oil (some call it butane hash oil).

there are different names and slang but ISO is definitely not made with butane.

just a small correction. love your grows by the way.

Quote:

---

In summary, it appears that water filtration can be effective in removing components from marijuana smoke that are known toxicants, while allowing the THC to pass through relatively intact. The effectiveness of toxicant removal is related to the smoke's water contact area. Specially designed water pipes, incorporating particulate filters and gas dispersion frits would likely be most effective in this regard; the gas dispersion frit serves to break up the smoke into very fine bubbles, thereby increasing its water contact area. While individuals vary greatly in their smoking technique, state of health, dosing regimen, and so on, it seems that many patients could benefit from the use of water pipes to deliver THC. This would allow patients to titrate their dose easily while reducing the health hazard associated with smoke.

---

Quote:

---

usg543 said:
yeahhh... funny part is, the way i came across that was actually because i read a news story about a medicinal marijuana patient who developed a hole in his/her lung from chronic marijuana usage. it was on the shroomery newsfeed years ago. the news article specifically stated that although marijuana smoke has no link to cancer, that it could cause "holes" in the lungs and did so in that patient. it said if the patient had only used a water-filtered device, that no "hole" would have developed. i've been trying to find this news story for years, but can't find it again.

now that's just ONE case, and it probably wasn't researched heavily, but i feel better about putting my smoke through water.

---

Quote:

---

Effects of water filtration on marijuana smoke: a literature review

Nicholas V. Cozzi, Ph.D.

A drug derived from marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), formulated in sesame oil and encapsulated in soft gelatin capsules (Marinol(R); Roxane), is currently available as a prescription drug for the treatment of two diseases or conditions. It is indicated for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, and for the AIDS wasting syndrome. The marijuana plant in smokeable form is available to ten patients in the United States for disorders such as glaucoma, spasticity, and the wasting syndrome. Each of these drug delivery systems, oral capsules and smokeable plant, has advantages and disadvantages, and each may be appropriate in particular circumstances. However, a drug delivery system that combines the rapid and reliable onset and ability to easily titrate an ingested dose (such as occurs by smoking marijuana cigarettes) with the least health risk (such as occurs by oral ingestion of capsules) would also be desirable. The use of water-filtered marijuana smoke, as produced by a water pipe, is one little-explored alternative. This article reviews some of the scientific work that has been done regarding the effects of water filtration on the composition and effects of marijuana and tobacco smoke.

While most of the research on water filtration has focused on tobacco smoke, the work with marijuana smoke has revealed that, except for their respective psychoactive components (nicotine and cannabinoids), both smokes share many common constituents and physical properties. Many of the results obtained from studies of tobacco smoke are applicable to marijuana smoke.

In the late 1970's, a group based at the University of Athens Medical School (Greece) conducted a series of chemical and pharmacological studies on marijuana and tobacco smoke.1-4 These scientists tested smoke that had been filtered through a water pipe and also tested the water itself, which contained both soluble and insoluble compounds. Chemical analysis revealed many different compounds in the smoke and in the water, as expected from the combustion of plant materials. The water did trap some THC, as well as other psychoactive compounds, however, most of the THC present in the marijuana passed through the water pipe unchanged. Pharmacological tests (in mice) revealed that some of the water-trapped marijuana compounds were responsible for producing catatonia and for suppressing spontaneous motor activity. In contrast, the water-filtered smoke itself did not affect spontaneous motor activity and did not induce catatonia, though it was richer in THC. These results indicate that water filtration removes some behaviorally active compounds in preference to others; this may be important when comparing the therapeutic effects of whole marijuana smoke to water-filtered smoke.

Research has shown that water filtration reduces both the amount of particulate matter and the number and quantity of toxic substances in the smoke that passes through it. In a 1963 study by Hoffman et al.,5 the water pipe was found to retain 90% of the phenol and 50% of the particulate matter and benzo-a-pyrene of the original tobacco smoke. In another study,6 tobacco smoke components that were passed through a water pipe showed only a minor hyperplasic reaction and no sebaceous gland destruction when they were painted onto mouse skin. (The application of substances to mouse skin to assess carcinogenic potential is a classic toxicological test; the induction of abnormal cell proliferation [hyperplasia] is a red flag.) In contrast, tobacco smoke condensate that was not water-filtered induced strong hyperplasia and complete sebaceous gland destruction when applied to mouse skin in the same concentration. Salem and Sami,7 also using the mouse skin test, showed that there was a significant reduction of carcinogenic potential in water-filtered smoke compared to the water remaining in the pipe i.e., the water-trapped material was more carcinogenic than the smoke that passed through it. Indeed, when analyzed by thin layer chromatography, two carcinogenic agents were identified in the water itself, while only one was identified in the water filtered smoke. Therefore, water filtration removes at least two known carcinogens that would normally be found in the smoke.

Recently, Dr. Gary Huber at the University of Texas and colleagues from Harvard's School of Public Health conducted a cellular toxicity study of marijuana and tobacco smoke.8 This research group showed that passing marijuana or tobacco smoke through water, or even exposing the smoke to a wetted surface of about 48 square inches, effectively removed substances (acrolein and acetaldehyde) which are toxic to alveolar macrophages. Alveolar macrophages are one of the major defense cells of the lung and are an important component of the immune system. When the macrophages were exposed to smoke that was not water filtered, there was a marked impairment of their capacity to kill bacteria. When the smoke was water-filtered, however, there was no reduction in the bactericidal ability of the macrophages, suggesting that marijuana smoke that has been passed through sufficient water will have less impact on the immune system than marijuana smoke that has not been water-filtered. This intriguing finding would be of particular importance when treating patients with the AIDS wasting syndrome.

The laboratory results discussed above parallel what is known from studying human tobacco-smoking populations. Thus, there is substantial epidemiological evidence that among tobacco smokers, those who smoke through a water pipe have a much lower incidence of carcinoma than those who smoke cigarettes or smoke a "regular" pipe or cigars.6,7,9,10

In summary, it appears that water filtration can be effective in removing components from marijuana smoke that are known toxicants, while allowing the THC to pass through relatively intact. The effectiveness of toxicant removal is related to the smoke's water contact area. Specially designed water pipes, incorporating particulate filters and gas dispersion frits would likely be most effective in this regard; the gas dispersion frit serves to break up the smoke into very fine bubbles, thereby increasing its water contact area. While individuals vary greatly in their smoking technique, state of health, dosing regimen, and so on, it seems that many patients could benefit from the use of water pipes to deliver THC. This would allow patients to titrate their dose easily while reducing the health hazard associated with smoke.

REFERENCES
1) Spronck, H.J.W.; Salemink, C.A.; Alikaridis,F.; Papadakis,D. Pyrolysis of cannabinoids: a model experiment in the study of cannabis smoking. Bulletin on Narcotics, 30, 55-59 (1978)

2) Alikaridis,Ph.; Michael,C.M.; Papadakis,D.P.; Kephalas, T.A.; Kiburis,J. Scientific Research on Cannabis. No. 55. Chemical aspects of cannabis smoke produced through water pipes. United Nations Secretariat ST/SOA/SER.S/55, GE. 77-7339, 1-9 (17 June 1977)

3) Savaki,H.E.; Cunha,J.; Carlini,E.A.; Kephalas, T.A. Pharmacological activity of three fractions obtained by smoking cannabis through a water pipe. Bulletin on Narcotics, 28, 49-56 (1976)

4) Lazaratou,H.; Moschovakis,A.; Armagandis,A.; Kapsambelis, V.; Kiburis,J.; Kephalas, T.A. The pharmacological effect of fractions obtained by smoking cannabis through a water pipe. II. A second fractionation step. Experientia, 36, 1407-1408 (1980)

5) Hoffman, D.; Rathkamp, G.; Wynder, E.L. Comparison of the yields of several selected components in the smoke from different tobacco products. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 31, 627-635 (1963)

6) Salem, E.S. Studies on special smoking patterns in Egypt. 5th World Conference on Smoking and Health, Winnipeg, Canada. July 10-15, 1983. Eds: Bola, P; Wright, F.E.

7) Salem, E.S.; Sami, A. Studies on pulmonary manifestations of goza smokers. Chest, 65, 599 (1974)

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

9) Lubin,J.H.; Li, J.-Y.; Xuan, X.-Z.; Cai,S.K.; Luo, Q.-S.; Yang, L.-F.; Wang, J.-Z.; Yang,L.; Blot, W.J. Risk of lung cancer among cigarette and pipe smokers in Southern China. International Journal of Cancer, 51, 390-395 (1992)

10) Srivastava, Y.C. Oral Leukoplakia. International Surgery, 58, 614-618 (1973)


Acknowledgement:
This study was supported by a grant from MAPS
2105 Robinson Avenue
Sarasota FL 34232
email: st.maps@cybernetics.net (Sylvia Thyssen, Network Coordinator)

Copyright © 1995 by Nicholas V. Cozzi, Ph.D. This document may be freely copied and distributed, subject to the following limitations: 1) This document must be copied in its entirety, without modifications; 2) This document may NOT be copied for commercial purposes.

---

Quote:

---

usg543 said:
i'm not gonna rule one out because of some dumbass study.

---

Quote:

---

FurrowedBrow said:
i wasn't referring to you.

Quote:

---

usg543 said:
i'm not gonna rule one out because of some dumbass study.

---

---