Marajuana is bad for youuuuu

[Neale Hoerle]

The problem for me is that the vaporizer costs £400 here, for a decent one anyway. Im pretty sure that puts off a lot of people.

True true... One thing you guys can check into (And perhaps it should be a new thread) are the LOWER cost ceramic/flame vapes. I personally have never used one but I've always been curious. If you dont know what I'm talking about they look like a torpedo or basic one-hitter and cost around $70USD. A flame is utilized (VS hot air) but the marijuana is never ignited, its protected by a ceramic disk that is heated and vaps the THC wth zero flame contact...

Coments? Experience?

[Jason Hyatt]

As a respiratory therapist, I only have a few comments [start snickering now...]:

1) Absolutely. Burning ANYTHING and inhaling the smoke does harm to the lungs. To my knowledge, there have been no studies comparing the use of a vaporizer to other methods of inhalation or ingestion (but I'm a little skittish about using the very powerful search tools at the hospital. I'd rather not have to explain in somebody's office why I was looking up papers on marijuana on work time.). That said, the use of a vaporizer seems to be at least theoretically MUCH better. Burning something not only vaporizes some of the the THC but creates an aerosol of smoke particles. A vaporizer (at least a good one) should only produce molecular gas. The particles are the problems, not the THC.

2) There have been some well-performed studies that do seem to show a negative effect on cognition and short-term memory for long-term, chronic users. The big problem with every study I've ever read is that -- because of the federal scheduling of marijuana -- it is very difficult to get ANY study approved. It's very hard to show a treatment effect or composite effects when your sample size is severely limited. At best, you can show individual effects. Just look at the studies required to get a drug past the FDA to market. It takes years of rigorous work with enormous sample sizes to demonstrate safety and efficacy and we STILL find drugs after-the-fact that shouldn't have gone to market. Compare that to a study of marijuana with 30 people in it and you can see why it's so hard to get anywhere with the research at the professional level.

3) Agreed that documentaries -- while useful -- are not peer-reviewed research. I think what they do provide is a different perspective from which to begin a search for more information.

My biggest complaint with people citing studies (not just on marijuana but even just at my normal job) is often they cannot tell you anything about the actual research -- what was the authors' hypothesis? What methods were used? Do the methods described actually test the hypothesis? What were the conclusions the authors drew and do the methods and results actually support that conclusion or are the authors taking some license? What were the stated and/or implied limitations of the study? Do the mathematics test what the authors state? What other statistical test could be used to check the results? Not many people have the academic wherewithal to critique original research. People who can't tell you difference between an hypothesis and a theory or what a chi-square test means and tests feel fully qualified to judge the merits of a professionally peer-reviewed journal article. At best, they read the authors' conclusion (or worse, what someone else wrote about the study in some news article) and take what like and ignore what they either don't like or don't understand. Outside of work I have met damn few people who can really read and critique a scientific paper.

Marijuana is far safer than alcohol or tobacco and any argument that applies to keeping marijuana illegal also applies to either or both of those. As was pointed out, it is impossible to ingest enough THC to overdose -- you can kill yourself the first time you drink. Any marijuana smoker who smoked the equivalent of a pack-a-day of cigarrettes would be baked out of their mind 24/7 and likely be non-functional for the vast majority of their day. It's pretty hard to maintain the kind of smoking habit in marijuana that leads to smoking-related illness from tobacco (typically, we start really expecting to see smoking-related illness at about 20 pack-years. Pack-years are the number of packs-per-day times the number of years smoked; pack a day for 20 years, half a pack for 40 years, etc... 20 pack-years of marijuana is a shit-ton of weed.).

If alcohol is legal; if tobacco is legal; if vicodin is legal; if prozac is legal; if valium is legal then there is no reasonable argument for keeping marijuana illegal.

[Jason Hyatt]

Shit. I did it again. One of these days I'm gonna write a post that's less than a page...

[Jon Watkins]

anxiety reactions to marijuana are quite common. sometimes, this can lead to depersonalization and derealization. these two symptoms of panic disorder can last months at a time. as well, it can lead to issues of anxiety disorder during withdrawals. marijuana is not all fun.

yes, i am a professional board certified therapist (masters level). i have seen this in my office as recent as last week. it is not all that common, but it still occurs. please dont act like putting a chemical into your brain will have zero effects. our brain is a consistency slightly harder than jello. it is extremely sensitive, even to marijuana.

btw, documentaries are not quality information, no matter how much you want them to be. they are not peer reviewed and they are made to entertain.

as much as you wish you could get a college level education from discovery channel, you cant

Dude, I guess you're a brown belt and you must have graduated college or something, but why are you talking down to people (deny it all you want, but I think that's what you are doing)? Is that how you like to be treated? You know....peer reviewed scholarly journals print retractions and get things wrong like everything else. And it's also filled with boxed in thinking. Excuse me if I prefer to be entertained by the discovery channel or PBS, but college isn't teaching me anything about Tesla or anything interesting. It's all textbook bullshit! Boring!! Fucked up!! These subjects they're teaching are boundlessly interesting until they bind and limit it into this retarded focus that's supposed to somehow give me a decent paying job...maybe...if I'm lucky. One of these days I'm going to smash this machine with my suggestive skills and maybe then people will forget snobbery and dismissive behavior...or not. Whatever...maybe I'm being a little dismissive myself. I hate getting sucked in like this. So I'm going to stop now and respect your opinion. It is grounded in some logic after all. Have a nice day.

[Josh Passini]

As a respiratory therapist, I only have a few comments [start snickering now...]:

1) Absolutely. Burning ANYTHING and inhaling the smoke does harm to the lungs. To my knowledge, there have been no studies comparing the use of a vaporizer to other methods of inhalation or ingestion (but I'm a little skittish about using the very powerful search tools at the hospital. I'd rather not have to explain in somebody's office why I was looking up papers on marijuana on work time.). That said, the use of a vaporizer seems to be at least theoretically MUCH better. Burning something not only vaporizes some of the the THC but creates an aerosol of smoke particles. A vaporizer (at least a good one) should only produce molecular gas. The particles are the problems, not the THC.

2) There have been some well-performed studies that do seem to show a negative effect on cognition and short-term memory for long-term, chronic users. The big problem with every study I've ever read is that -- because of the federal scheduling of marijuana -- it is very difficult to get ANY study approved. It's very hard to show a treatment effect or composite effects when your sample size is severely limited. At best, you can show individual effects. Just look at the studies required to get a drug past the FDA to market. It takes years of rigorous work with enormous sample sizes to demonstrate safety and efficacy and we STILL find drugs after-the-fact that shouldn't have gone to market. Compare that to a study of marijuana with 30 people in it and you can see why it's so hard to get anywhere with the research at the professional level.

3) Agreed that documentaries -- while useful -- are not peer-reviewed research. I think what they do provide is a different perspective from which to begin a search for more information.

My biggest complaint with people citing studies (not just on marijuana but even just at my normal job) is often they cannot tell you anything about the actual research -- what was the authors' hypothesis? What methods were used? Do the methods described actually test the hypothesis? What were the conclusions the authors drew and do the methods and results actually support that conclusion or are the authors taking some license? What were the stated and/or implied limitations of the study? Do the mathematics test what the authors state? What other statistical test could be used to check the results? Not many people have the academic wherewithal to critique original research. People who can't tell you difference between an hypothesis and a theory or what a chi-square test means and tests feel fully qualified to judge the merits of a professionally peer-reviewed journal article. At best, they read the authors' conclusion (or worse, what someone else wrote about the study in some news article) and take what like and ignore what they either don't like or don't understand. Outside of work I have met damn few people who can really read and critique a scientific paper.

Marijuana is far safer than alcohol or tobacco and any argument that applies to keeping marijuana illegal also applies to either or both of those. As was pointed out, it is impossible to ingest enough THC to overdose -- you can kill yourself the first time you drink. Any marijuana smoker who smoked the equivalent of a pack-a-day of cigarrettes would be baked out of their mind 24/7 and likely be non-functional for the vast majority of their day. It's pretty hard to maintain the kind of smoking habit in marijuana that leads to smoking-related illness from tobacco (typically, we start really expecting to see smoking-related illness at about 20 pack-years. Pack-years are the number of packs-per-day times the number of years smoked; pack a day for 20 years, half a pack for 40 years, etc... 20 pack-years of marijuana is a shit-ton of weed.).

If alcohol is legal; if tobacco is legal; if vicodin is legal; if prozac is legal; if valium is legal then there is no reasonable argument for keeping marijuana illegal.

Got damn. Good Shit though

[Bill Keeling]

^ Tesla is the man! Talk about someone that was at least a century before his time!!! BTW THC shouldn't be classified as a chemical or a drug... It is produced by the human body, so it can be elevated or decreased, but not eliminated...

[Brandon Jeffries]

Problem Solved...
http://www.vapenow.com/VaporGenie-Po...FYnd4Aod2DNV0Q

I got mine and it works perfect. Vape for only 50 bucks!

[Harry Evans]

1) Vapes don't create smoke, so the argument that inhaling any type of smoke is bad does not cover them. Smoke is created by the combustion (Burning) of carbon in plant material, which occurs at a much higher temperature than vapes. What happens is that the heat explodes the trichomes (essentially crystals full of THC) releasing them into the air in a vapor-like form.
2) Check out heat guns. The heating element is exactly the same as a volcano, and they stand up on end the same way generally. They are like $40-$75, unless you want a digital control system, which is about twice that. Then all you have to do is buy a volcano kit to put on top of it.

[Jay Chow]

Fantastic post Jason,

[Neale Hoerle]

Problem Solved...
http://www.vapenow.com/VaporGenie-Po...FYnd4Aod2DNV0Q

I got mine and it works perfect. Vape for only 50 bucks!

Brandon, then my question is did you have to fuck around with flame distance, duration or intensity. They just seemed so inconsistent to me... Hold the flame longer/shorter??? Ugh! I also was afraid of half-ass buring off my THC and not getting full reps if ya know what I mean. Easy sailing? I trust your assesment...