Question related to digital whip-style vaporizer

[crAZjoeherbizzle86]

I have a whip vaporizer and I was wondering, do you think the vapor produced would still be basically free of the harmful substances produced by combustion irregardless of where the cannabis buds were bought (i.e., bought just from any random person who sells or deals it? This may include material that was not grown organically, and I'm wondering if that would effect how health-conscious of a "vape" it would be. As I'm aware, I'm almost positive that all non-organic plants are not treated with any sort of pesticide for at least the last few weaks before harvest in order to ensure a residue-free result. I'm hoping the amount of any foreign, unnnatural substance (other than the natural pure cannabinoids) would be negligible and undetectable in the vapor produced. Thanks for any input.

[crAZjoeherbizzle86]

Basically, I think what I am trying to get at is, if you vaporize some weed off the street (at least if it's APPEARING to be "kind bud," unadulterated & from a seemingly trustworthy supplier), is it likely to not put any harsh contaminants into your lungs? I know it is sometimes treated with chemicals during various stages, but the whole purpose of a vaporizer is to eliminate the burning of harmful chemicals produced by combustion anyway, you know?

Growing would be nice someday, ensuring a nice pure organic crop like a lot of you guys apparently do, or medical organic, etc.

Thanks a lot,
Joe

[BigManNew]

Vaporizing gives you THC in vapor form, and does not supply you with the harmful parts (cant think of a better word atm lol for parts or supply or found) that are found when smoking Marijuana.

[Ehleohehle]

Vaporizing gives you THC in vapor form, and does not supply you with the harmful parts (cant think of a better word atm lol for parts or supply or found) that are found when smoking Marijuana.

Carcinogens :D

[f0urtwenty]

i think you have referenced two different things. the first was whether or not the grower could have added anything that would be unhealthy. the second would be the method of intake.

you don't really know what you're getting unless you grow it yourself; unfortunately. you don't know if the grower kept an NPS in the room the whole time. Or if they sprayed with insecticides close to cropping it. there was also a problem in europe with glass or something added to the buds after they were dry sifted. or...who knows what else?

vaporizers are healthier than water pipes and joints because the contain a higher cannabinoid : tar ratio. however they still contain tar. tar is rich in carcinogenic compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are a prime culprit in smoking-related cancers. However, cannabinoids themselves are not carcinogenic.

according to the Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, Volume 6, Number 3, Revised Feb 2000 by Dale Gieringer, Ph.D. of California NORML, it comes out to about:

unfiltered joints = 1 part cannabinoids to 13 parts tar
water pipe =~ 1 part cannabinoids to 17 parts tar
vaporizer =~ 1 part cannabinoids to 9.75 parts tar

what i found interesting in this study was that the unfiltered joint had a higher cannabinoid:tar ratio than the water pipe.

the snippets I used to calculate the numbers above are:



Surprisingly, the unfiltered joint outperformed all devices except the vaporizers, with a ratio of about 1 part cannabinoids to 13 parts tar.
The least bad waterpipe, the bong, produced 30% more tar per cannabinoids than the unfiltered joint.
The electric hotplate vaporizer did best, with a performance ratio about 25% higher than the unfiltered joint.

[Hydrophilic]

i think you have referenced two different things. the first was whether or not the grower could have added anything that would be unhealthy. the second would be the method of intake.

you don't really know what you're getting unless you grow it yourself; unfortunately. you don't know if the grower kept an NPS in the room the whole time. Or if they sprayed with insecticides close to cropping it. there was also a problem in europe with glass or something added to the buds after they were dry sifted. or...who knows what else?

vaporizers are healthier than water pipes and joints because the contain a higher cannabinoid : tar ratio. however they still contain tar. tar is rich in carcinogenic compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are a prime culprit in smoking-related cancers. However, cannabinoids themselves are not carcinogenic.

according to the Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, Volume 6, Number 3, Revised Feb 2000 by Dale Gieringer, Ph.D. of California NORML, it comes out to about:

unfiltered joints = 1 part cannabinoids to 13 parts tar
water pipe =~ 1 part cannabinoids to 17 parts tar
vaporizer =~ 1 part cannabinoids to 9.75 parts tar

what i found interesting in this study was that the unfiltered joint had a higher cannabinoid:tar ratio than the water pipe.

the snippets I used to calculate the numbers above are:

Got a link to this article or a reason that a bong has more tar than a j? It just doesn't seem feasible.

[crAZjoeherbizzle86]

Wow, are you sure a vaporizer might have that much tar? I mean, I've seen some websites quoting that they are, you know, nearly if not about 100% pure, 85%+ pure, etc, which sounds very nice. Additionally, the vaporizer in the study might have been by far one of the less effective varieties. I have found mine to turn the buds to a light brown, and eventually darker brown, color when used properly, never black or gray so long as nothing catches fire. By used properly I refer to roughly 345-375 degrees F, with 350s and low 360s being sweet spot, and of course starting at the lowest temperature and working up. I've also read that 446 is the combustion point of marijuana, but a vaporizer can combust at lower temperatures if the heat moves way too slowly through the hose/bowl. Good point on maybie not necessarily knowing what you're getting unless you grow it yourself though.

[themasochist]

I heard those same stats from Radical Russ on the Norml daily stash a while ago. Blew my mind abou the joint too.

[dontstepongrass]

that info sounds suspect...

[crAZjoeherbizzle86]

I was thinking the SAME thing. If you look at http://marijuanavaporizer.com/benefits.html, it says that one can get 95% pure active ingredients from the vapors, and that they're 95% smoke and carcinogen-free. All carcinogens and toxins are found in the tar, not the active ingredients.

[ShatterWulf]

Does anyone have any info on exactly what kind of water pipe they used? I mean, you would be getting a lot more tar in a grommet non-diffused bong than in a Toro or an SG.

[YukonBikerGuy]

Also, I noticed that the quoted article snippet mentions a 'hotplate' vaporizer..... one of the very first and oldest styles of very ineffecient vaporization.....

I know my Herborizer is much more effective and enjoyable than one of those old clunkers.

YBG

[crAZjoeherbizzle86]

Absolutely. That sounds familiar, that old model wouldn't compare to today's more advanced models. I have a digital whip-style vaporizer got off ebay, and I've never noticed any significant impact on my respiratory tract, period. It's great.

ShatterWulf, to avoid (and I'm not comparing different waterpipes, not sure about that) tar maximally, a vaporizer must be used to heat the material hot enough to release vapors, with no combustion occuring as tar is a by-product of combustion. If you're not preferring to invest in a more expensive kind, in my opinion the digital whip-style vaporizers provide just about everything you could want out of the vaporizing experience. They're usually not more than about $30 to $45 on ebay, so it's well worth the money.

[f0urtwenty]

yah the study is old and if you were to pick through it i'm sure one could find a lot of inconsistencies. i think they used product with less than 2% cannabinoids. the study used three types of bongs, one of them had a fucking battery operated fan IN THE WATER, to create additional diffusion. so the study wasn't perfect but it is one of the studies cited often when you hear that 'vaporizers are healthier than X'.

http://www.maps.org/mmj/vaporizer.html

i believe i grabbed the numbers i posted above from the study done in 1996.