water pipes, was Re: MAPS: THC and copper

[Russell Edwards <redwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Although, really, anyone who smokes without using a water-pipe is "asking
> for it."
> 
> 1.  The active principles in pot smoke are _not_ water soluble.
> 2.  Running the smoke through three separate water chambers will show that
> the first one "soils" (turns turbid and stinks, and becomes alkaline) very
> quickly, the second "soils" more slowly but at  moderate pace, and the third
> stays (relatively) sweet a long time.
> 3. The cytotoxic principles in pot retain this toxic quality for 3-4
> seconds.

  Hello MAPS and Bob,

  I think the jury is still out on this one ; a study
(http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html/) has found,
paradoxically, that the tar:THC ratio of marijuana smoke was better
from an unfiltered joint than from a bong or even vapourizer. The
conclusion was that water did absorb some tar and some THC and that it
was better at absorbing THC than tar. Since most smokers titrate their
dose by how they feel, which is related to how much THC (and other
cannabinoids) they hence end up getting more tar from a bong. I would
think the issues that nead addressing are a) what is the experimental
uncertainty of these measurements? b) Is the THC absorbed by water or
does it stick to the inside surfaces of bongs and pipes? c) What are the
results when done with real pot rather than NIDA garbage? d) How is
the content of other harmful compounds in the smoke affected by
method of dosage?

Bob, would you mind explaining what cytotoxic means?

Cheers

Russell

------------------
MAPS-Forum@xxxxxxxx, a member service of the Multidisciplinary Association
for Psychedelic Studies (to become a member, see www.maps.org/memsub.html).
To [un]subscribe, email the message text,
[un]subscribe maps-forum youraddress to majordomo@xxxxxxxx