This article was originally published in MrFrost's new group.

Unfortunately, it didn't show up on the "Front Page" or even under "Columnists".

So I republished it here in SiNNERS and ButtHeads to make it more accessible.

Now everyone can tell me how stupid I am.

The Firefly is very nice and portable. 

I consider the Storz and Bickel Volcano to be the finest vaporizer ever made. 

I consider the Storz and Bickel Volcano to be the finest vaporizer ever made. 

Very cool.

That's an amazing device.

Does it also produce plutonium?

There was a case in Florida a day ago where a 20-year-old was on life support because his lungs could not support him because of vaping. He said that he only used store-bought vaps and no THC...If he is telling the truth there is a hell of a lot more danger than we are aware of at this point. 

Another study just came out today and the testing that was done was on bootleg vaps and they consisted of formaldehyde and that is deadly as can be. 

It also mentioned that even on the store bought vaps they can be heated to twice the accepted temp and that again causes serious problems. 

My mother always told me that I'd go blind if I didn't quit.  It was really hard but I managed to...  ahem...  pull it off while I was only severely nearsighted.  Oh wait..  vaping?

My mother always told me that I'd go blind if I didn't quit.

Do you have hairy palms?

He said that he only used store-bought vaps and no THC

Those vapes are dangerous.

The can contain almost any chemicals because they're not controlled.

The temperature of the Firefly 2 can be controlled using a smartphone.

I keep the temp on my Firefly at the lowest temperature and, of course, I don't use any "additives".

And I only need a fraction of the quantity of weed to get high as I did when I used a bong.

Burning weed destroys some of the THC.

Is vaping marijuana safer than smoking marijuana?

Yep.

Vaporization Vs. Combustion: Which Is Safer?

By Smell The Truth Staff

It’s really no question: health-conscious medical marijuana patients and casual tokers expose themselves to less carcinogens, and get more THC from vaping compared to smoking.

Whenever dried plant material is burned, it produces thousands of chemical substances in the smoke. It’s true for tobacco as well as weed. Burning breaks the chemical bonds between the carbon atoms in the large, organic molecules present in plants, creating very reactive fragments called free radicals. Free radicals can combine with each other or with other molecules to produce an amazing variety of products.

Many of these products, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), are highly toxic and are known to cause cancer. (See Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Chemistry and Carcinogenicity by Ronald G. Harvey). Significant concentrations of PAH are present in the brown tar stains observed on cigarette filters and the dark tar found in pipes used to smoke cannabis.

Some scientists believe cannabis smoke is less toxic than tobacco smoke because there is evidence that nicotine which is present in tobacco smoke, but not in cannabis smoke, increases the toxicity of PAH. Other studies have shown the cannabinoids (e.g., THC and CBD) which are present in cannabis smoke, but not in tobacco smoke, help to protect normal lung tissue cells from the effects of carcinogens like PAH.

Vaporizers use a stream of heated air to vaporize the active ingredients in cannabis without combustion. Vaporization simply converts the cannabinoids to a vapor that can be inhaled just like smoke. It has been demonstrated in a study conducted by California NORML and MAPS that vaporization of cannabis dramatically reduces formation of PAH relative to smoking cannabis.

“…vapor was remarkably clean, consisting 95% of THC with traces of cannabinol (CBN), another cannabinoid. The remaining 5% consisted of small amounts of three other components: one suspected cannabinoid relative, one suspected PAH, and caryophyllene, a fragrant oil in cannabis and other plants. In contrast over 111 different components appeared in the gas of the combusted smoke, including a half dozen known PAHs. Non-cannabinoids accounted for as much as 88% of the total gas content of the smoke.”

The authors of the study stated, “Harmful toxins in marijuana smoke can be effectively avoided by a vaporization device”. In an article in Harm Reduction Journal by Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado, the author stated, “It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated.”

Another significant advantage of vaporization relative to smoking is that cannabis smoke contains many other components that do not cause cancer but do cause lung and respiratory irritation. Vaporization eliminates many of these components by avoiding combustion. Patients self-report decreased irritation with vaping, one study shows.

It should also be kept in mind that combustion of cannabis causes destruction of the active cannabinoids leading to a significant reduction in the desired effects of cannabis. The cannabinoid molecules are broken down into free radicals just like the other molecules in the plant when it is smoked. Vaporization does not break down cannabinoids. Thus, when a given quantity of cannabis is vaporized, tests show it delivers a larger quantity of cannabinoids to the user than the same quantity of cannabis when it is smoked.

So, the bottom line is that cannabis smoke appears to be less toxic than tobacco smoke. However, many of the same cancer causing PAH compounds that are present in tobacco smoke are also present in cannabis smoke. It just makes sense to avoid them by using a vaporizer . It also makes sense to avoid destroying a significant fraction of the cannabinoids by smoking cannabis. After all, the cannabinoids are responsible for the desired effects derived from using cannabis. – S.K. Allen (BS, MS, and PhD, Chemistry)

I knew better than to tell him I believe in an "ounce of prevention" to avoid  glaucoma.

Wishing you only the best, I have to advise against lying to - or hiding things from - your doctor. It's not like he's going to turn you in to the cops. He can only give you his best advice and care if he has complete information. You never know: he might be able to give you some options you weren't aware of.

I have to advise against lying to - or hiding things from - your doctor.

Many years ago, I was honest with a doctor about my marijuana use.

Two days later a couple of county social workers (from the local department of social services) came to inspect my home and interview my children.  They came unannounced.  They said my doctor reported my "drug use".  They said if I didn't permit them to investigate they could "take my kids into custody until I vacated the dwelling."

I told them to leave my kids in the house with my wife (naturally she denied using drugs) and I would pack a bag and leave immediately.

They said I had to wait until their inspection was complete (including privately interviewing my kids).

When they came back downstairs about an hour later, they interviewed me.  I lied to them and said I never smoked in the house.  They smiled and stood up.  They said the investigation was over and they apologized for the inconvenience.  They shook hands with me and told me not to leave because they had determined that I'm a "good father" and complemented me for having such loving children.

WTF?  Wasn't that a HIPAA violation?

How awful!

Wasn't that a HIPAA violation?

Well you said "many years ago" and HIPAA only dates to the 90s; so, maybe not?

However, I think most states recognize some kind of doctor-patient privilege that prevents the state from using your communications with the doctor against you in court. That means your statements to the doctor couldn't be the basis for the government taking your kids away from you.

I suppose this could have been overridden by some mandatory reporting requirement that says drugs in the home are a threat to kids, but that seems like a stretch. Usually the exceptions are for things like gunshot wounds or contagious diseases.

In 2002, I went to the ER with a boxer's fracture.  

While I was getting casted another doctor walked in the room with a cop and a patient with a broken jaw.

The cop said "Is this the guy that hit you?"

The broken jaw guy said said "no" and they left.

WTF?  Was that legal?  A one man line up is BS.  And what about HIPAA?

Was that legal?

Yeah, probably. Neither you nor anybody else had been charged with anything at that point, so an official adversarial case didn't yet exist. You also weren't in custody. Both of those factors means your rights hadn't really kicked in yet. 

It's the same as if a victim gave a description to a cop on the street and the cop points at someone and says "that guy over there?"

And what about HIPAA?

Well, they didn't question you or your doctor about your medical issues. They just wanted to know if you hit a guy.

I had no idea those things were so complicated.  They look like little flying saucers.  On the other hand, that is probably an accurate description.

I had no idea those things were so complicated.

I guess you're talking about Dean's video.

I used a older Volcano (before they made "hybrids").  It only had the "balloon" option.  

Volcanoes look complex, butt they're fairly easy to use.

OTOH, the Firefly 2 (in the article) fits in my pocket and is easier to use.

BTW, that's a huge fucking blunt in your avatar pic (unfortunately the tobacco portion can cause you to have low birth weight babies).