Weed slows down tumor growth

[Osama bin Bambi]

I think that marijuana does have chemicals in it that have positive health benefits, but I also think it's pretty much common fucking sense that inhaling smoke is not a good idea.

[Shano]

I am not sure whose comments are targeted at me. But I will respond to those I perceive as such.

0. Shane, I do not seek anyone's sympathy; yours the least. I do not smoke pot. I also did not see anyone claiming that lungs like smoke...
1. Injection as a form of delivery is inferior to inhalation as a form of delivery to the lungs.
2. Inhalation can be done through smoking the burning plant or in terms of delivering THC in nebulized form.
3. The THC should be delivered in a therapeutics dose to the lungs.
4. THC has psychoactive effect regardless of form of delivery, however it may be possible that the effect is removed while keeping the original therapeutic effect in the derivative.



I) I don't think 1 can be argued against. But what I think is not necessarily correct so I am interested to hear arguments in the contrary.
II) Because of 1, 2 and 3 it follows that an inhalation is the better way to deliver THC to the lungs while keeping the psychoactive effect minimized.
III) If 4 is achieved an injection method would be viable. That of course matters only if the derivative has no new dose dependent side effects.

In a previous comment I did mention that the first line of thought will be to create a derivative that is therapeutic but not psychoactive (and this may be very hard to do). While the psychoactive effect is present I do not see what the point of arguing inhalation vs injection vs eating is. All of those will have psychoactive effects. The people who want to use marijuana recreationally do not really care about the method of delivery (at least in my knowledge). And they would not mind THC inhalators either, I think.

In the end the cost vs risk vs benefit evaluation will be the important one. If the derivative that is not psychoactive is too expensive... well I am sure most patients will prefer regular THC as it is rather cheap. I think THC inhalators should be easy and cheap to prepare though, thus removing the risks coming from smoke itself.

Rime, I don't get your point. Both deliveries are liked by recreational users. Both have the psychoactive effect. Smoke or oil doesn't matter to them. But it matters to the lung cancer patients as explained above - better of course if in inhalation form.

[Shane for Wax]

I think that marijuana does have chemicals in it that have positive health benefits, but I also think it's pretty much common fucking sense that inhaling smoke is not a good idea.

Common sense isn't so common these days.

[Shano]

I think that marijuana does have chemicals in it that have positive health benefits, but I also think it's pretty much common fucking sense that inhaling smoke is not a good idea.

Common sense isn't so common these days.

More than 300 plant species in 5 continents are used in smoke form for different diseases. As a method of drug administration, smoking is important as it is a simple, inexpensive, but very effective method of extracting particles containing active agents. More importantly, generating smoke reduces the particle size to a microscopic scale thereby increasing the absorption of its active chemical principles. However, the hazards of inhaling a particulate are unacceptable to some people.[13] (From wikipedia).

[largeham]

I think that marijuana does have chemicals in it that have positive health benefits, but I also think it's pretty much common fucking sense that inhaling smoke is not a good idea.

Yep, even inhaling smoke from a fire can give you cancer.

As an excuse, I don't need or want an excuse. If this is true, it is a nice added bonus.

[m52nickerson]

1. Injection as a form of delivery is inferior to inhalation as a form of delivery to the lungs.

I) I don't think 1 can be argued against. But what I think is not necessarily correct so I am interested to hear arguments in the contrary.

Yes it can.  It all depends on what part of the lungs you are trying to deliver to and what you are trying to deliver.  Not all drugs are going to pass through the lining of the lung that effectively.  Plus not all drugs are going to effectively carried by water vapor.

[Shano]

1. Injection as a form of delivery is inferior to inhalation as a form of delivery to the lungs.

I) I don't think 1 can be argued against. But what I think is not necessarily correct so I am interested to hear arguments in the contrary.

Yes it can.  It all depends on what part of the lungs you are trying to deliver to and what you are trying to deliver.  Not all drugs are going to pass through the lining of the lung that effectively.  Plus not all drugs are going to effectively carried by water vapor.

I see the point you are making, though with very limited scope. As you mention it's a question of effectiveness. For the concentration coming from inhalation to be lower than the one coming from the blood for a given overall dose you will need quite low permeability through the lung lining. But I can see the possibility that some molecule is not deliverable via inhalation. Point taken.

Water vapor is not the only way an inhalator can work and as I mentioned in the reply to Shane, smoke is particulate matter and doesn't need water vapor (it is also the case that THC is a lipophilic molecule and binds to fats very well).

A point in favor of blood delivery is that there is a limit of the rate of delivery achievable by smoking or inhalation. You can't constantly smoke for example

[m52nickerson]

Which is why I discounted smoke as a delivery system.  Smoke may work for one time, or short term treatments, but any more and it does more harm than good.

[Osama bin Bambi]

There are lots of medicines that are derived from certain chemicals in plants. The main active ingredient in asprin, for instance, can be found in willow bark (IIRC). Still, wrapping willow bark around your head is not as effective at curing headaches as taking the synthesized version of the active substance. I have no doubt that marijuana has chemicals that have positive health benefits. But those chemicals should ideally be synthesized and taken in another, safer form so that people can still reap those benefits without suffering the drawbacks of inhaling smoke.

[Shano]

Which is why I discounted smoke as a delivery system.  Smoke may work for one time, or short term treatments, but any more and it does more harm than good.

I am not certain that you can discount it just like that . In particular discounting it without addressing the concentration issue at all is quite curious. It is a question of risk vs benefits vs costs. Yet you are just saying: smoke is bad, end of story. I find this very unscientific. I have resigned myself to not commenting in most other subsections of forum since I find the same disregard of the scientific method there. But at least here in science and technology I wish people adhered to it.
This applies to Wikked Wytch's comment as well.

[Osama bin Bambi]

You... you really need to know why inhaling smoke is bad for you?

I guess next time I'm escaping from a room on fire, I'll just walk upright because I've never seen proof that breathing in a few puffs of smoke will hurt me.

Also, I direct you to the last sentence in my previous comment:

But those chemicals should ideally be synthesized and taken in another, safer form so that people can still reap those benefits without suffering the drawbacks of inhaling smoke.

This is about people who need those benefits at a rate that would cause damage to their lungs if they smoked it. Even if I only had to take the chemical once, I would rather take it some other way than smoking it.

[StallChaser]

There are lots of medicines that are derived from certain chemicals in plants. The main active ingredient in asprin, for instance, can be found in willow bark (IIRC). Still, wrapping willow bark around your head is not as effective at curing headaches as taking the synthesized version of the active substance. I have no doubt that marijuana has chemicals that have positive health benefits. But those chemicals should ideally be synthesized and taken in another, safer form so that people can still reap those benefits without suffering the drawbacks of inhaling smoke.

Cannabis tinctures were one of the most common medicines before the marihuana tax act.  A big part of how it got through in the first place was that it was called "marijuana", a Mexican slang for smokable plant material (and could mean other things like tobacco or datura).  That way, they could demonize it without people realizing it was an extremely useful medicine.  By the time doctors realized what they were doing, it was too late.  Extracts with better medicinal properties than the plant itself would most likely come back if the government wasn't so stupid about it.

[m52nickerson]

I am not certain that you can discount it just like that . In particular discounting it without addressing the concentration issue at all is quite curious. It is a question of risk vs benefits vs costs. Yet you are just saying: smoke is bad, end of story. I find this very unscientific. I have resigned myself to not commenting in most other subsections of forum since I find the same disregard of the scientific method there. But at least here in science and technology I wish people adhered to it.
This applies to Wikked Wytch's comment as well.

I'm only discounting it for most treatments.  As I said, one time or short term I could see it.  There are a wealth of studies that indicate the problems inhaling smoke causes, pot smoke included.  Unless injection, ingestion, or nebulisation are ineffective smoking the medication is the last option. 

[Shane for Wax]

Stop making me agree with Nickerson, dammit.

[m52nickerson]

Stop making me agree with Nickerson, dammit.