In Bible-believing born-again Christian homes it is considered improper to discuss the best method to smoke pot, or so I have been told. In such circles one will find no discussion, for example, of the relative merits of brass pipes over glass bongs. I imagine homes that have Holy Bibles prominently placed somewhere special in the living room would be void of pot-use discussions as would homes wherein Jerry Falwell is being mourned. Since I view the Holy Bible as a collection of folk tales originally passed down by nomadic herdsmen and grossly misinterpreted by uneducated shamans and since for me Jerry Falwell is no more to be missed than Saddam Hussein, it should be clear that I have no prohibitions about discussing the best ways to puff pot.
UCSF (University of California at San Francisco) has joined the discussion in a very major way. The university recently completed a study on the effectiveness of vaporizers in smoking marijuana. The result: A smokeless cannabis-vaporizing device (vaporizer) delivers the same level of active therapeutic chemical and produces the same biological effect as smoking cannabis, but without the harmful toxins, according to UCSF researchers.
Results of a UCSF study, which focuses on delivery of the active ingredient delta-9-tertrahydrocannibinol, or THC, are reported in the online issue of the journal Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
“We showed in a recent paper in the journal ‘Neurology’ that smoked cannabis can alleviate the chronic pain caused by HIV-related neuropathy, but a concern was expressed that smoking cannabis was not safe. This study demonstrates an alternative method that gives patients the same effects and allows controlled dosing but without inhalation of the toxic products in smoke,” said study lead author Donald I. Abrams, MD, UCSF professor of clinical medicine.
The research team looked at the effectiveness of a device that heats cannabis to a temperature between 180 and 200 degrees C, just short of combustion, which occurs at 230 degrees C. Eighteen individuals were enrolled as inpatients for six days under supervision in the General Clinical Research Center at San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center.
Under the study protocol, the participants received on different days three different strengths of cannabis by two delivery methods—smoking or vaporization—three times a day. Plasma concentrations of THC were measured along with the exhaled levels of carbon monoxide, or CO. A toxic gas, CO served as a marker for the many other combustion-generated toxins inhaled when smoking. The plasma concentrations of THC were comparable at all strengths of cannabis between smoking and vaporization. Smoking increased CO levels as expected, but there was little or no increase in CO levels after inhaling from the vaporizer, according to Abrams.
“Using CO as an indicator, there was virtually no exposure to harmful combustion products using the vaporizing device. Since it replicates smoking’s efficiency at producing the desired THC effect using smaller amounts of the active ingredient as opposed to pill forms, this device has great potential for improving the therapeutic utility of THC,” said study co-author Neal L. Benowitz, MD, UCSF professor of medicine, psychiatry and biopharmaceutical sciences. He added that pills tend to provide patients with more THC than they need for optimal therapeutic effect and increase side effects.
Patients rated the “high” they experienced from both smoking and vaporization and there was no difference between the two methods by patient self-report of the effect, according to study findings. In addition, patients were asked which method they preferred.
“By a significant majority, patients preferred vaporization to smoking, choosing the route of delivery with the fewest side effects and greatest efficiency,” said Benowitz.
Co-authors include Cheryl A. Jay, MD, UCSF neurology; and Starley B. Shade, MPH; Hector Vizoso, RN; and Mary Ellen Kelly, MPH, UCSF Positive Health Program at San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center.
The study was funded by the University of California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.
The General Clinical Research Center at SFGH is funded by NIH. The UCSF Positive Health Program is a program of the AIDS Research Institute at UCSF. The AIDS Research Institute coordinates all of the HIV/AIDS research, treatment, and prevention activities at UCSF. Combining the best basic science, bench-to-bedside research, behavioral studies, direct care services, and policy development, the ARI at UCSF is one of the premier HIV/AIDS medical, education, and research institutions in the world - and it's right here in San Francisco.
Jeff Sheehy, UCSF News Office
4 comments:
Dear Mr Sheehy and Dunn,
I have just read the article titled UCSF Says Vaporizers Best For Smoking Pot found at:
http://samspadesf.blogspot.com/2007/05/ucsf-says-vaporizers-best-for-smoking.html
I think the intent of the article is noteworthy. I found the information to be quite useful. I do have constructive criticism nonetheless. I sense that the purpose of the article is to make people aware of the benefits of Marijuana so that laws will be changed and more people can benefit from its many amazing uses.
I think that attacking Christians immediately before trying to share this great research is the wrong way to go about effecting positive change. You can believe what you want, and your transparency is honorable. I will concede that there are a lot of ignorant, Christians who do not know the King James Bible which they claim to believe. I think it is plausible if not likely that these Christians viewed Pot as something that would keep people from learning about the love of Christ, and ignored all of its beneficial uses.
However, be it what it may....should this be true....the goal is to enlighten these poor ignorant people. If they are enlightened then they can make changes that will benefit everyone in the world.
How should you go about this? When sharing information, if it is your intent to benefit society..never ever belittle, or castigate a large powerful segment of society. Instead try to persuade them using love and facts, so that they will be more apt to recieve it. If they are turned off immediately, they will not accept the solutions, no matter how great they may be. So by attacking these people before trying to teach them, you are actually making the problem worse. Instead you should try to recruit these people to your team. How best then to read, understand, and use the Bible by which they claim to believe so strongly in.
Look here is a quick example that I pulled from the King James Version of the bible www.biblegateway.com
Ezekiel 47:12
"...and the leaf thereof for medicine."
You want to reach a larger audience? then use the New International Version:
Ezekiel 47:12
2 Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail. Every month they will bear, because the water from the sanctuary flows to them. Their fruit will serve for food and their leaves for healing."
You probably know as well as I that our brains have receptors called Canibinoid Receptors that only receive a signal when Marijuana is Smoked. To a christian this means that God designed us to smoke Marijuana, and he designed specifically Marijuana for our use.
The Rastafarians know this all too well I'm sure.
Look you are probably pissed off at the Christians for destroying our environment too.
well here is a good verse in the bible to teach those poor bastards that its their duty to keep the Earth beautiful, so that we can eat and be healthy. In fact it wouldn't be loving to your neighbor to destroy the planet.
1. Genesis 2:15
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
I hope this helps you.... you have a gift to reach a lot of people and enlighten them, I pray that you will be more careful in how you effect change in this world. If you have any questions about anything or ever want to meet up, just send me an email, I just moved here to SF.
Sincerely,
Aaron Crane
Mr. Crane:
Thank you for the post and welcome to San Francisco! Concerning your comments about Bible translations and transliterations, I appreciate the time you took to point out the differences, but I personally do not consider myself to be subject to the Judeo-Christian Bible. The Bible is, to me, no more or less of value than the Muslim Koran, the Taoist writings of Lao-Tsu, the teachings of the historical Buddha, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Upanishads or any other collection of religious commentary. From my point of view, the medicinal value of marijuana is not subject to anybody's religious doctrine. It is subject only to medical science.
if you like smoking try this: http://www.water-bongs-glass-pipes.com/
That's fine that you don't personally adhere to the teachings of the Bible, but I think the point Mr Crane was trying to make is regardless of what you believe, do not senselessly attack someone else's beliefs before making an argument for medical marijuana. It doesn't make sense. It's like someone talking about the benefits of being a blood donor, but needlessly attacking homosexuals before they make their point. Why alienate an entire group of people before you even make your point, when your point really has nothing to do what that group of people believe. I believe marijuana can be a good thing. I also believe the Bible. I also believe that you are a biggot and a moron.
Post a Comment