Jump to content
The Corroboree
Torsten

Urgently need help in regards to bong research

Recommended Posts

A group trying to delay or scuttle the victorian bong legislation is asking for help in regards to bong research that could either be used by them [or could be used in arguments against them]. I know there is a bit around, but have no time to look, so hoping some folks here can help. I know some of it has actually been posted here, but I am sure more dedicated stoners might remember where. This is for official submission so needs to be good quality published research. Opinions [whether published or your own] are of no use here and you will only make it harder to get the right information to the right people if you pollute this thread.

This is very urgent.

Looking for:

Research in benefits of bong smoke vs joint smoke, ie the smoke temperature and the water filtering action. Maybe in relation to soot amounts or quantity of smoke inhaled vs efficiency of effect.

Conversely also need any research that might show bong smoking to be more addictive or damaging in other ways.

Research or industry reports about hose pieces contaminating PET recycling. In NSW the plastic industry was a very vocal supporter of the bong discretionary powers [bongs are illegal in NSW] as it would eliminate the contamination problem of orchy bottles with hoses in them. Apparently one hose can contaminate several tons of recycled plastics if the hose gets into the shredder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Torsten, i have a german study about health risks of waterpipes. Unfortunately written in german. Its probably very contra-bong but it might contain some info that can be used both ways too. Heres the link: http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/343/gesundheits_und_suchtgefahren_durch_Wasserpfeifen.pdf

Edited by Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

awesome. keep it coming please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought i was interesting to someone for a nanosecond there.

Unfortunately no scientific or cited studies to hand over however. Everything I know is anecdotal and I would assume anyone would know it.

Interesting line of questioning none the less.... may well keep track of this!

Bong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey Torsten, a friend of mine who is a mental health case worker recently put one of his clients onto a "harm minimization" plan which involved using a Pyrex bong instead of joints and bottle bongs. If i can get this with the particulars/names/organizations edited out would this help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does this help?

the different vapor points really interest me.

http://www.omma1998.org/McPartland-Russo-JCANT%201%283-4%29-2001.pdf

this is a good diagram

there's more here ........but i just cunt think where right now.

...this is from another joint-

http://www.totse.info/bbs/showthread.php/1320-Marijuana-Vaporization-Study

kudos to all the original researchers/posters/stoners for all the above info

like i said, i'm just conduit

-hug your mind-

post-4664-0-70028400-1315300243_thumb.pn

LjPu7.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately no scientific or cited studies to hand over however. Everything I know is anecdotal and I would assume anyone would know it.

 

yeah, everyone knows that bongs are safer. well, except that all the scientific evidence indicates otherwise it seems [including from 'friendly scientists']. That's why the request is for scientific papers only.

There's some good stuff here, but sadly mostly arguments that support the criminalisation of bongs which the other side will likely already have. Anything that's in support of bongs? [the lung macrophage study has been noted as pro-bong, thanks]

tipz, your last post directly contradicts the previous papers in that it claims 40% of THC to reach the mouth if a bong is used, while only 20-37% when a joint is used. Anyone got any ideas as to why the discrepancy in statements? are there experimental assumptions that need to be looked at?

ethereal, I can find anything relevant to this topic in your links. can you point me to the bits that apply to the question please in case I missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the main case for the continued availability of bongs is pretty simple: they're not just for cannabis. i use my bong for all sorts of legal plant material, and know of people who use it for tobacco (though i have no idea how they stomach it). of course, knowing our government, any use of this defense will simply get all the legal plants banned as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, everyone knows that bongs are safer. well, except that all the scientific evidence indicates otherwise it seems [including from 'friendly scientists']. That's why the request is for scientific papers only.

There's some good stuff here, but sadly mostly arguments that support the criminalisation of bongs which the other side will likely already have. Anything that's in support of bongs? [the lung macrophage study has been noted as pro-bong, thanks]

tipz, your last post directly contradicts the previous papers in that it claims 40% of THC to reach the mouth if a bong is used, while only 20-37% when a joint is used. Anyone got any ideas as to why the discrepancy in statements? are there experimental assumptions that need to be looked at?

ethereal, I can find anything relevant to this topic in your links. can you point me to the bits that apply to the question please in case I missed it.

 

:blush: Ooops, no you didn't miss anything , my links are irrelevant to this discussion(more pertinent for vaporizers) -my intended upload was the MAPS article but Tipz already posted that Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study.my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MUltrasonic Humidifier — A metal diaphragm vibrating at an ultrasonic frequency creates water droplets that silently exit the humidifier in the form of a cool fog. Ultrasonic humidifiers use a piezo-electric transducer to create a high frequency mechanical oscillation in a body of water. The water tries to follow the high frequency oscillation but cannot because of its comparative weight and mass inertia. Thus, a momentary vacuum is created on the negative oscillation, causing the water to cavitate into vapor. The transducer follows this with a positive oscillation that creates high pressure compression waves on the water’s surface, releasing tiny vapor molecules of water into the air. This is an extremely fine mist, about one micrometre in diameter, that is quickly absorbed into the air flow. Unlike the humidifiers that boil water, these water droplets contain any impurities that are in the reservoir, including minerals from hard water (which then forms a difficult to remove white dust on nearby objects and furniture), and pathogens growing in the stagnant tank. Ultrasonic Humidifiers should be cleaned regularly to avoid bacterial contamination which may be projected into the air.

The ultasound transducer can vaporize a chemical with or without water.

Screw bong victorian bong legislation only for victorians who thought they were the middle class 200 years ago.

After wwi the middle class still didn't figure they were just producing a army.

After ww2 they started to figure it out maybe.

They can always drink their little tea packets and get their horrible teeth fixed and say hurry for the Queen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pro-bong shizzle? don't even know if this is accurate, but:

Consumption methods and techniques

The potential long-term harmful consequences of cannabis use are strongly related

with the consumption method, that is respiratory risks associated with smoking the drug

without, or simultaneously with, tobacco. A UK House of Lords Cannabis Report (1998)

proposed the following hierarchy of risk:

Smoking a cannabis and tobacco joint is the most risky way of using the drug because the tars

and toxins (plus the cigarette paper) is inhaled. Smoking a cannabis only joint enables the user

to avoid inhaling tobacco. If cannabis is smoked in a pipe, no papers are burnt and inhaled

and a proportion of tars and toxins may remain in the pipe. Water pipes or bongs may have

advantages since the smoke will be inhaled at a cooler temperature and some tars may

remain suspended in the water. Vaporisers are designed to heat cannabis to a point where the

THC will be released without the plant combusting. Finally, the respiratory risks of cannabis

smoking would be completely eliminated if users adopted oral methods of use.

from:

EMCDDA monographs

A cannabis reader: global issues and

local experiences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL so i take it that every single submission that gets tendered needs to be assessed thoroughly, thereby delaying proceedings? :P

**********************************

PRO BONG (ANTI-JOINT):

*****

Too Many Mouldy Joints – Marijuana and Chronic Pulmonary Aspergillosis

Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2011; 3(1): e2011005.

Yousef Gargani,1 Paul Bishop,2 and David W. Denning1

AbstractChronic pulmonary aspergillosis is a progressive debilitating disease with multiple underlying pulmonary diseases described. Here we report the association of chronic pulmonary aspergillosis and long term marijuana smoking in 2 patients and review the literature related to invasive and allergic aspergillosis.

Gargani et al (2011).pdf

******************

ANTI-BONG:

Bong Lung: Regular\ Smokers of Cannabis Show Relatively Distinctive Histologic Changes That Predispose to Pneumothorax

gill (2005).pdf

*****

bullectomy for "bong lung"

in an 18 year-old male presenting

with spontaneous pneumothorax

(aussie case-report -- oh, won't somebody think of the children!)

allen(2010).pdf

*********************

Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 2003

Letters to the Editor

Bongs, a Method of Using Cannabis Linked to Dependence

Dear Editor:

Bongs are a type of water pipe popular among adolescents using cannabis because they allow for stronger effects than joints from the same amount of cannabis and because they are easy to buy or make. This study assessed the link between bong use and cannabis dependence in adolescents.

Participants were 390 students (221 boys, 169 girls; mean age 17.1 years, SD 1.1; range 15 to 20 years). They were drawn from a random sample of 14 classes from 3 secondary and grammar schools in the departments of Haute-Garonne and Pyrénées-Orientales, France. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing the frequency and preferred method of cannabis use. We assessed cannabis dependence according to DSM-IV criteria (1), using a self-report questionnaire derived from the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) (2). This questionnaire comprised 7 items corresponding to DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence. Participants received a diagnosis of cannabis dependence if they met 3 or more of the 7 DSM-IV criteria. The questionnaire validity had been assessed in a preliminary study (n = 23 adolescents). In the preliminary study, the questionnaire was followed after 8 to 15 days by a clinical interview that employed the MINI module for assessing substance dependence. Agreement between the questionnaire and the interview for the diagnosis of cannabis dependence was evaluated with Cohen's kappa coefficient, which was judged satisfactory at 0.79. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of this questionnaire was 0.76.

Of the 390 participants, 55% were cannabis users (n = 214); of the girls, 43.8% were cannabis users; of the boys, 63% were cannabis users. Reported frequency of use was as follows: 41% used cannabis less than once monthly but at least once in the last 3 months, 17.9% used cannabis 2 to 3 times monthly, 26.8% used cannabis once or more than once weekly, and 14.3% used cannabis once or more than once daily. The preferred methods of use were joint (49.5%), bong (33.5%), ingestion (8.5%), and pipe (4.5%).

Of users, 43.7% met the criteria for cannabis dependence. There were no significant differences between boys and girls for the frequencies of cannabis use, for the preferred method of use, or for dependence. The rate of cannabis dependence among bong users was significantly higher than among joint users (54.4% vs 25%, P = 0.0002).

The link between bong use and cannabis dependence may reflect the fact that bong use contributes to dependence and (or) that dependence leads to using stronger methods, such as bongs.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington (DC): American Psychiatric Association; 1994.

2. Lecrubier Y, Sheehan DV, Weiler E, Amorim P, Bonora I, Harnett Sheehan K, and others. The Mini Neuropsychiatric International Interview (MINI), a short diagnostic structured interview: reliability and validity according to the CIDI. Eur Psychiatry 1997;12:224–31.

Henri Chabrol, MD, PhD

Charlotte Roura, MA

Jennifer Armitage, MA

Toulouse, France

****************

Milroy, C. M. and Parai, J. L. (2011), The histopathology of drugs of abuse. Histopathology. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03728.x

Many drugs are inhaled as the method of administration and pathological changes occur as a consequence. Cannabis is smoked most commonly, frequently with tobacco.60–64 Both contain similar constituents, and pathological changes are similar. However, as cannabis joints are typically loosely packed and unfiltered, hotter smoke is inhaled and damage may occur with less frequent use. Cannabis smokers also inhale more deeply and retain the smoke four times longer. This can result in pneumomediastinum, pneumopericardium and pneumothorax, usually non-fatal. Bullous disease can also be seen in cannabis users. The histopathological features seen on biopsy include goblet cell hyperplasia, reserve cell hyperplasia, squamous metaplasia, nuclear atypia, basement membrane thickening and subepithelial inflammation. A desquamative interstitial pneumonitis (DIP) pattern is associated with cannabis smoking.65 Brown pigmented macrophages are seen in the alveolar spaces (Figure 11) and appear to be more prominent than in tobacco smoking.66

Gargani et al (2011).pdf

gill (2005).pdf

allen(2010).pdf

Edited by faustus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry about the conflicting results on those scientific papers torsten.

My understanding is that each strain would behave differently( i.e a hash plant would have much 'stickier smoke than one with less trichomes ) but thats just an opinion.

I just googled what you were looking for and placed them here for you to read as you said you did not have the time to do so. I thought a bit of confliction in results may help, allowing you to pick and choose which studies to use as ammunition. Even though the laws in SA have allready been bought in its still possible to go buy a 'water pourer' from local shops.

Anyways, best of luck in the battle !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tipz, wasn't complaining. Just hoping for more background. happy to pick and choose the science in this case ;) [just like the other side does]

thedoodabides - yes please.

faustus - you've got the right idea B)

All of this info has been passed on, so thank you very much. we cna keep this thread going as ther eis still time for more and anyway, I am sure it will come in handy in the future as there is always some moron government somewhere that wants to go back a few decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torsten a sentence in your first post is actually really funny,...>> I know some of it has actually been posted here, but I am sure more dedicated stoners might remember where <<<

dedicated stoners & remembering? hehehehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't get my head around the thinking behind banning bongs.

What next - ban saucepans, butter and olive oil?

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dedicated stoners & remembering? hehehehe

 

yes, I know. Had to laugh when I wrote it. kinda funny no one else picked up on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't get my head around the thinking behind banning bongs.

What next - ban saucepans, butter and olive oil?

 

actually, you're right, Olive oil is next. The TGA is considering scheduling all 'substances intended to have a substantially similar pharmacological effect to tetrahydrocannabinols'. Olive oil contains NAPE which has a cannabinomimetic effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually, you're right, Olive oil is next.

:BANGHEAD2:

The TGA is one bureaucracy that needs a good reorganising. Too busy chasing smoke (so to speak) when there are pharmaceuticals that could warrant much more speedy assessment.

It's an indication of how conservative our governments have been over the last decade and a half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be nice to see some actual diligence in the assessment of the pharmaceuticals that are being assessed rather than just a rubber stamp for the big end of town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im finding it hard to pitch in torsten because no matter where i look vaporizers keep popping up over powering the bong in terms of safety and health issues lol

i have spent over a hour sniffing through google trying to find something based on scientific reseach , again the vaps keep popping up.

while im at it i gota ask.... when they ban the bongs here VIC state will the vaps be banned too ?

i think your real source is going to be from the (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) NORML

i think the main argument here is water filtration , since thats the only difference to a bong and a pipe.

is it safe to assume the tar levels due to water filteration is far less then a normal tobacco smoke ?

then the argument would be a bong hit would have less tar going to your lungs then cigarettes.

are they going to ban smokes as well ? lol

then one has to argue.. well what about the smokers pipe ? been used for thousands of years , can be purchased at any tobacco store , again whats the difference ? nothing except you have a filtration system thats effective by means of natures finest product...water.

Edited by 7baz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

baz, vaps don't seem to be affected by the new vic laws. The rest of your questions are already covered in the many excellent references people have posted here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×