How to Properly Clean Your Vape

Ever taken that new, fresh atomizer out of the box, put your favorite e-juice in and gotten a not-so-flavorful hit? Or switched out your e-juice for another flavor only to get a hit of two mingling flavors that might not taste so great?

Don’t worry. We’ve all done it. It just means that you need to clean your tank. Cleaning it is relatively simple and should be done regularly to keep your tank working well and your vapor tasting as it should.

Whether you are an expert in vaping or just a beginner, keeping your tank clean is a must and it doesn’t take a lot of time. You don’t even have to use fancy-schmancy cleaning kits, though have at it if you want. All you really need are water, alcohol, unscented dishwashing liquid, a bowl, and paper towels.

Here’s a step-by-step guide to getting that atomizer tank squeaky clean.

  1. First, whether it’s fresh from the box or your old, trusty tank, you need to take it apart. This includes removing the o-rings and the screws. This part’s important – remember where everything goes. Draw yourself a diagram if needed.
  2. Using a clean container, pour a 90% alcohol solution into it and add your tank parts. Give them a quick rinse to remove any leftover oils.
  3. Empty the alcohol container and fill it again with enough warm water to cover all the parts. Add some of that handy dish soap and mix it in the water with a spare toothbrush. Let the parts soak for as long as your tank manufacturer recommends.
  4. Soaking is done. Now, take that spare toothbrush and gently scrub all the parts. Be sure to pay careful attention to the inner parts that air will be flowing over.
  5. Rinse the parts well and lay out to dry on a paper towel or other cloth. Microfiber works well here.
  6. Atomizer, assemble! If only just saying that worked. It’s time to put all the parts back together. Either trust your memory or grab that handy diagram you made earlier. First, your o-rings might be a little difficult to insert after they are cleaned. A simple solution is to use some e-juice or vegetable grease to lube them up.
  7. Once your o-rings are properly lubed, continue with assembly until it is complete. Remember to install a fresh coil.
  8. Now that you’re fully assembled, it’s time to enjoy a flavorful hit of vape!
    Maintaining your battery/mod is also a simple process. Be careful not to drop it. Electronic mods have delicate parts that can break easily. If it has a built-in battery all you need to worry about is making sure the connectors are free of dirt and e-juice. Rubbing it with a Q-tip will go a long way to keeping it clean.


A box mod vape with removable batteries requires a little bit more maintenance. Check your cell connections every-so-often. Maybe once a week or so. Look for dirt, dust, and e-juice. Make sure the spring on the negative connection still has its spring. Make sure there are no signs of burns or corrosion.

Taking care of your vape gear ensures you will always get a tasty hit. It also ensures that your equipment will last the long run.

Happy Vaping!

Michael is a marketing and creative content specialist at with primary focus on customer satisfaction. Technology and fitness combined healthy lifestyle obsession are his main talking points

The Best Medical Marijuana Websites

We’ve scoured through the internets to find the best medical marijuana websites in the world!hot vaporizer temp girl

1) Get High – is the our favorite resource for a number of reasons.  They offer great articles on activisim, vaporizers, strains and ebibles, dispensaries, and medical marijuana.  The picture and video sections will also hold you hostage for hours.

2) High Times – is the classic stoner resource.  I remember my older friends getting this magazine, borrowing it from them, and it would feel just as naughty as a porno.  Weed porn only though.  Great news and articles written by professional writers.

3) Leafly – has a great strain database and more.  A very clean and well polished website, it is commonly referred to as the Yelp of medical marijuana.

4) Tilray – is the premier Canadian-only medical marijuana ecommerce website.  Next day delivery of top shelf strains, this is the future of selling weed.  A beautiful website, with tons of cool information in addition to the weed products.


OG kush Vaporizer Temperatures

When you have a heavy strain like OG Kush, be sure to grind the flower properly to enable proper temperature flow.  I recommend a 340-360F temperature to access the lower temp terpenes that release the flavors of the flower.  If you are looking for a thicker vaporization of the OG Kush, you can bring the temperature from 380F and all the way to your vape’s maximum temp – 400F+ (but you will suffer from popcorn taste at high temps!!)

What you need to know about vaporizers – Engadget

A decent article, relatively basic and lacking any real thought of medicinal benefits of vaporizing.  Good to see a reputable and tech friendly blog like Engadget getting into the vape scene!


Well, if you’re a smoker and tired of the aggro you get from the world around you — plus mom and dad’s special kind of grief — this gives you another avenue to get your nicotine fix. Also, the likelihood of your city/state/country already having banned tobacco use in public places is getting higher by the day, so simply finding a place to have a smoke is becoming a hassle. Next, consider the financials of smoking: yours truly was spending about $9.50 per day on smoking. Over the course of a year that shakes out to about $3,500. E-cigs are much less expensive: using various online calculators we see prices at about a third the cost per year. Prices will vary based on your habits, naturally.

If you’re a non smoker who despises smokers, there’s an added win for you, too. Consider that vaping isn’t like traditional smoking: there’s no smoke, and it really doesn’t smell bad at all. You can walk past or through a vape cloud and not smell a thing. Gone are your days as a smoker hater of having to roll your eyes and cough as you walk past smokers. Win, win, right?


The technology is really simple and consists of: a power source, some coils that heat and vaporize the juice, and an LED light at the tip to make you feel at home. Mods are a whole other thing, though, featuring massive batteries and at times hand made coils for optimum performance. In fact, there’s a subculture within the vaping community called “cloud chasers.” These folks strive to make the biggest craziest clouds of “smoke” (vapor) possible, though this isn’t without risk. Using sub-OHM resistance setups in their atomizers can push their batteries hard enough to cause them to fail. Of course, the folks involved typically know the risks and the science behind a safe setup.

The same level of customization applies to marijuana vaporizers. Not only are vapes for weed portable and really simple to use, they’ve become downright fashionable looking. Take Ploom’s Pax vaporizer as an example: it’s made of brushed metal, has a retracting mouthpiece, a lovely glowing logo on the body and three temperature settings. Unlike the e-cigs and mods, the Pax has a small oven that is packed full and then the system heats up the pot and vaporizes the cannabinoids (THC and other active ingredients — the stuff that makes you feel high). Once its logo turns green, you’re set to puff away and, when done, pop the magnetic cover on the bottom off, empty it, then drop the Pax into its changing base for the next round.

Source: Engadget

The Definitive Cannabis Extracts Study

Cannabis and Cannabis Extracts: Greater Than the Sum of Their Parts?
John M. McPartland
Ethan B. Russo
A central tenet underlying the use of botanical remedies is that herbs contain many active ingredients. Primary active ingredients may be enhanced by secondary compounds, which act in beneficial synergy. Other herbal constituents may mitigate the side effects of dominant active ingredients. We reviewed the literature concerning medical cannabis and its primary active ingredient, ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
Good evidence shows that secondary compounds in cannabis may enhance the beneficial effects of THC. Other cannabinoid and non-cannabinoid compounds in herbal cannabis or its extracts may reduce THC-induced anxiety, cholinergic deficits, and immunosuppression. Cannabis terpenoids and flavonoids may also increase cerebral blood flow, enhance cortical activity, kill respiratory pathogens, and provide anti-inflammatory activity.

Read the full study in pdf at


non-psychotropic cannabinoids - benefits of weed vaporization
non-psychotropic cannabinoids – benefits of weed vaporization

*This image is not from study linked above, but we thought it was cool and relevant.

NORML / MAPS Study Shows Vaporizers Reduce Toxins in Marijuana Smoke

From – an older but relevant study sponsored by NORML and MAPS.
California NORML Press Release – Jan 8, 2001

Medical marijuana patients may protect themselves from harmful toxins in marijuana smoke by inhaling their medicine using an electric vaporizer, according to results of a study by California NORML and MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies).

The study showed that it is possible to vaporize medically active THC by heating marijuana to a temperature short of the point of combustion, thereby eliminating or substantially reducing harmful smoke toxins that are normally present in marijuana smoke. Vaporizers may therefore substantially reduce what is widely regarded as the leading health hazard of marijuana, namely respiratory harm due to smoking.

Details of the study are published in D. Gieringer, “Cannabis Vaporization: A Promising Strategy for Smoke Harm Reduction,” Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics Vol. 1#3-4: 153-70 (2001). Reprints available for $5 from California NORML, 2261 Market St. #278A, San Francisco CA 94114.

NORML and MAPS sponsored the study in the hopes of helping medical marijuana patients and others reduce the health risks of smoking. The hazards of smoking were cited as a major obstacle to approval of natural cannabis by the Institute of Medicine in its 1999 report, “Marijuana and Medicine.” However, the IOM report failed to note the possibility of vaporization.

The NORML-MAPS study tested a device called the M1 Volatizer, an aromatherapy vaporizer
developed by Alternative Delivery Systems, Inc. It consisted of an electric heating element in a chamber that radiates heat downwards over a sample of marijuana sitting in a standard pipe or “bong” bowl. Output from the vaporizer was analyzed and compared to smoke produced by combusting the sample with a flame.

The vaporizer produced THC at a temperature of 185° C. (365° F.) while completely eliminating three measured toxins – benzene, a known carcinogen, plus toluene and naphthalene. Carbon monoxide and smoke tars were both qualitatively reduced by the vaporizer, but additional testing is needed to quantify the extent of the decrease.

Although the study was not designed to detect the highly carcinogenic tars known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are thought to be a leading culprit in smoking-related cancers, there was good reason to believe that they were suppressed, since they normally form at much higher temperatures of combustion.

When vaporized, the marijuana emitted a thin gray vapor and was left with a green to greenish-brown “toasted” appearance, whereas the combusted sample produced thick smoke and turned to ash.

Significant amounts of benzene began to appear at temperatures of 200° C. (392° F), while combustion occurred around 230° (446°F) or above. Traces of THC were in evidence as low as 140° C. (284° F).

Further details of the study will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics.

The vaporizer study was undertaken as a follow-up to a previous NORML-MAPS marijuana smoking device study, which concluded that vaporizers offered the best prospects for smoke harm reduction. The study found that neither waterpipes nor solid filters were effective at reducing exposure to smoke tars, due to the fact that they filtered out even more THC, thus forcing patients to inhale more to achieve the same effective dose. A recent Australian study also found that waterpipes failed to reduce tars or carbon monoxide (Linda Gowing et al., “Respiratory Harms of Smoked Cannabis,” Research Monograph No. 8. Adelaide: Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia, 2000).

Other methods of marijuana smoke harm reduction include oral ingestion and potential new delivery systems, such as inhalers and patches, that are still under development. Smokers may also reduce their respiratory risks by using higher-potency marijuana, allowing them to inhale less smoke to obtain a given effective dose of THC. The medical marijuana popularly used in cannabis patients’ clubs is several times more potent than that commonly provided to researchers by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, according to a potency survey by NORML and MAPS. However, the Australian study found that higher potency marijuana does not always deliver more THC, apparently because THC output is highly sensitive to variations in the burning properties of different samples.

A wide variety of vaporizers are presently available on the market. Many medical marijuana patients say they prefer vaporizers because they deliver smoother, less irritating medication. However, there have been no published scientific studies of their effectiveness heretofore.

NORML and MAPS are currently seeking support for further research and development of vaporizers. Tax-deductible donations to the vaporizer research project can be made through the NORML Foundation c/o California NORML, 2261 Market St #278A, San Francisco CA 94114 (415) 563-5858.

Study says vaporizer has potential for medical cannabis harm reduction technique

Pulmonary function in cannabis users: Support for a clinical trial of the vaporizer.

Int J Drug Policy. 2010 Nov;21(6):511-3. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2010.04.001. Epub 2010 May 6.
Pulmonary function in cannabis users: Support for a clinical trial of the vaporizer.
Van Dam NT1, Earleywine M.
Author information

Debates about cannabis policy often mention respiratory symptoms as a negative consequence of use. The cannabis vaporizer, a machine that heats the plant to release cannabinoids in a mist without smoke and other respiratory irritants, appears to have the potential to minimize respiratory complaints.

Twenty frequent cannabis users (uninterested in treatment) reporting at least two respiratory symptoms completed subjective ratings of respiratory symptoms and spirometry measures prior to and following 1 month’s use of a cannabis vaporizer in a pre/post-design. Outcome measures included self-reported severity of nine respiratory symptoms as well as spirometry measures, including the maximum amount of air exhaled in 1s (forced expiratory volume; FEV1) and maximum total lung volume (forced vital capacity; FVC).

The 12 participants who did not develop a respiratory illness during the trial significantly improved respiratory symptoms (t(11)=6.22, p=0.000065, d=3.75) and FVC, t(11)=2.90, p=0.007, d=1.75. FEV1 improved but not significantly t(11)=1.77, p=0.053, d=1.07.

These preliminary data reveal meaningful improvements in respiratory function, suggesting that a randomized clinical trial of the cannabis vaporizer is warranted. The vaporizer has potential for the administration of medical cannabis and as a harm reduction technique.

Decreased respiratory symptoms in Weed smokers who Vaporizer

This particular medical study suggests decreased respiratory symptoms in Weed smokers who Vaporizer.

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:

Received: 6 December 2006
Accepted: 16 April 2007
Published: 16 April 2007

© 2007 Earleywine and Barnwell; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cannabis smoking can create respiratory problems. Vaporizers heat cannabis to release active cannabinoids, but remain cool enough to avoid the smoke and toxins associated with combustion. Vaporized cannabis should create fewer respiratory symptoms than smoked cannabis. We examined self-reported respiratory symptoms in participants who ranged in cigarette and cannabis use. Data from a large Internet sample revealed that the use of a vaporizer predicted fewer respiratory symptoms even when age, sex, cigarette smoking, and amount of cannabis used were taken into account. Age, sex, cigarettes, and amount of cannabis also had significant effects. The number of cigarettes smoked and amount of cannabis used interacted to create worse respiratory problems. A significant interaction revealed that the impact of a vaporizer was larger as the amount of cannabis used increased. These data suggest that the safety of cannabis can increase with the use of a vaporizer. Regular users of joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes might decrease respiratory symptoms by switching to a vaporizer

Cannabis smoke contains gaseous and particulate matter with the potential to create symptoms of respiratory problems [1]. Although cannabis creates fewer problems than cigarette smoking [2], increasing its safety has the potential to improve quality of life. One step toward increasing the safety of cannabis involves the use of vaporizers. Vaporizers heat cannabis to temperatures that release cannabinoids in a fine mist without creating the toxins associated with combustion [3,4]. Although vaporizers are not common knowledge in popular culture, a recent photograph of one appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine [5], and information about the machine is becoming more available. A vaporizer has the potential to increase the safety of cannabis use, but data from human users appear only rarely [4].

The potential for cannabis-induced lung problems is particularly important in light of frequent concurrent tobacco smoking. Cannabis use may prove especially detrimental in the production of respiratory symptoms in cigarette smokers. For example, one study revealed increased respiratory symptoms in cannabis dependent 21-year-olds, but particularly in those who also smoked cigarettes. Cannabis dependence in the absence of cigarette use led to symptoms comparable to smoking 1–10 cigarettes per day, but quickly escalated when cannabis and tobacco were combined [6].

We sought to identify the impact of vaporizers on respiratory symptoms. In an effort to target frequent cannabis users, three organizations committed to reforming drug laws were asked to send a query to their mailing lists for participation in a survey. Participants responded to an email request and had a chance to win a cash prize. Approximately 9,000 people replied, but we focused on those who had used cannabis at least once in the previous month. (More details of the data collection appear in a paper addressing other aspects of this sample [7].) In an effort to minimize the impact of other sources of respiratory symptoms, only those respondents who did not have cystic fibrosis or asthma and had never inhaled other drugs (inhalants, heroin, methamphetamine, or crack cocaine) were included. Those who reported that their primary method of administration of cannabis was oral ingestion were also omitted, because eating the plant should have no smoke-inhalation-induced respiratory effects.

The 6,883 people who qualified included 4,493 men (65.3%) and 2,390 women. Ages ranged from 18 to 88 (Mean = 31.3, SD = 12.4). Education ranged from some high school to advanced degrees, with a median of some college but not a degree. Median income was $20,000 to $40,000 per year. Respondents were primarily Caucasian (87%) but included African Americans (1%), Native Americans (3%), Asians (3%) Latinos (4%), and people of mixed race (2%). Participants reported that their first cannabis use was at a mean age of 16.7 (SD = 4.2).
Respiratory symptoms

Participants reported respiratory symptoms by answering six questions: Do you usually have a cough? Does your chest sound wheezy or whistling other than from colds? Are you troubled by shortness of breath when hurrying on the level ground or walking up a slight hill? Do you have to walk slower than most people your own age on the level ground because of breathlessness? Do you cough up phlegm in the morning? and Do you wake up at night with tightness in your chest? These questions revealed respiratory problems in cannabis-dependent individuals in previous work [6]. Symptoms were not particularly common (mean of the total symptom count = 0.80, SD = 1.1), but ranged from 0 to 6.

The sum of these items had significant skew that would preclude the use of parametric statistics, so we created two groups of participants: those who did (N = 3,016) and did not (N = 3,867) report respiratory problems. This dichotomized outcome served as the dependent variable.
Vaporizer use

Participants reported the technique they used most frequently when ingesting marijuana, and chose from blunts, joints, water pipes, pipes, edibles, vaporizers, and other. Only 152 participants (2.2%) reported vaporizing as their primary method for cannabis use.
Marijuana use

Although assessing the frequency of marijuana use has proven comparable to assessing the frequency of use for other drugs, assessing the quantity of consumption remains quite difficult. Standard units comparable to those found with alcohol or cigarettes are unavailable. Because respiratory effects of marijuana should covary with the amount used rather than the simple frequency of use, we asked participants to estimate the amount of marijuana they consumed per week in 1-gram joint equivalents. This rough estimate is necessarily imperfect, but has proven useful in previous work [8]. Participants reported amount of cannabis use in one-gram joint equivalents, which averaged 9.4 grams per week (SD = 11.9).

Those who smoked cigarettes (4,829) began at a mean age of 16.0 (SD = 3.4). Cigarette smoking was generally light. Mean cigarettes per day was 8.6 (SD = 10.7) but ranged as high as 4 packs per day.

A simple chi-square test revealed that vaporizer users were less likely to report respiratory problems than participants who did not vaporize, with 100 of 152 vaporizer users (65.8%) reporting no respiratory problems, compared to 3767 of 6731 (56.0%), chi-square (1) = 5.8, p < .05. This analysis provided a rough look at the potential for vaporizers, and suggested that the machines could improve respiratory symptoms. Nevertheless, this analytic approach did not account for important covariates or address potential interactions, so we used logistic regression. We computed interactions by centering the variables to correct for non-essential multicollinearity and then multiplying [9]. We report the full model with all two-way interactions and the three-way interaction present, but deleting any of these effects did not change the pattern of results. A logistic regression analysis with age and sex as covariates revealed main effects for cigarettes, cannabis use, and vaporizer use. The interaction of cigarettes and marijuana was significant, as revealed in previous work [6]. In addition the interaction of marijuana use and vaporizer use was significant, all p-values < .05. (See Table 1.)

Table 1. Predicting Respiratory Symptoms (N = 6,883)

These results suggest that the respiratory effects of cannabis can decrease with the use of a vaporizer. The data reveal that respiratory symptoms like cough, phlegm, and tightness in the chest increase with cigarette use and cannabis use, but are less severe among users of a vaporizer. Because a sample this large can produce statistically significant effects that might not be clinically meaningful, a focus on odds ratios could prove fruitful. The odds ratio suggests that vaporizer users are only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled. The use of cigarettes in conjunction with cannabis exacerbated symptoms, as found in previous work [6]. The interaction between vaporizer use and cannabis consumption also appeared, suggesting that a vaporizer should have more impact on respiratory symptoms in people who use more marijuana. Odds ratios suggest that these effects are relatively small, but interactions often prove difficult to detect at all [9].

Several important limitations of these data deserve mention, particularly those related to sampling, Internet reporting, limitations of our measures, and the lack of random assignment to vaporizer use. In an effort to find regular users of cannabis, we targeted people with a potential interest in changing cannabis policy. These individuals might have consciously or unconsciously minimized their reports of symptoms that might cast cannabis in a negative light. Nevertheless, literally thousands of participants admitted to experiencing respiratory symptoms. The symptoms covaried with cannabis use, cigarette use, and the interaction of the two, as work with samples gathered in other ways has revealed [6]. These results suggest that reports among these participants are comparable to those found in other work. Any bias in reporting remains a problem, and only further work can help address this issue.

Vaporizer users might be more inclined to minimize respiratory symptoms than people who smoke cannabis in other ways. The price of a vaporizer can range as high as hundreds of dollars. Vaporizers also lack some of the convenience of other methods of marijuana use. Users who have spent this much money and effort might minimize reports of their respiratory symptoms, consciously or inadvertently, in an effort to justify their actions. Only a more objective measure of respiratory function that does not rely on self-report can sidestep this potential problem. Laboratory measures of lung function would make a nice addition to further work on this topic. Nevertheless, roughly 1/3 of the participants who used a vaporizer (52/152) did report symptoms, suggesting that self-report biases on symptom reports likely does not account for the entire phenomenon.

The use of the Internet for this type of work has advantages and disadvantages as well. This approach might lead individuals who are unwilling to travel to the laboratory to participate, potentially increasing generalizability. Heavy users with severe symptoms might be particularly disinclined to participate without the convenience of the Internet.

Recent work also suggests that people report more drug use while using the Internet than they do on standard paper-and-pencil measures [10]. Nevertheless, because Internet access was required for participation, these data might not generalize to meaningful subsets of the population without such access.

Our measures of vaporizer use and respiratory symptoms could also have been more detailed. A single question about the primary technique used for administering cannabis neglects potentially meaningful variation in vaporizer use. Some participants might use a vaporizer primarily but also smoke cannabis. In contrast, other participants might use a vaporizer exclusively. Both of these groups of participants would end up in the group who uses a vaporizer primarily. Vaporizers come in several forms, including conduction-style machines that employ a hot plate as well as convection-style devices that use warmed air. The efficacy of these different machines could vary substantially, but we could not address the question with the current data. These limitations, however, should decrease power rather than create a spurious result. By lumping participants who occasionally smoke cannabis into the same group with those who vaporize exclusively, we actually weaken the ability to detect effects. Including any type of vaporizer, no matter how effective, also has the potential to weaken effects. In a sense, the current study’s estimate of the effect of a vaporizer on respiratory symptoms might be an underestimate of the improvement that could arise from a good vaporizer used as the exclusive method for ingesting cannabis. We also did not assess the length of time each participant had used a vaporizer. A vaporizer’s impact might grow more dramatic with longer use. The assessment of respiratory symptoms was also not particularly elaborate, but the same measures revealed a significant impact of cannabis and cigarettes in this sample and in other work [6].

Finally, the use of a vaporizer was not randomly assigned. The possibility exists that cannabis users who choose a vaporizer might engage in a host of other behaviors designed to minimize respiratory symptoms, or simply be more health conscious in general. Like any correlational study, this one cannot address the role of causality. The current data are consistent, however, with the idea that cannabis vaporizers can decrease respiratory symptoms in regular users of the plant. A better test of a vaporizer’s potential for minimizing problems would require recruiting cannabis smokers who report respiratory troubles, randomly assigning a group to use a vaporizer, and assessing any decrease in symptoms. The current data suggest that such an intervention could prove helpful.

Although the use of a vaporizer has the potential to increase the safety of cannabis as far as respiratory symptoms are concerned, pulmonary problems are not the only potential negative consequences of the plant. Reviews suggest that 9–12% of cannabis users develop symptoms of dependence [11]. Cannabis can lead to impaired driving skills [12], and heavy use in adolescence might create deviant brain structure [13] as well as decreases in intelligence [14]. A vaporizer offers no protection against these negative consequences. Nevertheless, a vaporizer has considerable potential for increasing cannabis drug safety by minimizing pulmonary troubles.
Competing interests

ME is affiliated with organizations devoted to changing cannabis laws.
Authors’ contributions

ME contributed to study design, coordination and supervision, data analysis and interpretation, and drafted the manuscript. SSB participated in study design and coordination and helped draft the manuscript.

This work was funded by a grant from the Marijuana Policy Project. Special thanks to Elana B. Gordis for continued support. We thank two anonymous reviewers for courteous and helpful comments.

Tashkin DP, Baldwin GC, Sarafian T, Dubinett S, Roth MD: Respiratory and immunologic consequences of marijuana smoking.

J Clin Pharmacol 2002, 42(Suppl 11):71S-81S. OpenURL

Melamede R: Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic.

Harm Reduction Journal 2005, 2:21. PubMed Abstract | BioMed Central Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

Gieringer D, St Laurent J, Goodrich S: Cannabis vaporizer combines efficient delivery of THC with effective suppression of pyrolytic compounds.

Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 2004, 4:7-27. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

Hazekamp A, Ruhaak R, Zuurman L, van Gerven J, Verpoorte R: Evaluation of a vaporizing device (Volcano) for the pulmonary administration of tetrahydrocannabinol.

J Pharm Sci 2006, 95:1308-1317. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

Okie S: Medical marijuana and the Supreme Court.

NEJM 2005, 353(7):648-651. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

Taylor DR, Poulton R, Moffitt TE, Ramankutty P, Sears MR: The respiratory effects of cannabis dependence in young adults.

Addiction 2000, 95:1669-1677. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

Barnwell SS, Earleywine M, Wilcox R: Cannabis, motivation, and life satisfaction in an internet sample.

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 2006, 1:2. PubMed Abstract | BioMed Central Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

Reinarman C, Cohen PDA, Kaal HL: The limited relevance of drug policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco.

Am J Public Health 2004, 94:836-842. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

Aiken L, West S: Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press; 1991. OpenURL

Wang YC, Lee CM, Lew-Ting CY, Hsiao CK, Chen DR, Chen WJ: Survey of substance use among high school students in Taipei: web-based questionnaire versus paper-and-pencil questionnaire.

J Adolesc Health 2005, 37:289-295. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

Earleywine M: Understanding Marijuana. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. OpenURL

Liguori A: Marijuana and driving: trends, design issues, and future recommendations. In Pot Politics. Edited by Earleywine M. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. OpenURL

Wilson W, Mathew R, Turkington T, Hawk T, Coleman RE, Provenzale J: Brain morphological changes and early marijuana use: a magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography study.

J Addict Dis 2000, 19:1-22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

Fried P, Watkinson B, James D, Gray R: Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults.

CMAJ 2002, 166:887-891. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

Vaporizer Health Study Shows Same THC with fewer Toxins with Vape Use

The most impactful vaporizer health study was conducted at University of California San Francisco in 2007.  The excerpt below is an article from ScienceDaily that explains the findings in the smoking vs vaporizing marijuana study.  Involving 18 patients, this study was one of the first to show the health benefits of vaporization in a medically controlled environment.’s favorite quote from this study…

“this device has great potential for improving the therapeutic utility of THC”

A smokeless cannabis-vaporizing device delivers the same level of active therapeutic chemical and produces the same biological effect as smoking cannabis, but without the harmful toxins, according to University of California San Francisco 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.

Source –