NIH "research" on Medical Marijuana : objectivity or kangaroo court?

Tommy the Terrorist mayday at super.zippo.com
Tue Feb 4 05:36:47 EST 1997

In article <stephan-0302970101080001 at ts36-14.wla.ts.ucla.edu> Stephan
Anagnostaras, stephan at ucla.edu writes:
>Unfortunately, it's not like you couldn't develop something analogous,
>like an inhaler, I guess.  Then again, there is no guarantee it would work.

Actually, there was a magazine article something like ten years ago
(sorry, I forget where), which gave schematics for making a "vaporizer",
which supposedly heated up the marijuana to a temperature sufficient to
volatilize the THC, so that a person could inhale through it and get
high, without getting the carcinogens.  The authors of the paper claimed
it even made a given quantity of marijuana go twice as far.  I have no
idea whether it works or not.

Isn't it a pity that people have assumed that every type of fancy smoking
device, from the water bong to this gizmo, must be "drug paraphernalia"
and therefore exists on the razor edge of some kind of bogus prosecution?
 Because, it would have been good if the tobacco smokers had been using
them all this time...  (though admittedly the effect of nicotine on the
heart wouldn't be altered, as far as I know)

Concerning whether Marinol is less effective because of the route of
administration - does anyone here know if the people who have been
prescribed the drug have ever cracked one open and heated it in an effort
to take it by inhalation?  You'd think it would have caught on, to do it
like that, if that were the only difference - and we know that THC ought
to be able to survive such a method of administration...

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net