This article was downloaded by: [Mount Allison University 0Libraries] On: 14 September 2014, At: 13:02 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Substance Abuse Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wsub20
Experiences of Marijuana-Vaporizer Users a
b
John M. Malouff PhD, JD , Sally E. Rooke PhD & Jan Copeland PhD
b
a
Department of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia b
National Drug and Alcohol Research Center, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Accepted author version posted online: 01 Aug 2013.Published online: 12 May 2014.
To cite this article: John M. Malouff PhD, JD, Sally E. Rooke PhD & Jan Copeland PhD (2014) Experiences of MarijuanaVaporizer Users, Substance Abuse, 35:2, 127-128, DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2013.823902 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2013.823902
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, 35: 127–128, 2014 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 0889-7077 print / 1547-0164 online DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2013.823902
Experiences of Marijuana-Vaporizer Users
Downloaded by [Mount Allison University 0Libraries] at 13:02 14 September 2014
John M. Malouff, PhD, JD,1 Sally E. Rooke, PhD,2 and Jan Copeland, PhD2 ABSTRACT. Background: Using a marijuana vaporizer may have potential harm-reduction advantages on smoking marijuana, in that the user does not inhale smoke. Little research has been published on use of vaporizers. Methods: In the first study of individuals using a vaporizer on their own initiative, 96 adults anonymously answered questions about their experiences with a vaporizer and their use of marijuana with tobacco. Results: Users identified 4 advantages to using a vaporizer over smoking marijuana: perceived health benefits, better taste, no smoke smell, and more effect from the same amount of marijuana. Users identified 2 disadvantages: inconvenience of setup and cleaning and the time it takes to get the device operating for each use. Only 2 individuals combined tobacco in the vaporizer mix, whereas 15 combined tobacco with marijuana when they smoked marijuana. Almost all participants intended to continue using a vaporizer. Conclusions: Vaporizers seem to have appeal to marijuana users, who perceive them as having harm-reduction and other benefits. Vaporizers are worthy of experimental research evaluating health-related effects of using them.
Keywords: Cannabis, harm reduction, marijuana, vaporizer INTRODUCTION Marijuana vaporizers are devices that use electricity to heat marijuana so that the cannabis resin is released as a vapor, which the user inhales. The vaporizers, in theory, are less dangerous than smoked marijuana to users because the users do not inhale combustion products, which can cause lung and heart disease.(1) However, there is evidence that the vapor can contain hazardous levels of ammonia.(2) Two pioneering studies(3,4) in which researchers provided a small number of marijuana users who had respiratory problems with a vaporizer for a month found that the users liked using the vaporizer, that they wanted to continue using it after the month, that their respiratory problems decreased, and that 2 tobacco smokers decreased the number of tobacco cigarettes they smoked. It is possible that vaporizer use has other positive and negative aspects to it relating to factors such as use procedures, types of vapors released, and cost of the vaporizer. No previously published study has examined vaporizer use by individuals using a vaporizer on their own initiative. The purposes
1Department of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia 2National Drug and Alcohol Research Center, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Correspondence should be addressed to John M. Malouff, PhD, JD, Department of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
of the present study were (1) to determine the advantages and disadvantages of vaporizer use perceived by individuals who use them and (2) to examine the relationship of vaporizer use with tobacco smoking, which has its own substantial health risks.
METHODS After receiving approval for the study by the University of New England Human Research Ethics Committee, we recruited users of marijuana vaporizers by placing posts about the survey on online forums addressing marijuana vaporizers, marijuana, or drugs in general, and 96 individuals (83 men and 13 women) anonymously completed the online research questionnaire that asked about their experiences with marijuana vaporizers, their use of marijuana in general, and their use of tobacco. Seven other persons accessed the study online but did not complete the questionnaire. The average age of respondents was 33.7 (SD = 13.8). Forty-seven resided in the USA, 17 in Australia, 13 in Canada, 10 in the UK, and 9 elsewhere. We checked the Internet protocol address of each participant and determined that no 2 sets of responses came from the same computer.
RESULTS For the 96 marijuana users, the self-reported average number of days in the past 6 months on which they used a vaporizer was
Downloaded by [Mount Allison University 0Libraries] at 13:02 14 September 2014
128
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
110.0 (SD = 69.7). The average number of days since they last used a vaporizer was 6.4 (SD = 14.1), but 47 respondents had used one the same day. When asked which method of marijuana administration they used most in the past 6 months, 68 named a vaporizer, 24 said smoking, and 4 said something else. Thirty-eight of the users indicated that they used marijuana for recreational purposes, 10 for medicinal purposes, and 48 for both purposes. The average number of days they used marijuana by any means in the past 30 days was 24.2 (SD = 8.8). Their average number of years of marijuana use by any means was 13.8 (SD = 12.5). The vaporizer users answered open-ended questions about their experiences. To analyze responses to the question “What were the best aspects of using that vaporizer?” we created content categories for responses made by at least 10 individuals (over 10% of the sample), a standard we viewed as requiring a meaningful level of agreement among users. Two of us (J.M.M. and S.E.R.) each independently identified at least 10 responses for each of 4 categories, including (1) perceived health benefits (e.g., “no harshness on the throat at all,” “no asthma attack occurred,” “no more coughing up dust and tar,” “felt easier on my lungs”); (2) better taste (e.g., “clean taste”); (3) no smoke smell/more discreet (“doesn’t smell up my clothes or house”); and (4) more effect for same amount of marijuana/saves money per use (“able to medicate with less plant matter burned, so money is saved”). The health-benefits category included responses from over half the users. A noteworthy single response involved a respondent stating that using the vaporizer “broke the nexus with tobacco/cigarette smoking—gave up cigarettes.” Regarding the worst aspects of using the vaporizer, responses fell into 2 categories in which the comments of at least 10 users fit: (1) inconvenience/difficulties in use (“requires batteries,” “having to clean the tube,” and the “initial learning curve”) and (2) delay caused by setup (e.g., “waiting for it to charge was a bitch”). A noteworthy single response involved a user stating that it is “easy to consume too much.” Sixty-two of the 96 participants indicated that they bought the vaporizer over the Internet. The remaining 34 indicated other sources, such as purchase from a head shop or a friend or use of a vaporizer owned by a friend. We asked participants to state the cost of the vaporizer they used, and we converted amounts as needed to US dollars. For the 90 users who knew the cost, the mean cost was $251 (SD = $165), range = $45 to $700. We asked participants to name the maker of the vaporizer they used, and responses indicated a wide variety of companies, with the name most often mentioned (by 13 users) some type of Volcano vaporizer. Eighty-four of 96 respondents indicated that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their vaporizer experiences. Ninetyfour respondents indicated (1) that using a vaporizer had at least moderately achieved their goals for using a vaporizer and (2) that they intended to continue using a vaporizer. Sixty-eight of the 96 participants indicated that they used a vaporizer, rather than other methods of intake of marijuana, most often in the past 6 months. However, all 96 indicated that they had used some other administration method also in the past 6 months. We asked participants whether they combined tobacco with marijuana in the vaporizer. Only 2 of 96 indicated that they did. Fifteen indicated that when they smoked marijuana they mixed tobacco with it. The difference was statistically significant, Yates chi-square = 9.3, P = .002.
DISCUSSION The results, consistent with those of prior studies of smaller numbers of users who were provided with a vaporizer,(3,4) suggest that vaporizers have appeal to marijuana users and tend to be perceived by them as providing harm-reduction benefits such as lower levels of health problems, including throat and lung problems. Part of potential harm reduction may come from the lower level of combining tobacco with marijuana when using a vaporizer than when smoking marijuana. The results show that vaporizer users also tend to perceive benefits relating to taste, smell, and amount of marijuana used, along with disadvantages related to inconvenience and use delays caused by vaporizer procedures. A limitation of the study is that the only signs of harm reduction were those perceived by the participants. The study obtained no objective evidence of benefits from vaporizer use. A second limitation is that the participants were individuals who read our announcement on a marijuana or drug forum and then participated, without compensation. The results might not generalize to all vaporizer users. A third limitation is that the participants could have included individuals with a financial interest in promoting vaporizers, perhaps completing the study multiple times from different computers. If vaporizers become more commonly used and competition among manufacturers increases, the vaporizers may become cheaper to buy and more convenient to use, leading to greater use. The results indicate that vaporizers are worthy of experimental research evaluating harm-reduction benefits of using them, as well as examination of possible risks, such as increased use of marijuana.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS John Malouff developed the idea for the study, created many of the questions asked vaporizer users, did part of the data analysis, wrote a draft of the manuscript, and made changes suggested by reviewers. Sally Rooke contributed several items to the research questionnaire, helped analyze the content of responses of vaporizer users, and recruited all participants. Jan Copeland contributed ideas to the research questionnaire and contributed wording to the manuscript draft.
REFERENCES [1] Malouff JM, Rooke SE. Expert-recommended warnings for medical marijuana. Subst Abus. 2013;34:92–93. ˇ [2] Bloor RN, Wang TS, Spanˇ el P, Smith D. Ammonia release from heated ‘street’ cannabis leaf and its potential toxic effects on cannabis users. Addiction. 2008;103:1671–1677. [3] Earleywine M, Van Dam NT. Case studies in cannabis vaporization. Addict Res Theory. 2010;18:243–249. [4] Van Dam NT, Earleywine M. Pulmonary function in cannabis users: support for a clinical trial of the vaporizer. Int J Drug Policy. 2010;21:511–513.
Substance Abuse Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wsub20
Experiences of Marijuana-Vaporizer Users a
b
John M. Malouff PhD, JD , Sally E. Rooke PhD & Jan Copeland PhD
b
a
Department of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia b
National Drug and Alcohol Research Center, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Accepted author version posted online: 01 Aug 2013.Published online: 12 May 2014.
To cite this article: John M. Malouff PhD, JD, Sally E. Rooke PhD & Jan Copeland PhD (2014) Experiences of MarijuanaVaporizer Users, Substance Abuse, 35:2, 127-128, DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2013.823902 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2013.823902
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, 35: 127–128, 2014 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 0889-7077 print / 1547-0164 online DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2013.823902
Experiences of Marijuana-Vaporizer Users
Downloaded by [Mount Allison University 0Libraries] at 13:02 14 September 2014
John M. Malouff, PhD, JD,1 Sally E. Rooke, PhD,2 and Jan Copeland, PhD2 ABSTRACT. Background: Using a marijuana vaporizer may have potential harm-reduction advantages on smoking marijuana, in that the user does not inhale smoke. Little research has been published on use of vaporizers. Methods: In the first study of individuals using a vaporizer on their own initiative, 96 adults anonymously answered questions about their experiences with a vaporizer and their use of marijuana with tobacco. Results: Users identified 4 advantages to using a vaporizer over smoking marijuana: perceived health benefits, better taste, no smoke smell, and more effect from the same amount of marijuana. Users identified 2 disadvantages: inconvenience of setup and cleaning and the time it takes to get the device operating for each use. Only 2 individuals combined tobacco in the vaporizer mix, whereas 15 combined tobacco with marijuana when they smoked marijuana. Almost all participants intended to continue using a vaporizer. Conclusions: Vaporizers seem to have appeal to marijuana users, who perceive them as having harm-reduction and other benefits. Vaporizers are worthy of experimental research evaluating health-related effects of using them.
Keywords: Cannabis, harm reduction, marijuana, vaporizer INTRODUCTION Marijuana vaporizers are devices that use electricity to heat marijuana so that the cannabis resin is released as a vapor, which the user inhales. The vaporizers, in theory, are less dangerous than smoked marijuana to users because the users do not inhale combustion products, which can cause lung and heart disease.(1) However, there is evidence that the vapor can contain hazardous levels of ammonia.(2) Two pioneering studies(3,4) in which researchers provided a small number of marijuana users who had respiratory problems with a vaporizer for a month found that the users liked using the vaporizer, that they wanted to continue using it after the month, that their respiratory problems decreased, and that 2 tobacco smokers decreased the number of tobacco cigarettes they smoked. It is possible that vaporizer use has other positive and negative aspects to it relating to factors such as use procedures, types of vapors released, and cost of the vaporizer. No previously published study has examined vaporizer use by individuals using a vaporizer on their own initiative. The purposes
1Department of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia 2National Drug and Alcohol Research Center, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Correspondence should be addressed to John M. Malouff, PhD, JD, Department of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
of the present study were (1) to determine the advantages and disadvantages of vaporizer use perceived by individuals who use them and (2) to examine the relationship of vaporizer use with tobacco smoking, which has its own substantial health risks.
METHODS After receiving approval for the study by the University of New England Human Research Ethics Committee, we recruited users of marijuana vaporizers by placing posts about the survey on online forums addressing marijuana vaporizers, marijuana, or drugs in general, and 96 individuals (83 men and 13 women) anonymously completed the online research questionnaire that asked about their experiences with marijuana vaporizers, their use of marijuana in general, and their use of tobacco. Seven other persons accessed the study online but did not complete the questionnaire. The average age of respondents was 33.7 (SD = 13.8). Forty-seven resided in the USA, 17 in Australia, 13 in Canada, 10 in the UK, and 9 elsewhere. We checked the Internet protocol address of each participant and determined that no 2 sets of responses came from the same computer.
RESULTS For the 96 marijuana users, the self-reported average number of days in the past 6 months on which they used a vaporizer was
Downloaded by [Mount Allison University 0Libraries] at 13:02 14 September 2014
128
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
110.0 (SD = 69.7). The average number of days since they last used a vaporizer was 6.4 (SD = 14.1), but 47 respondents had used one the same day. When asked which method of marijuana administration they used most in the past 6 months, 68 named a vaporizer, 24 said smoking, and 4 said something else. Thirty-eight of the users indicated that they used marijuana for recreational purposes, 10 for medicinal purposes, and 48 for both purposes. The average number of days they used marijuana by any means in the past 30 days was 24.2 (SD = 8.8). Their average number of years of marijuana use by any means was 13.8 (SD = 12.5). The vaporizer users answered open-ended questions about their experiences. To analyze responses to the question “What were the best aspects of using that vaporizer?” we created content categories for responses made by at least 10 individuals (over 10% of the sample), a standard we viewed as requiring a meaningful level of agreement among users. Two of us (J.M.M. and S.E.R.) each independently identified at least 10 responses for each of 4 categories, including (1) perceived health benefits (e.g., “no harshness on the throat at all,” “no asthma attack occurred,” “no more coughing up dust and tar,” “felt easier on my lungs”); (2) better taste (e.g., “clean taste”); (3) no smoke smell/more discreet (“doesn’t smell up my clothes or house”); and (4) more effect for same amount of marijuana/saves money per use (“able to medicate with less plant matter burned, so money is saved”). The health-benefits category included responses from over half the users. A noteworthy single response involved a respondent stating that using the vaporizer “broke the nexus with tobacco/cigarette smoking—gave up cigarettes.” Regarding the worst aspects of using the vaporizer, responses fell into 2 categories in which the comments of at least 10 users fit: (1) inconvenience/difficulties in use (“requires batteries,” “having to clean the tube,” and the “initial learning curve”) and (2) delay caused by setup (e.g., “waiting for it to charge was a bitch”). A noteworthy single response involved a user stating that it is “easy to consume too much.” Sixty-two of the 96 participants indicated that they bought the vaporizer over the Internet. The remaining 34 indicated other sources, such as purchase from a head shop or a friend or use of a vaporizer owned by a friend. We asked participants to state the cost of the vaporizer they used, and we converted amounts as needed to US dollars. For the 90 users who knew the cost, the mean cost was $251 (SD = $165), range = $45 to $700. We asked participants to name the maker of the vaporizer they used, and responses indicated a wide variety of companies, with the name most often mentioned (by 13 users) some type of Volcano vaporizer. Eighty-four of 96 respondents indicated that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their vaporizer experiences. Ninetyfour respondents indicated (1) that using a vaporizer had at least moderately achieved their goals for using a vaporizer and (2) that they intended to continue using a vaporizer. Sixty-eight of the 96 participants indicated that they used a vaporizer, rather than other methods of intake of marijuana, most often in the past 6 months. However, all 96 indicated that they had used some other administration method also in the past 6 months. We asked participants whether they combined tobacco with marijuana in the vaporizer. Only 2 of 96 indicated that they did. Fifteen indicated that when they smoked marijuana they mixed tobacco with it. The difference was statistically significant, Yates chi-square = 9.3, P = .002.
DISCUSSION The results, consistent with those of prior studies of smaller numbers of users who were provided with a vaporizer,(3,4) suggest that vaporizers have appeal to marijuana users and tend to be perceived by them as providing harm-reduction benefits such as lower levels of health problems, including throat and lung problems. Part of potential harm reduction may come from the lower level of combining tobacco with marijuana when using a vaporizer than when smoking marijuana. The results show that vaporizer users also tend to perceive benefits relating to taste, smell, and amount of marijuana used, along with disadvantages related to inconvenience and use delays caused by vaporizer procedures. A limitation of the study is that the only signs of harm reduction were those perceived by the participants. The study obtained no objective evidence of benefits from vaporizer use. A second limitation is that the participants were individuals who read our announcement on a marijuana or drug forum and then participated, without compensation. The results might not generalize to all vaporizer users. A third limitation is that the participants could have included individuals with a financial interest in promoting vaporizers, perhaps completing the study multiple times from different computers. If vaporizers become more commonly used and competition among manufacturers increases, the vaporizers may become cheaper to buy and more convenient to use, leading to greater use. The results indicate that vaporizers are worthy of experimental research evaluating harm-reduction benefits of using them, as well as examination of possible risks, such as increased use of marijuana.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS John Malouff developed the idea for the study, created many of the questions asked vaporizer users, did part of the data analysis, wrote a draft of the manuscript, and made changes suggested by reviewers. Sally Rooke contributed several items to the research questionnaire, helped analyze the content of responses of vaporizer users, and recruited all participants. Jan Copeland contributed ideas to the research questionnaire and contributed wording to the manuscript draft.
REFERENCES [1] Malouff JM, Rooke SE. Expert-recommended warnings for medical marijuana. Subst Abus. 2013;34:92–93. ˇ [2] Bloor RN, Wang TS, Spanˇ el P, Smith D. Ammonia release from heated ‘street’ cannabis leaf and its potential toxic effects on cannabis users. Addiction. 2008;103:1671–1677. [3] Earleywine M, Van Dam NT. Case studies in cannabis vaporization. Addict Res Theory. 2010;18:243–249. [4] Van Dam NT, Earleywine M. Pulmonary function in cannabis users: support for a clinical trial of the vaporizer. Int J Drug Policy. 2010;21:511–513.
