Vape Carts Health Crisis Megathread

darbarikanada

Well-Known Member
The takeaway from this article basically states the fact that synthetic THC cannot and should not be vaped. Or did I miss something?

I'm not sure why they call spice 'synthetic marijuana'; AFAIK it's synthetic chemicals sprayed on random herbs, i.e. has nothing to do with cannabis except for the fact that it's psychoactive.

"Traditional smoked Spice/K2 looks like herbal tobacco, or natural marijuana. It’s actually made from dried plant material and chopped up herbs in a mixture of colors including beige, cream red and brown. The active ingredients are synthetic chemicals (cannabinoids) sprayed onto the plant material."

you definitely shouldn't vape or smoke spice - it's scary stuff.
 

olivianewtonjohn

Well-Known Member
Spice started out as synthetic cannabinoids (some I believe with higher binding affinity) but it is unregulated so the compounds could be anything at this stage. Being synthetic isnt the issue its the compounds themselves (nothing magical about "natural" or lab produced compounds, its all just atoms bonded together).
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Shouldn't be here as the company did not directly link sales loss to the vape issue. But, *we* know the truth.

https://mjbizdaily.com/cannabis-vap...of-workers-after-missing-revenue-projections/

California-based Pax Labs, one of the leading vape pen companies in the cannabis industry, disclosed Monday it laid off 65 workers, or 25% of its workforce, after missing its revenue projections.

The layoffs come amid a health crisis that has shaken the vaporizing industry.

The San Francisco company – which originally had ties to the Juul e-cigarette before that product was spun off as a separate company – declined to directly link the vaping health crisis to the layoffs, saying only that its sales had fallen short of expectations.

In an emailed statement to Marijuana Business Daily, Pax spokeswoman Dianne Gleason said: “In light of evolving business priorities, we have made the difficult decision to part ways with 65 members of our team, or 25% of the organization, effective (Monday).”
In a letter to all employees dated Oct. 8, interim CEO Lisa “LD” Sergi wrote that “in light of our recent revenue miss and commitment to financial responsibility we’re in the process of working through the requisite budget adjustments.”

Pax is the second high-profile California cannabis company to announce layoffs this month.

Last week, California marijuana advertising giant Weedmaps announced it laid off 25% of its workforce, blaming the slow rollout of recreational MJ markets in California and Massachusetts and a dwindling pool of outside funding.

The Pax layoffs come on the heels of a $420 million raise in April, the largest amount ever raised by a U.S.-based marijuana company.

On its website, Pax notes the company ” is backed by leading technology investors including Fidelity Investments, Tiger Global and Tao Invest.” The latter has ties to the wealthy Pritzker lilly.

In September, Pax ousted CEO Bharat Vasan. This was also at the time that the vaping health crisis was grabbing national attention.

In 2017, Pax Labs was spun out of Juul Labs to form its own separate company.

According to Pax: “The transaction was done to allow Juul to focus on the e-cigarette nicotine market and Pax to continue its focus on vaporization technologies for cannabis and other plant-based materials. The companies operate completely independently under separate management teams focused on their unique markets.”

Gleason, the spokeswoman, noted in an email: “We never were part of the Juul device.”

In her email to employees, Sergi wrote that, because of the revenue miss, “a painful but necessary part of this will be a reduction in force.”

She went on to say the layoffs would help the company to grow in a “more measured, strategic way.”

According to an employee who was fired and requested anonymity, the layoffs came across all departments.

In April, after the raise, former CEO Vasan told MJBizDaily that Pax would look at opportunities in Europe and Asia as well as Canada.
 

invertedisdead

PHASE3
Manufacturer
Being synthetic isnt the issue its the compounds themselves (nothing magical about "natural" or lab produced compounds, its all just atoms bonded together).

I strongly disagree with this statement.

You can't fake natural, same reason why sun grown plants have a wider cannabinoid/terpene spectrum than indoor...
 
invertedisdead,
  • Like
Reactions: hafalump

olivianewtonjohn

Well-Known Member
I strongly disagree with this statement.

You can't fake natural, same reason why sun grown plants have a wider cannabinoid/terpene spectrum than indoor...
That's not in anyway, shape or form related to what I said. Again it's just atoms, if you want to be accurate about the comparison it would be ~99% extracted THC vs THC made in lab; other than economics if both are the same compound with the same chirality (if THC has chirality, I don't care to check) then they will be the same.

It's the foundation of pharmacology and broadly speaking chemistry and physics.
 
Last edited:

invertedisdead

PHASE3
Manufacturer
That's not in anyway, shape or form related to what I said. Again it's just atoms, if you want to be honest about the comparison it would be ~99% extracted THC vs THC made in lab; other than economics if both are the same compound with the same chirality (if THC has chirality, I don't care to check) then they will be the same.

It's the foundation of pharmacology and broadly speaking chemistry and physics.

So my comment about natural over synthetic is not related in any way, shape or form to your comment about natural and synthetic compounds being identical? Even when I provide a direct comparison of how they aren't? Chemistry descends from alchemy, you have to factor in the metaphysical aspects, not just mainstream scientific approach. Perspective.

:leaf:
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
So my comment about natural over synthetic is not related in any way, shape or form to your comment about natural and synthetic compounds being identical? Even when I provide a direct comparison of how they aren't? Chemistry descends from alchemy, you have to factor in the metaphysical aspects, not just mainstream scientific approach. Perspective.
You did not give an example that was equivalent. It is different to claim that sun grown plants have a wider set of chemicals than it is to claim the natural production of a particular chemical in a plant is better than synthetic production from other means.

Edit:
As to the chirality issue mentioned by @olivianewtonjohn , yeah, it has that.

https://www.waters.com/webassets/cms/library/docs/720005812en.pdf
 

invertedisdead

PHASE3
Manufacturer
You did not give an example that was equivalent. It is different to claim that sun grown plants have a wider set of chemicals than it is to claim the natural production of a particular chemical in a plant is better than synthetic production from other means.

You would have to know everything about the plant to be able to assert that synthetic vs natural is the same thing. Especially in Chemistry, where compounds can have the exact same composition and be physically different.

Then again, I don't approach "science" with the basal view that "it's all just atoms bonded together"

So call it a difference in perspective.

:peace:
 
invertedisdead,
  • Like
Reactions: C No Ego

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
You would have to know everything about the plant to be able to assert that synthetic vs natural is the same thing. Especially in Chemistry, where compounds can have the exact same composition and be physically different.

Then again, I don't approach "science" with the basal view that "it's all just atoms bonded together"

So call it a difference in perspective.

:peace:
One perspective is "science" and the other is not.

I was going to go through the rest, but, you are not talking science any more.

Chirality is the theory on how molecules composed of the same elements can act differently.
 

Baron23

Well-Known Member
So, I need to be careful here as I really don't want to appear to be taking shots at anyone, but I also must need to be honest and clear.

Personally, I discount outdoor, alchemy, and metaphysics as being relevant...well, relevant to me.

But I think we also need to be very careful about the definition of the term "synthetic marijuana" and "synthetic THC".

There indeed are synthetic, lab created, THC products such as Nabilone and Dronabinol. Apparently these are sometimes called classic synthetic THC. I believe that these are analogs to THC, bind to the same receptor, but are not identical molecules. But I'm more than willing to be corrected.

To my knowledge, which is very limited, none of these seem to have the same effects as natural plant derived THC. But I may well be wrong on this.

But generally, the use of the term "synthetic" with MJ or THC tends to refer to illegal analogs that, yes, they bind to the same receptors but, no, they are definitely not identical to the botanical derived compound and have a great potential for damage to the user.

I found this of interest on the subject:

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/synthetic-cannabinoids-k2spice

Synthetic cannabinoids are human-made mind-altering chemicals that are either sprayed on dried, shredded plant material so they can be smoked or sold as liquids to be vaporized and inhaled in e-cigarettes and other devices. These products are also known as herbal or liquid incense.

These chemicals are called cannabinoids because they are similar to chemicals found in the marijuana plant. Because of this similarity, synthetic cannabinoids are sometimes misleadingly called "synthetic marijuana" (or "fake weed"), and they are often marketed as safe, legal alternatives to that drug. In fact, they are not safe and may affect the brain much more powerfully than marijuana; their actual effects can be unpredictable and, in some cases, more dangerous or even life-threatening.​


and this



I am utterly convinced that legal, tested, sanely made, carts are just fine and have been for quite some time and where this type of node of illness was never seen.

I am uttely convinced that these illnesses either arose from cutting agent adulterants, synthetic BS THC, cheap ass hardware that offgasses, or all three.

I am also utterly convinced that if you buy an illegal cheap cart then you may as well play Russian Roulette.

Cheers
 

invertedisdead

PHASE3
Manufacturer
I was going to go through the rest, but, you are not talking science any more.

The rest of what? Lets keep the discussion on the science, don't veer away.

Like minded peers with open ears are listening to what we have to say.
 
invertedisdead,

invertedisdead

PHASE3
Manufacturer
Compounds are not molecules. The use of the term was incorrect.

Molecules have different orientations that can have different effects on other things, compounds don't have a similar effect.

A marijuana plant could be considered a compound. It is not a molecule. THC is a molecule.

The exact same THC molecule with the same orientation and the like will act in the exact same same way every time.

There is no difference between synthetic and natural for the exact same molecule.

https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/v...66839.001.0001/acprof-9780199566839-chapter-4

You must be solely referring to THC only; I'm referring to the entire spectrum of compounds (and molecules) together. Having tried isolated and ultra refined pharmaceutical style cannabinoids many times, I wouldn't equate any of those to cannabis.

Vape pens made with THC produced via genetically modified strains of yeast from UC Berkley isn't cannabis, either.
 
invertedisdead,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Juul is gettin' sued.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7600291/New-Jersey-college-student-21-sues-JUUL.html
A college student is suing JUUL after being hospitalized with pneumonia, claiming the embattled vaping giant falsely advertised its product as being safe.

Connor Evans, 21, from Pennsylvania, was hospitalized in May, a year after he first took a hit of the popular e-cigarette at a college party.

He was taken to the hospital because he was having trouble breathing and was shocked to be told when he got there that up his lungs were '80 percent filled with liquid'.

Evans was placed in a medically induced coma for eight days. When he was brought out of it, he had to relearn how to walk.

Now, he is suing JUUL claiming it is responsible for the drastic deterioration in his...​
 
Tranquility,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
It Says he had ground glass in his lungs ?!?

It's almost like the press wants to fit everything into their pre-determined narrative. You'd think that would be higher up in the article. I only saw it after your post.

Edit:
Nevermind. The description of "'diffuse ground glass and alveolar infiltrates" may be clinical and not casual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-glass_opacity
https://www.symptoma.com/en/ddx/bilateral-pulmonary-infiltrate+ground-glass-appearance
 
Last edited:
Tranquility,

olivianewtonjohn

Well-Known Member
Lets clear this up!

@invertedisdead I understand your point but for some reason it seems like you are not understanding mine. Please re-read my post as I am unsure how else to explain my point (but I will try regardless). I will always point out when someone is using the naturalistic fallacy as it seems to be a common mistake people make, and that was one of the reasons for my initial post. Just because something is natural does not make it safe or good for consumption, the same could be said about "synthetic" compounds (the distinction between whats "synthetic" isnt even clear but thats for another discussion). Likewise, if a compound has the same atoms and 3D arrangement it is identical to another compound with the same properties, whether it is found in nature in that arrangement or its made in a lab, they are the same compound. This isnt debatable, this is very basic science. As far as what you said about a plant being different than a narrow set of compounds? I mean isnt that obvious? You're arguing with a different point that I did not make.

As for metaphysical and alchemy:


Not sure as all my years taking physics, chemistry, biology and biomedical sciences it was not taught as I dont think any of that falls into science. We're much too busy dealing with what works in the real world (and boy is there enough to study as is).

Then again, I don't approach "science" with the basal view that "it's all just atoms bonded together"

Seems like another strawman, of course there is a lot to drugs and interactions with humans, thats why we have fields like biochemistry, molecular biology and pharmacology. But if you want to go up to a chemist and tell him compound X is different than compound X because one is natural and the other is synthetic, while they have same atoms, bonds, and 3D shape then I wish you luck with your pursuit.

 
Last edited:

olivianewtonjohn

Well-Known Member
I honestly doubt you understand my point if you genuinely think I'm not understanding yours.

A simple "agree to disagree" would have sufficed.

Peace.

If you say so :rolleyes:. I wasnt looking for an argument or to derail the thread, im honestly dumbfounded that what I said is any shape or form controversial. Only logical explanations I can think of is either misinformation or not understanding what I was saying (I choose option B).

@Baron23 Since you spent time researching and posting that reply I thought I would address some of the points you brought up. If you look up the structure of Dronabinol/Nabilone they have a similar structure as THC but not the same. As such it would have to be demonstrated to have the same effects as THC. Structurally they are very similar so they likely bind to the same receptors but the affinity to the receptors could be different. AFAIK that is one of the reasons why THC is more potent when consumed in edible form vs combustion/vaporization (11-Hydroxy-THC vs Delta (9)-tetrahydrocannabinol), edible form having a higher binding affinity (I believe, its been a while since I looked this info up). Same could be said about some of the cannabinoids found in "spice" which have a higher binding affinity. But this only proves my point that they are different compounds/cannabinoids and not delta-9-THC (or else they would be called delta-9-THC), the distinction again isnt the synthetic nature, its that they are a different compound.

dronabinol structure

THC and nabilone structure

I totally agree that it can be confusing when people talk about "synthetic marijuana", as its such a general term that covers ever changing recipes found in different spice varieties. Similarly "vaping" or "vaporizers" could be much more specific.
 
Last edited:

Deleted Member 1643

Well-Known Member
Just dropped by to say that this vaping scare has inspired an attempt to quit vaping nic juice, regardless of whether it has anything to do with it. There's no denying it's a "dumb hobby" for those who aren't trying to quit cigarettes.
 

C No Ego

Well-Known Member
@olivianewtonjohn as I've seen biochemists call it - the difference is the subtle enzymes on the plant created compounds as compared to the same compound made in a lab... the plant created one has loads more subtle enzymes that gather as the molecule is being formed .
once we start making bio-synthetic cannabinoids from yeast and e-coli ( as opposed to synthetic) we will have a more functional compounds with enzymes and such
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
@olivianewtonjohn as I've seen biochemists call it - the difference is the subtle enzymes on the plant created compounds as compared to the same compound made in a lab... the plant created one has loads more subtle enzymes that gather as the molecule is being formed .
once we start making bio-synthetic cannabinoids from yeast and e-coli ( as opposed to synthetic) we will have a more functional compounds with enzymes and such
I think this is correct. The difference in a link I removed spoke of the natural/synthetic divide as between creating with enzymes or with reagents.
This chapter shows that the key difference between synthetic and naturally-made chemicals is that the former are usually made with the aid of harsh chemical reagents and the latter are made by enzymes. The same substance made by either method is identical, but the spectrums of substances made by chemists and by organisms differ a little because humans cannot at present economically make some structures using chemical reagents. Crucially, the method of making a substance does not predict all the properties of the substance made. Chemicals made by organisms are not inherently ‘safer’ than synthetic chemicals.​
 

olivianewtonjohn

Well-Known Member
@olivianewtonjohn as I've seen biochemists call it - the difference is the subtle enzymes on the plant created compounds as compared to the same compound made in a lab... the plant created one has loads more subtle enzymes that gather as the molecule is being formed .
once we start making bio-synthetic cannabinoids from yeast and e-coli ( as opposed to synthetic) we will have a more functional compounds with enzymes and such

Again I did not say THC made in the lab would be the same to vaporizing a plant (that has thousands of compounds) because that wouldnt make any sense. If you're saying there would be a difference between the THC refined from the plant and THC made in the lab, then I would love to see some references for that claim. If you're pointing out the differences in cost then I agree with you (and mentioned it in an earlier post).

@OldNewbie Yes exactly, economics play a big factor. Im sure organic chemists can make THC in the lab and separate the reagents the question is how much would it cost and is there a cheaper alternative.

Can you imagine THC produced in the same manner as insulin (making bacteria our bitch LOL)? Amazon prime a barrel or two :lol:
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom