In recent years, cannabis vaporizers and pre-packaged cartridges have seen a significant surge in popularity across Australia. With estimates indicating sales growth of nearly 50% between 2017 and 2018, this trend reflects a growing consumer preference for alternative methods of cannabis consumption. As many Australians seek healthier options to traditional smoking, vaping has emerged as a prominent choice. This shift in consumption habits not only highlights changes in user preferences but also raises important questions about the effects and experiences associated with vaping compared to smoking.
Vaping vs. Smoking: A Distinct Experience
While many users have reported a desire to transition from smoking to vaping, quantifying the differences between these two methods has been a challenging task for researchers. However, a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) sheds light on the distinct experiences associated with vaporizing cannabis. This study examined consumption patterns among infrequent cannabis users, providing valuable insights into how different methods can influence the effects experienced by consumers.
The findings revealed that individuals who vaporized cannabis flower experienced more pronounced effects compared to those who smoked the same dosage. This increased potency and intensity of effects suggest that vaporizing cannabis may require a more cautious dosing strategy, particularly for inexperienced users and those new to cannabis consumption in Australia. The study serves as a crucial reminder that cannabis products can have varying effects based on the method of consumption, emphasizing the need for users to approach their dosing with care and consideration.
Tory Spindle, the lead author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins University’s Bayview Medical Center, expressed surprise at the significant differences observed between smoking and vaping. He stated in an interview with Leafly, “Vaping can produce drastically different impairment levels for all consumers.” This assertion underlines the importance of understanding how different consumption methods can impact users, particularly in an evolving market like Australia.
The Efficiency of THC Delivery Through Vaping
One of the reasons for the growing preference for vaping over smoking is the efficiency of THC delivery associated with vaporization. Previous research has established that vaping is a more effective method of delivering THC to the body compared to traditional smoking methods. This efficiency prompted researchers to investigate the impacts of vaporized cannabis on various outcomes, comparing these results to those from smoked cannabis.
The study in question was conducted between June 2016 and January 2017 at Johns Hopkins’ Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit. The participant group consisted of nine men and eight women, with an average age of 27.3. Each participant underwent thorough prescreening for cannabis and other drug use to ensure that they had not consumed cannabis for at least 13 months prior to the study. This rigorous selection process was crucial in ensuring the integrity of the research and the validity of the findings.
Methodology of the Study
Participants were assessed at multiple intervals before consuming cannabis and again at several points afterward, up to eight hours post-consumption. This approach allowed researchers to monitor the immediate effects of both vaping and smoking on cognitive function and overall impairment. The study employed a randomized, controlled design to ensure that the results could be reliably interpreted.
Spindle noted the importance of controlled dosing in the study, stating, “We were able to control dosing better across the two conditions.” This careful monitoring likely contributed to the unique findings of the research. By allowing for titrated doses—individualized dosing that takes into account the specific needs and tolerances of each participant—the study aimed to provide a clearer picture of how vaporization affects users compared to smoking.
Measuring the Impact of Vaporized Cannabis
To evaluate the effects of vaporized cannabis on participants, researchers utilized a variety of assessment tools. These included the Drug Effect Questionnaire, which gauges subjective experiences, alongside three cognitive tasks: The Digit Symbol Substitution Task, Divided Attention Task, and Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task. These assessments were specifically selected because they effectively reflect performance aspects relevant to everyday activities, such as workplace efficiency and driving, which are critical for consumer safety.
A key aspect of the study was its focus on vaporized flower rather than cannabis oils or other forms. This choice highlights the need for further research to explore the full range of products available in the Australian market, as different forms of cannabis may have varying effects on users.
Key Findings: Vaping vs. Smoking
The results of the study indicated statistically significant differences between the two methods of consumption at a THC dose of 25 mg. Participants who vaporized cannabis experienced heightened cognitive impairment and adverse effects, including increased paranoia and anxiety, compared to their counterparts who smoked cannabis. The findings suggested that vaporized cannabis may pose greater risks for adverse psychological effects, particularly among inexperienced users.
Even at a lower dosage of 10 mg THC, participants who opted for vaporization exhibited notable cognitive impairment, reinforcing the notion that vaping can lead to more substantial risks than traditional smoking methods, especially for those not accustomed to cannabis use. These insights are crucial for the growing population of cannabis consumers in Australia, as they underline the importance of understanding individual tolerance levels and the potential for different consumption methods to produce varied effects.
Implications for Australian Cannabis Consumers
The cannabis used in the study contained 13% THC, along with trace amounts of CBD and cannabinol. This information is particularly relevant for infrequent users and new medical cannabis patients in Australia, as it emphasizes the need for careful dosing when choosing to vaporize cannabis. Users should be aware that cannabis products available at Australian dispensaries often contain higher THC concentrations than those used in clinical studies, which may lead to unintended effects if not approached with caution.
For regular cannabis consumers with established tolerance levels, the study’s findings may not be directly applicable. One limitation of the research was its focus on only three dosage levels and a single strain of cannabis, which was noted to be relatively low in CBD content. Additionally, the study utilized only one type of vaporizer, the Volcano Medic, for the vaping portion and a standard pipe for smoking assessments. As a result, the findings may not represent the full spectrum of experiences associated with different strains and consumption methods.
Spindle emphasized the need for further research, stating, “This is just one vaporizer, and more research is essential.” Future studies should examine a wider variety of cannabis strains, dosing strategies, and vaporization devices to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how these variables impact consumer experiences.
The Need for Further Research
The necessity for extensive, controlled studies is paramount in developing guidelines for dosing, cannabis regulation, and accurate methods of assessing acute cannabis impairment. The findings of this study, along with previous research, indicate that there is no strong correlation between THC blood concentration and the effects experienced by consumers. Ryan Vandrey, the corresponding author of the study, pointed out the ongoing need to investigate the long-term effects of vaping, particularly concerning potential risks for chronic bronchitis and other health concerns.
Moreover, the study suggests that blood THC concentrations may not serve as a reliable indicator of cannabis impairment. “THC doesn’t stay in the blood for long,” Spindle cautioned, indicating that blood concentration levels can return to baseline before the user fully recovers from the effects of cannabis. This finding highlights the complexity of cannabis consumption and the need for further exploration of alternative biological and behavioral measures to accurately assess acute cannabis impairment.
Conclusion: Rethinking Cannabis Consumption
In summary, the findings from this study and similar research underscore the need for a nuanced approach to understanding the effects of cannabis consumption methods. As the popularity of vaping continues to grow in Australia, consumers must remain informed about the distinct experiences offered by different methods. The evolving landscape of cannabis products necessitates that users approach consumption with caution and mindfulness, particularly when it comes to dosing strategies.
As more Australians explore the benefits of cannabis for both recreational and medicinal purposes, ongoing research will play a critical role in guiding safe consumption practices and informing public policy. Consumers should remain aware of the potential for varying effects based on individual tolerance levels, method of consumption, and the specific products available at dispensaries.
By staying informed and making educated decisions, Australians can navigate the cannabis market more effectively, ensuring a safer and more rewarding experience. The ongoing exploration of cannabis consumption methods will continue to shape the landscape of this industry, providing valuable insights for both consumers and policymakers alike.
