Hash Oil Cures Cancer!

[StealthyScrog]

So Owl, when you challenge me to show that you said butane is harmful and you say you never did, why do I prove that you did and your only response is that I have to be right all the time? You're just another member relying on his custom avatar and obnoxious manner to gain notoriety rather than relying on any intellectual position or ability. That's why you're able to advance anything as fact while constantly changing your mind. You ain't about shit.

sam owl is a good guy who ive talked to before, heres my take on his statement, dissected at a rational( not complete irrational dick move jumping on statements sense)

Can you qualify 100% that your purging method would do no harm to an already chronically ill patient ?

What method of testing do you implement to ensure the patient isn't ingesting known carcinogens ?

his statement was in regards to the fellow saying butane and naptha extracts are the same when purged, regardless if butane isn't a carcinogen, there can still be remnants possible correct? Now, as you stated, naptha has liquid components such as toluene to my understanding ( never got into volatile chemicals and organic solvents much ) and the gaseous solvent would be easier to remove then the liquid carcinogens, if a single gas could possibly be left even after purging, is it not entirely possible to make a statement saying, hey if butane could remain in bho, couldnt naptha? in owls defense , now can we all just get along instead of bickering over a slightly rhetorical misunderstanding? either way im jetting out , and will not bother to respond, you can use my statement to mudsling all you want, but if you waste breath thinking i may return i shall nullify any action, even with terms of endearment

 

[ColBatGuano]

Naphtha does not necessarily contain toluene or benzene, but I have no intention of taking anything Rick Simpson suggests I should. Naphtha is not a specific chemical or preparation. It is a broad term for any liquid hydrocarbon mixture with high flammability. It means very little in context of this discussion. This is why its use by Simpson (and you) in describing the extraction method is not especially helpful or specific. Do any of us know exactly what is meant by "naphtha" in this instance?

Aromatic hydrocarbons are either derived from benzene, or actually are benzene (as it is the simplest of that family of chemicals.) Being derived from benzene, and actually being benzene are two entirely different things. Aromatic hydrocarbons are used in the production of many items found in everyday life, including drugs. They are among the most common and important feedstock substances used as solvents in applied chemistry.

Finally, you have a quaint and annoying tendency to make assumptions and exaggerations regarding exactly what people are saying, questioning, or speculating. This makes you seem like, if you will pardon the expletive, a smug asshole. This results in your missives being largely disregarded. You seem to have some knowledge of basic chemistry concepts, but little understanding of applied chemistry. What Rick Simpson is suggesting needs to be much more closely examined and studied, and my previous post was meant to focus on the aforementioned suggested method of ingestion of his oil. I was not questioning his extraction method because I don't know exactly how he does it. Neither do you.

 

[StealthyScrog]

heres a question for all you organic chemists, is a a zippo any sort of health concern? either lighting a joint with a large hit from the flame or a long draw on a bowl

 

[THC_Decapitator]

heres a question for all you organic chemists, is a a zippo any sort of health concern? either lighting a joint with a large hit from the flame or a long draw on a bowl

I wouldn't use a zippo to smoke herb , you taste that fuel . It may look cool to use a zippo , there GREAT for camping etc and the wind .

 

[Owl Mirror]

sam owl is a good guy who ive talked to before, heres my take on his statement, dissected at a rational( not complete irrational dick move jumping on statements sense)

his statement was in regards to the fellow saying butane and naptha extracts are the same when purged, regardless if butane isn't a carcinogen, there can still be remnants possible correct? Now, as you stated, naptha has liquid components such as toluene to my understanding ( never got into volatile chemicals and organic solvents much ) and the gaseous solvent would be easier to remove then the liquid carcinogens, if a single gas could possibly be left even after purging, is it not entirely possible to make a statement saying, hey if butane could remain in bho, couldnt naptha? in owls defense , now can we all just get along instead of bickering over a slightly rhetorical misunderstanding? either way im jetting out , and will not bother to respond, you can use my statement to mudsling all you want, but if you waste breath thinking i may return i shall nullify any action, even with terms of endearment

I would just like to say thank you for your comment.
I wish more people such as yourself were taking part in this discussion.
I'm sorry you won't be returning to comment further.
Anyways, thanks !

 

[Owl Mirror]

When butane evaporates whats left?

Butane is a gas at atmospheric pressure and room temperature. In the fuel tanks of cigarette lighters, butane welding torches, and most other butane powered heating devices, butane has been compressed to the point that it remains liquid at room temperature. When the trigger of these devices is depressed, a valve opens, allowing butane to escape from the tank, and in doing so, it's pressure drops to atmospheric pressure, and the liquid butane escaping the tank rapidly boils and becomes a gas, which is ignited by an ignition source. Strictly speaking, if the tank contained pure butane, when all the butane has evaporated, all that would be left in the tank is butane gas at atmospheric pressure. If you sprayed liquid butane on your table, and it were completely pure, the liquid would evaporate, leaving nothing behind. In reality, butane fuel is not completely pure, and may contain small amounts of all sorts of contaminants, some of which can be left behind after the butane evaporates. Some of these contaminants like methane, ethane, and propane likely would evaporate away with the butane, but other contaminants, like trace amounts of other petroleum distillates will likely remain after the butane evaporates.

Hm? a patient suffering from cancer is suppose to chance ingesting trace amounts of other petroleum distillates ?

I'm still not convinced any method of extraction wouldn't do more harm than good.
Everclear seems to be the best overall method to safeguard the health of the patient being treated.

 

[Owl Mirror]

What I would like is to know why everyone is taking medical advice from someone who says explicitly on his site that one should not use solvents like butane to make the oil, only naphtha since that is what makes his special medicine that cures cancer? You realize he's telling everyone to go buy naphtha, he's not specifying a brand. The naphtha whose purity I was just asked to discuss is made of some 20% chemicals that cause cancer. They cause the SHIT out of it. Why you acting like this is credible or should be continued to be perpetuated as truth. Owl, if you want to convince people they can cure cancer using grain alcohol and weed, put on a retarded straw hat and tell the government they're too stupid to come catch you growing. You've never made real BHO because you think we can't get our hands on blends that don't contain residues. Why do you think anyone would care about methane, ethane, or propane? Do you understand the difference between a petroleum distillate that they boiled at 185 F and one they boiled below freezing? Have you read anything I've said in this thread about the nature of alkanes or bothered to learn about them yourself.

Sam, I have never advocated use of any petroleum product to make this Oil. Perhaps because you are not chronically ill you do not see the importance of being safe with what you ingest?
Try being permanently disabled, confined to bed/home for 10 plus year, never knowing if you will live or die today. Do you really believe I want to take a chance of putting nasty chemicals in my body just because some backyard chemist wannabe says it's OK ?

The reason I advocate using Ever-clear above all other methods is because it is by far the safest process as well as safer to consume.

Convincing terminally and/or chronically ill patients that it is safe to both perform these extractions and consume the end product is immoral.

 

[Owl Mirror]

... if you're permanently disabled and never know if you're going to live or die. I'd want to get as high as possible in such a situation

Typical response, get high and allow the time left to drift past in a HAZE.
I hope you are never in my situation, if you happen to,
I recommend against "getting as high as possible".
Life is too precious to just let it drift by in a HAZE.

 

[Really Sam]

Why are you eating oil then and converting THC to its 11-hydroxy analogue causing 3 to 4 times the mental confusion and potency then as opposed to enjoying the cannabinoids themselves for their therapeutic properties along with those of their less evolved terpene cousins. Here's what I said yesterday on the subject of butane fuel safety for pharmaceutically-intended extractions.

...They test hexane to make sure it's devoid of the solvents that shouldn't be in there in greater than carefully reviewed levels if it's to be used in a food. Pharmaceutical solvents should have to pass more stringent guidelines. Lighter fluid has neither guideline to pass....

 

[Owl Mirror]

Why are you eating oil then and converting THC to its 11-hydroxy analogue causing 3 to 4 times the mental confusion and potency then as opposed to enjoying the cannabinoids themselves for their therapeutic properties along with those of their less evolved terpene cousins. Here's what I said yesterday on the subject of butane fuel safety for pharmaceutically-intended extractions.

Where did I say I am making and/or consuming Oil ?
You see, this is the problem so many people have pointed out to you, that you say and claim things never spoken of by others. You make shit up and claim it is (my) position.

As hard as I've tried, I just can't find any mention of pharmaceutical grade butane .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butane

Inhalation of butane can cause euphoria, drowsiness, narcosis, asphyxia, cardiac arrhythmia, and frostbite which can result in death from asphyxiation and ventricular fibrillation. Butane is the most commonly misused volatile substance in the UK, and was the cause of 52% of "solvent related" deaths in 2000.

http://www.it.swin.edu.au/personal/fwang/Mom/Mom_butane.html

Butane is typically used in the manufacture in the following areas

Aviation fuels and organic chemicals,
As fuel for cigarette lighters and portable stoves,
A raw material for synthetic rubber and high octane liquid fluids,
Manufacture of ethylene and solvent, propellant in aerosols,
A calibration gas for temperature and pressure gauges and as a heating fuel.
Butane is also added to gasoline in order to increase its volatility (evaporation rate) in cold climates.
Recent concerns about the destruction of the ozone layer by freon gases has led to an increase use of isobutene gas in refrigerating systems.

 

[ColBatGuano]

Hey BatShit. Good thing naphtha is a broad range of hydrocarbons that boil at a given temperature and are derived from crude oil, and even better that you proudly admit it like it proves your support for Rick's continued harmful work in getting people to forgo treatment in order to ingest harmful things. That must mean that since aromatics boil at those temperatures too that they're not in the naphtha that Rick uses. You've proven that you can look things up online and spit them back, why don't you look up naphtha like I already suggested and spit up in your own mouth in shame.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are making assumptions. First of all, I did look up naphtha--in chapter fifteen of my old organic chemistry book. But, since I don't care to type out the book's information, I'll provide you with exactly the info you seem to be lacking. I went to the Wikipedia link to find this--which will be my first cut-and-paste anywhere in this discussion:

"Naphtha (pronounced /ˈnæfθə/ or /ˈnæpθə/) normally refers to a number of different flammable liquid mixtures of hydrocarbons, i.e. a distillation product from petroleum or coal tar boiling in a certain range and containing certain hydrocarbons, a broad term encompassing any volatile, flammable liquid hydrocarbon mixture." (Which is pretty much what the book says.)

Secondly, where in any of my posts did I suggest that naphtha was safe to ingest? Where did I say it was safe to use in an extraction like Simpson's? Where exactly did I disagree with you on that point? You can go back over my previous posts and find not a single statement of the sort. All I did was point out that neither benzene nor toluene are necessarily found in naphtha--which is entirely correct. Then, I mentioned that in applied chemistry, the use of hydrocarbons as solvents is widespread (they are the primary chemical products used for such tasks.) There may be methods of using such solvents for this purpose which may be safe. I am not an organic chemist, so I am not going to say it is safe--only that it may be safe certain proper laboratory uses.

At last, where in any of my previous posts did I ever say I support Rick Simpson? I think I made it quite clear that I do not. I find his "recipe" too riddled with unknowns. All I was saying about his use of the words "pure naphtha" is that we don't know exactly what he means, how it was used in Simpson's extraction method, nor even what that extraction method was. All we have are his list of instructions. There is no information about how the individual solvents he mentions work, how they change chemically when they are boiled off, or if he did any kind of testing afterwards to check the safety of his extraction.

I would like to hope that Simpson didn't just use his local hardware store's can of "naphtha," but I don't know because he didn't say. All he said was a 45 gallon drum of it costs $500. Furthermore, he doesn't provide evidence as to how he knows that "you've just stripped the plant material of about 80% of its THC," when he tells you to do a second extraction to get the rest. He also doesn't say how he knows that his extractions come out pure. All he does is provide the anecdotal evidence that he's been consuming them for eight years and has so far not experienced any detriment.

Every single one of my posts have questioned his extraction and ingestion methods, yet somehow you have concluded that I support him. You attribute positions, and statements to me which I didn't make, and then try to use them against me. All the while missing the fact that I agree with you on most of your points. I just know how to do it in a non-inflammatory manner. This is why I suggested that the term "smug asshole" comes to mind when I read your posts.

 

[ColBatGuano]

The reason I advocate using Ever-clear above all other methods is because it is by far the safest process as well as safer to consume.

Convincing terminally and/or chronically ill patients that it is safe to both perform these extractions and consume the end product is immoral.

I agree on both points, Owl. Everclear may only be 95.6% ethanol at its highest, but leaving in the water which makes up the other 4.4% makes it the safest of the extraction methods in regards to residual leftovers. The only way to make ethanol anhydrous is to add nasty chemicals to it in order to remove the last of the water which cannot be distilled out. I agree with your suggestion that this is probably the safest method.

 

[ColBatGuano]

No matter how much you squirm you can't hide the fact that you tried to convince people that naphtha doesn't contain aromatic hydrocarbons. You can't hide the fact that Rick Simpson tells people they must use naphtha as an extraction solvent. You can't hide from the fact that he does not recommend that people use a specific brand. Stop lying to people about oil chemistry or go suck the Ninja's dick with your alcohol extractions.

Ha ha ha! Where exactly did I say naphtha does not contain aromatic hydrocarbons? You can't do it, because I didn't write it--just like you can't answer my previous questions about your assumptions. You don't pay attention to anything other than your own fantasies.

Also, from his own website, Simpson does not say one must use naphtha, only that he does and likes it. I have said two or three times already that part of the problem with his recipe is that he does not specifically state what his naphtha is, brand or otherwise. How does any of this humiliate me? You're the one with the reading comprehension problems.

Part 2 of his "recipe" is as follows:

2 - Dampen the material with the solvent you are using. Many solvents can be used. I like to use pure naphtha but it costs $500 for a 45-gallon drum. You can use 99% isopropyl alcohol, which you can find in your local drug stores. Alcohol absorbs more chlorophyll from the plant material than naphtha does. This gives oils made with alcohol a darker colour but does not diminish the potency of the oil to any noticeable degree. Ether, naphtha or butane and many other solvents can produce oils that are amber and transparent. Granted these clear oils do look better but dark oil can be just as potent. If the process is done properly, little or no solvent residue is left in the oil. I have been consuming oils produced using different solvents for eight years with no harmful effects. You will require about two gallons of solvent to strip the THC off one pound of dry starting material. 500 milliliters of solvent should be more than enough to strip the THC from one ounce of hemp starting material.

Nowhere does he say "must use naphtha."

 

[zymos]

Keep telling people that toluene is as safe as other solvents.

See- that is what I mean! I never said that.

Your paranoid delusions about Rick Simpson are kind of worrisome- do you really think he is changing some youtube video in repsonse to your one man pissing contest??

 

[ColBatGuano]

Yeah, you did say that. You are doubly not credible now. You even say that isopropyl is as safe as toluene. You're just like Rick Simpson in promoting them as equally valid choices.

Yep, you've got a reading comprehension problem. Zymos didn't say toluene was as safe as other solvents, he said methanol was no more toxic. That may or may not be correct, but he certainly didn't say that toluene was safer. He didn't even say toluene, methanol, or any other solvent is safe. You can't even correctly use your own "evidence" against other people here.

 

[Telegraphist.]

On a different note transdermal patches?

On a different note transdermal patches?

Would cannabis extract transdermal patches be a possability for some types of melanomas?

just an idea or would decomposion of cannabinods pop that ballon from happening

 

[ColBatGuano]

Sam, you should really be trying to prove that any residual amount of toluene which may be present in a small amount of an extraction exceeds the 200ppm per day maximum safe exposure listed by OSHA. That would at least put your concerns about the use of toluene in context of the dosage recommended by Simpson.

Then, you could look-up the recommended maximum exposure levels of other solvents, and using them in the same context, prove that they are also deadly when used in this manner. I'm not saying they are or aren't, but you're not exactly making statements in context, are you? What you are saying might not actually mean anything if the exposure is far below safe levels. Wouldn't you want to know, rather than just speculate? I know I would.

 

[Really Sam]

Maybe you should stop ducking the benzene issue with its 2 PPM per day from ICH.

 

[ColBatGuano]

I wasn't talking about benzene, which I know full well is highly toxic. I have never advocated its use as a solvent in making these types of extractions. Again--reading comprehension--I said toluene. Toluene, as you know, is far less toxic and, as a result, far more widely used in chemistry. I give up on you. You aren't capable of actually teaching people anything because all you do is twist words, misrepresent statements, make illogical ad hominem attacks, and generally act like a (once again) smug asshole.

 

[Really Sam]

I wasn't talking about benzene, which I know full well is highly toxic. I have never advocated its use as a solvent in making these types of extractions. Again--reading comprehension--I said toluene. Toluene, as you know, is far less toxic and, as a result, far more widely used in chemistry. I give up on you. You aren't capable of actually teaching people anything because all you do is twist words, misrepresent statements, make illogical ad hominem attacks, and generally act like a (once again) smug asshole.

Wut? I thought we were talking about naphtha. I'm not sure where I made an attack against you personally in pointing out benzene's toxicity, it being present in naphtha at levels ranging from 0.1 to 2%. As such it's one of the other solvents you demanded I look up and provide the fact in question. It sounds like you're making an attack against me personally, rather, by calling me a smug asshole.