Vaping vs vaporization
There has been a lot of talk in the media about the risks of vaping. This article discusses the differences between vaping and the administering cannabis flos by vaporization.
Not all vaporizers are the same
Many of us have heard of vaporizers, and instantly we think of ‘e-cigarettes’ or ‘vape-pens’. However, these are not the only types of devices available. Vaporizers (as medical devices) for the administration of cannabis flos  are in fact quite different from ‘vape-pens’ or ‘e-cigarettes’.
The vaporizer vapour does not contain nicotine, or carrier agents such as liquid propylene glycol, glycerol, or vitamins and synthetic flavours. [i] [ii] [iii] The large, socially intrusive vapour clouds of ‘e-cigarettes’ do not apply for the medicinal use of cannabis flos by vaporization.
Vaporization devices do not include liquids, rather dry cannabis is heated by precise temperature control, efficiently releasing active ingredients without toxic by-products.
Vaporization devices offer patients an effective, safe, and easy to use delivery system for cannabis flos. [iv] [v] The inhaled vapour contains THC, CBD, and terpenes  in consistent, measurable quantities. The use of a high quality vaporizer device avoids the respiratory disadvantages of smoking, [vi] and of the inhalation of compounds from liquid vape-pens.
An efficient administration route
The most efficient administration route of medicinal cannabis is by inhalation. Indeed, administration by inhalation is a rapid way to induce measurable serum levels of cannabinoids. [vii]
A vaporizing medical device, compared to smoking or vaping,  dramatically lowers concentrations of toxic compounds such as carbon monoxide, ammonia and polyaromatic carbohydrates (PACs). Compared to smoking, higher therapeutic levels of THC and consistent, reproducible THC extraction and delivery is possible. [viii] [ix]
In the United States the vaping phenomenon hit the headlines in 2019 after the American Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported at least eighteen fatalities and more than 1,000 people with serious lung complaints after vaping. Although almost all of these concerned the use of so-called e-cigarettes and vape pens for recreational use, the use of a vaporizer to administer medicinal cannabis was being questioned.
The vapour is quickly absorbed by the lungs, permitting patients to effectively titrate to optimise their dose based upon symptom severity, tolerability and avoidance of side-effects. The rapid onset of effects of inhaled cannabinoid use allows easier titration of dose, while standardised cannabis products enable patients to administer an exact dose. [vi] [x][xi][xii]
Patient perspectives and providing therapeutic options
Prescribers, pharmacists and patients should be aware of this differences between ‘vaping cannabinoids’ and ‘vaporising cannabis flos’.
The importance of vaporization is underlined in patient use surveys. The majority of survey respondents report higher satisfaction (approval) scores with the inhalation route. In general, whole plant, herbal cannabis-based medicines received higher scores than other products containing isolated cannabinoids. [viii][xiv]
Patients seek a reliable, affordable and portable vaporizer for administering cannabis flos. Presently there is research dedicated to advancing administration technology. Some examples of major developments in vaporizer devices, using standardised cannabis flos, include the Volcano® and Mighty Medic vaporizer (Storz & Bickel) [xv] [xvi] [xvii], and the Syqe® Inhaler [xviii] [xiv]. All devices have relied on Bedrocan standardised cannabis flos for their quality testing and clinical trials.
Vaporizer medical devices, delivering standardised doses, underline quality assurance, safety, and efficacy. With these administration technical advancements, smoking of cannabis flos can soon be a thing of the past. Backed by proper scientific studies, cannabis flos will become an acceptable therapeutic among patients, prescribers, and regulatory authorities. [xx]
Future thinking – critical policy decisions
It should be recognised that vape-pens for inhalation of cannabinoids often are not subjected to any technical or clinical testing. While, by comparison, a number of the devices for administering cannabis flos by vaporisation have robust supporting clinical and technical studies.
With regard to administration, future policy must be clear and obvious. For example, in the Netherlands, Germany, Australia and New Zealand, smoking cannabis flos is actively discouraged and/or not permitted, respectively. While the clinical guidelines support cannabis flos for inhalation administered by vaporization.
While there are similarities between the administration methods – vaping vs vaporisation – a blanket ban on inhalation or on vaporizer devices for administering cannabis flos would be nonsensical. This would have implications for administration options and prescriber-patient choice. It would also impact on their valid use in hospitals and hospices, rest-homes, and home settings.
 Fully-standardised, pharmaceutical-quality cannabis flos is the whole, dried flowers of the cannabis plant which is genetically and chemically standardised according to pharmaceutical standards with a defined cannabinoid and terpene composition. Also, it is free of contaminants such as microbial contaminants (molds, fungi, and bacteria) pesticides (residues), aflatoxins, impurities and heavy metals.
 Terpenes are a major component of Cannabis sativa. Responsible for the plant’s aroma, terpenes may also act synergistically with the cannabinoids. x
 When administering pharmaceutical quality cannabis flos.
[i] Douglas, H., Hall, W., Gartner, C. (2015). E-cigarettes and the law in Australia. Australian Family Physician. 44 (6): 415-418.
[ii] Jensen, P., Luo, W., Pankow, J., Strongin, R., Peyton, D. Hidden formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols. New England Journal of Medicine. 372 (4): 392-393.
[iii] Editorial and Review (2019). E-Cigarettes and Vaping-Related Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. Online: https://www.nejm.org/vaping
[iv] Eisenberg, E., Ogintz, M., Almog, S. (2014). The pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and ease of use of a novel portable metered-dose cannabis inhaler in patients with chronic neuropathic pain: A Phase 1a study. Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy. 28:216–225.
[v] Hazekamp, A., Ruhaak, R., Zuurman, L., van Gerven, J., Verpoorte, R. (2006). Evaluation of a vaporizing device (Volcano) for the pulmonary administration of tetrahydrocannabinol. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 95(6):1308-17.
[vi] Pomaahcova, B., Van der Kooy, F., Verpoorte, R. (2009). Cannabis smoke condensate III: the cannabinoid content of vaporised Cannabis sativa. Inhalation Toxicology. 21(13): 1108-12.
[vii] Grotenhermen, F. (2003). Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cannabinoids. Clinical Pharmacokinetics. 42: 327-360. Also, Grotenhermen, F. (2004). Clinical pharmacodynamics of cannabinoids. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. 4(1): 29-78.
[viii] Abrams, D., Vizoso, H., Shade, S., et al. (2007) Vaporization as a smokeless cannabis delivery system: a pilot study. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 82 (5): 572 – 8.
[ix] Gieringer, D., Laurent, J., Goodrich. (2004). Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC with Effective Suppression of Pyrolytic Compounds. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. 4(1)
[x] Hazekamp and Heerdink (2013). The prevalence and incidence of medicinal cannabis on prescription in The Netherlands. The European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
[xi] Van de Donk, T., Niesters, M., Kowal, M., Olofsen, E., Dahan, A., Van Velzen, M. (2019). An experimental randomized study on the analgesic effects of pharmaceutical-grade cannabis in chronic pain patients with fibromyalgia. Pain; 160: 860–869.
[xii] Russo, E. (2011). Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects. British Journal of Pharmacology. 163: 1344–1364.
[xiii] Hazekamp, A., Ware, M., Muller-Vahl, K., Abrams, D., Grotenhermen, F. (2013). The medicinal use of cannabis and cannabinoids: An international cross-sectional survey on administration forms. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 45 (3), 199–210.
[xiv] de Hoop, B., Hazekamp, A., Kopsky, D., Wijnkoop, L. (2016). Experiences and motives of medicinal cannabis patients: A cross-sectional questionnaire. Radboud Universiteit Nijengen, the Netherlands. (Unpublished work)
[xv] The Volcano® Medic vaporizer medical device is listed on the Medical Devices Active Licences Listing (Health Canada), licence No.: 82405.
[xvi] Hazekamp, A., Ruhaak, R., Zuurman, L., van Gerven, J., Verpoorte, R. (2006). Evaluation of a vaporizing device (Volcano) for the pulmonary administration of tetrahydrocannabinol. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 95(6):1308-17.
[xvii] Pomahacova, B., Van der Kooy, F., Verpoorte, R. (2009). Cannabis smoke condensate III: the cannabinoid content of vaporised Cannabis sativa. Inhalation Toxicology. 21(13):1108-12.
[xviii] Eisenberg, E., Ogintz, M., Almog, S. (2014). The pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and ease of use of a novel portable metered-dose cannabis inhaler in patients with chronic neuropathic pain: A Phase 1a study. Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy. 28:216–225.
[xix] Vulfsons S, Ognitz M, Bar-Sela G, Raz-Pasteur A, Eisenberg E (2019). Cannabis treatment in hospitalized patients using the SYQE inhaler: Results of a pilot open-label study. Palliative and Supportive Care, 1–6.
[xx] Van de Donk, T., Niesters, M., Kowal, M., Olofsen, E., Dahan, A., Van Velzen, M. (2019). An experimental randomized study on the analgesic effects of pharmaceutical-grade cannabis in chronic pain patients with fibromyalgia. Pain; 160: 860–869.