A Guide to 'Healthy' Vaping: a consideration of the entire process

Truth Seeker

Well-Known Member
You couldn't pay me to buy a cart!I tried it a few times and within less than week I throw the thing in the trash with the battery. Something about it just doesn't "feel right" to me. Maybe e-cigs have the potential to save lives of tobacco smokers idk? but weed vapes and the sound of the oil burning and cheap battery pens etc. I'd just go edible route if I wasn't prone to combusting every once in a while or dry herb vaping.
 
Truth Seeker,
  • Like
Reactions: Shadooz

Shadooz

Well-Known Member
But even so, less than 200 in Cali?
American healthcare,.. a lot cough in silence...
Like Covid 19 case, for countries that didn't test..
And i guess cannabis lobby is strong in cali..?

If not, why do you suppose that is? Carts were popular for years before 2019. They're popular now. Yet the wave of hospitalizations only occurred between 2019-2020.
Vali didn't stop after the acetate E gate.
Acetate E had a huge acute wave. Why internet are full of its feedback.

Here, in france we know cut from hash since centuries. We use the english word "shit", but it's no more cut with camel shit unfortunately..

Vaping is still aggressive to lungs, know what u're inhaling.
Even flower can be cut, i've already seen hairspray covered buds.. hope it will not give idea to the "ugly"..

If i try rosin, i want it to be press in front of me :lol:
 
Shadooz,

Stu

Maconheiro
Staff member
Your ridiculous, and false, argumentations against the study i post, is just a shame for cannabis...

Or he is just part of the "ugly" in that business ?...

Play with your cartridges, sheeps, or gooses ?

pathetic !

U bring me down to low grade conversation, i will let u in darkness.
@Shadooz, we have a Be Nice rule that is meant to keep conversation civil and you seem to be pushing the limits of it here in this thread. Please refrain from personal attacks or you will be given a warning point.

Thank you for your cooperation.

:peace:
 

florduh

Well-Known Member
You couldn't pay me to buy a cart!I tried it a few times and within less than week I throw the thing in the trash with the battery. Something about it just doesn't "feel right" to me. Maybe e-cigs have the potential to save lives of tobacco smokers idk? but weed vapes and the sound of the oil burning and cheap battery pens etc. I'd just go edible route if I wasn't prone to combusting every once in a while or dry herb vaping.

Most carts are distillate flavored with terps. I'm not a fan of those either. I've never heard them make sound though. I only buy hash rosin carts. I doubt anyone would throw one of those away. Too tasty, and they feel like flower. But yeah, not everybody likes carts. I do think the edible ROA is your best bet if you're worried about inhalation.

American healthcare,.. a lot cough in silence...
Like Covid 19 case, for country that didn't test..
I mean, it's possible. But now we're just guessing. A lot of cannabis combusters cough in silence too. But they don't get hospitalized or die. That's the big concern around EVALI.

And i guess cannabis lobby is stong 8n cali..
Sure, but not as powerful as the fucking Tobacco industry. Tobacco execs used the hysteria around VALI to convince US politicians to ban all of our vape mail. This will push a percentage of nicotine vapers back to cancer sticks and certainly kill more people than VALI ever did.

Vali didn't stop after the acetate E gate.
Acetate E had a huge acute wave. Why internet are full of its feedback.

To me, it looks like it did stop. The news media here loves beating up on vaping and if people were still getting hospitalized for lung injuries due to vaping, I bet we'd hear about it.

Do you mean there is internet feedback about carts causing problems? I don't doubt it. But anonymous posters saying their carts give them scratchy throats or a cough aren't particularly meaningful, to me. Especially because you will see similar complaints about dry herb vaping on this very site. Vaping/inhalation isn't for everyone, regardless of the tool used.
 

Shadooz

Well-Known Member
Do you mean there is internet feedback about carts causing problems?
Was talking about The acetate E feedback, now, as u push me on.

Other VALI could be too sporadic to be linked. a lot of pulmonologists aren't concern by cannabis, and just heal and go.
They're not all reporting, lacking of time or interest.
And with covid..

VALI will always exist, different form.
Like some recent sticky bricks issues, some say because of butane, some because of the woood allergies...

Yet to be determined, again...

https://www.reddit.com/r/vaporents/comments/mbhltx
Please refrain from personal attacks
I personaly atacked the cartridge, and wrong business around cannabis in general.
The "ugly", i guess u know the movie, "the good, the bad, and the "ugly"", which are def representative of that market..
Most of the inevitable black being "ugly"..
Then if people want to be their weak advocate, i have to stay against, against wrong behavour that ruins cannabis ideology.
Acetate E gate, or any VALI, aren't wanted, and u know that more than me. I have no money interest..
 
Last edited:

florduh

Well-Known Member
VALI will always exist, different form.
Like some recent sticky bricks issues, some say because of butane, some because of the woood allergies...

Interesting. I wonder if simple biodiversity is at play here too. Some people's lungs are more sensitive to butane, or wood, or high terpene content, or metal in the vapor path.
 

Shadooz

Well-Known Member
Interesting. I wonder if simple biodiversity is at play here too. Some people's lungs are more sensitive to butane, or wood, or high terpene content, or metal in the vapor path.
I always have to requote myself...
Everyone isn't equal (ex:cystic fibrosis, asthma), old smokers have mucus reduction and localized dryness..
They have higher risk of bronchectasis.
Yes there is different sensitivity, nothing to wonder...

Still waiting for the first vape related case over here in Europe. And believe me, our media loves to bash anything vape related too.
We've already got some, in france, for e-cig, as Thc is illegal, an no cbd cartridge yet.
From 2019 data, sry, it's "outdated", but covid haven't helped..
 
Last edited:
Shadooz,
  • Like
Reactions: Madri-Gal

vapirtoo

Well-Known Member
Every time we adulterate the basic plant in order to achieve
a stronger drug, we make it more toxic.
History:
opium- god's medicine; heroin the cure to opiate addiction
coca leaf- life extension; cocaine - heart attacks
Stay with the plant and you cannot go wrong. IMHO
 

invertedisdead

Weapons of VAS Destruction
Every time we adulterate the basic plant in order to achieve
a stronger drug, we make it more toxic.
History:
opium- god's medicine; heroin the cure to opiate addiction
coca leaf- life extension; cocaine - heart attacks
Stay with the plant and you cannot go wrong. IMHO

I agree with your premise but want to point out that THC percentage is a measurement of weight. The only reason "concentrates" test at a higher THC percentage is because the leafy green unvaporizable plant material has already been removed prior to lab testing.

When you vaporize dry herb you still expose your body to the same concentrated THC oils as other cannabis concentrates. The pile of AVB leftover after a flower session confirms that a concentration process has indeed occurred. The only way to avoid concentrating would be to consume the flower in its entirety - that's combustion.
 

Siebter

Less soul, more mind
We've already got some, in france, for e-cig, as Thc is illegal, an no cbd cartridge yet.
Do you have an idea why France had a total of five cases until Jan 7th while the US had 2600 cases? Also: which devices were used is referring to the info the respective patient gives. Many evali patients in the US claimed to have only used e cigs, especially in states where thc products are illegal. The most likely cause for that was fear from legal consequences – I'm pretty sure that was also the case in France. THC cartridges have been imported from the US to Europe, especially by tourists.
 

Shadooz

Well-Known Member
When you vaporize dry herb you still expose your body to the same concentrated THC oils as other cannabis concentrates.
Between drinking beer and vodka, with one u'll have to pee a lot before getting KO.

People weight by view, and so over weight concentrate easily. It's A "bull" thc rush, on that vicious circle.
Time is forgotten (rapidity)
The "rush" is the most impactfull for addiction, (agmydala...)
Getting faster to hypermensis (as exemple)

I can't talk about dab potency, but there is already a whole world between 15% buds of the last generation, and the contemporary buds reaching 30%...
American "stakhanovism" of chemical exess..

I don't care of old fuckers keeping fucking their throats/lungs.
My issue goes with the other side, all the young newcomers.

The pile of AVB leftover after a flower session confirms that a concentration process has indeed occurred. The only way to avoid concentrating would be to consume the flower in its entirety - that's combustion.
Amalgalm between extraction and concentration..
The ended inhaled vapor concentration will be different.

Do you have an idea why France had a total of five cases until Jan 7th while the US had 2600 cases?
I know the study was in french, but there is nothing to do with cartridge acetate E cut of USA.
There was no THC, or CBD, in their cartridge.
They put a statement about USA, the study was certainly request after the acetate E gate, that's the only link.
They said 2 was regulated cartridge, one was homemade.
And They only put "severe pneumonia" case, some cough silently, self healing being enough for them (or not..)..

I know no one that vape cannabis here, except myself.
Ecig are only use by smoker wanting to quit, or young folks falling into trends..
And Covid striked here, coughing is on the scenery.
 
Last edited:
Shadooz,

Siebter

Less soul, more mind
@Shadooz – You seem to have overlooked my point that the number of cases in France are only a tiny fraction of what we have seen in the US – doesn't make you think? And again: the info which device was used was given by the patient, not researched by someone else. They had good reasons to hide their souvenirs, because owning *and* importing illegal substances can get you in quite some trouble.

And They only put "severe pneumonia" case, some cough silently..

Nope. Vaping long chained fats regularly will most certainly not make you silently cough.

Covid and evali are two very different things. Just saying.
 

Shadooz

Well-Known Member
You seem to have overlooked my point that the number of cases in France are only a tiny fraction of what we have seen in the US
Read me back, i've put the reason,... no one vape cannabis here..
And we are only 60 million, of mostly elder..

Nope. Vaping long chained fats regularly will most certainly not make you silently cough.

Covid and evali are two very different things. Just saying.
It's already hard, as medical practitioner, to separate Covid from usual flu, without test..

U don't deserve any "hitchiker's guide", sry, I quit, useless voidness.. the uglies can take place.
 
Shadooz,

Siebter

Less soul, more mind
Read me back, i've put the reason,... no one vape cannabis here..
I very much doubt that no one vapes in France, but even if so: you said evali would be caused by e cigarettes too, those are legal in France and widely used. The age structures of the US and France are not the same, but actually pretty close. The US has about five times the citizens of France while the number of evali cases are 520 times higher.

It's already hard, as medical practitioner, to separate Covid from usual flu, without test..
However, there are tests. These days every hospitalized patient will get a covid test, even when they had a car crash and have no symptoms.
 
Last edited:

daeso393

New Member
At home, I exclusively use all-glass versions of the ELEV8R (quartz heater and borosilicate bowl), without metal screens, in rotation to always have a clean unit at hand. I run the ELEV8R through a borosilicate pre-mix Chamber to elongate and aerate the vapor path, into a borosilicate water piece filled with ca. 50C-60C filtered water to condition and humidify the otherwise dry vapor, and to reduce condensation loss in the process.
The MFLB is one of the few I actually trust and probably Vapor Bros and Silver Surfer would be good choices since these companies seem very conscious of materials used.
Thanks for the recommendations. Haven't heard of vapor bros but seems like a good option. I also don't place a lot of stock in the medical certification of S&B and the recent studies on phthalates and cancer are fairly robust, make me weary of any plastic. I think it's a question of whether there is a cost-effective equivalent that has one less potential carcinogen (which there is). I would be curious for other vape recommendations that avoid those materials.

I'm not an expert, but my read of the oncology literature is that generally repeated exposure is the biggest culprit. Moderation seems to be key in all facets of life to reduce risk. I see posts on here and other forums about people vaping every day for 10 years and I find that concerning. Maybe they will be fine, but it seems like those are the folks who ought to be worried the most. With alcohol the heavy drinkers (20+ a week for years) and heavy smokers (pack a day for years) are the ones who are far more likely to develop cancer. It's entirely possible vaping does not cause cancer but some of the large scale epidemiological studies often account for only 10-20% of all variance that explains cancer. There are literally thousands of yet to be identified carcinogens that we simply haven't studied. My guess is that for some folks, likely heavy users, there's some interaction with genes that will predict risk.
 

Siebter

Less soul, more mind
@daeso393 – Cancer is not an infectious disease, the likelihood to develop an aggressive tumor is within everyone of us, even if we would be able to avoid any kind of carcinogen, known or not. You can try to live according to *possible* risks, but as you have hinted, the potential for something being a carcinogen is potentially endless, as long as we haven't researched it fully (ideally with clinical long term studies, although that will make us have to ask the question who we will use as guinea pigs...). I see those suspicious notions towards anything that looks like smoking as a relict from the past, sometimes ones personal past, definitely from our social past. That variance you mention is not an argument at all, you could use it to explain any kind of statistic that is not fully derived yet.
 

daeso393

New Member
@daeso393 – Cancer is not an infectious disease, the likelihood to develop an aggressive tumor is within everyone of us, even if we would be able to avoid any kind of carcinogen, known or not. You can try to live according to *possible* risks, but as you have hinted, the potential for something being a carcinogen is potentially endless, as long as we haven't researched it fully (ideally with clinical long term studies, although that will make us have to ask the question who we will use as guinea pigs...). I see those suspicious notions towards anything that looks like smoking as a relict from the past, sometimes ones personal past, definitely from our social past. That variance you mention is not an argument at all, you could use it to explain any kind of statistic that is not fully derived yet.

But cancer isn't entirely heritable, epigenetic research suggests it's multifaceted. Certain cancers like oral cancer are more sensitive to environmental triggers. There's even a case report of a heavy vape user being diagnosed with oral cancer - https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-022301. Obviously it's a case report and n=1 but there's value in that.

Here's a quote from a recent journal article on vaping/lung cancer: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.12.030
Although research remains somewhat equivocal, there is clear reason for concern regarding the potential oncogenicity of E-Cigarettes/E-Liquids with a strong basic and molecular science basis. Given lag times (extrapolating from tobacco smoke data) of perhaps 20 years, this may have significant future public health implications. Thus, the authors feel further study in this field is strongly warranted and consideration should be made for tighter control and regulation of these products.

These aren't "suspicious notions". These are experts encouraging caution based on their read of the literature and understanding of the pathophysiology that far exceeds my limited knowledge. Given how little variance for many cancers we can explain it seems prudent to be somewhat cautious. Ultimately it comes down to personal choice and your own risk level. I'm someone who limits consumption of red meat/deli meat due to cancer, avoids anti-cholinergic drugs due to the dementia risk, and limits my alcohol/vaping consumption to a few days a week. These are relatively small changes that make me feel more secure about my future.
 

Truth Seeker

Well-Known Member
But cancer isn't entirely heritable, epigenetic research suggests it's multifaceted. Certain cancers like oral cancer are more sensitive to environmental triggers. There's even a case report of a heavy vape user being diagnosed with oral cancer - https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-022301. Obviously it's a case report and n=1 but there's value in that.

Here's a quote from a recent journal article on vaping/lung cancer: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.12.030


These aren't "suspicious notions". These are experts encouraging caution based on their read of the literature and understanding of the pathophysiology that far exceeds my limited knowledge. Given how little variance for many cancers we can explain it seems prudent to be somewhat cautious. Ultimately it comes down to personal choice and your own risk level. I'm someone who limits consumption of red meat/deli meat due to cancer, avoids anti-cholinergic drugs due to the dementia risk, and limits my alcohol/vaping consumption to a few days a week. These are relatively small changes that make me feel more secure about my future.
Great stuff! My conclusion at the end of the day is that dry herb vaping is not proven to be healthier than limited combustion (maybe a J a week).
The vapor qualities of heat hitting the back of throat, terpenes and possible grow chemicals might actually make dry herb vaping worse than combustion. I'm leary of any concentrates and consider them even more of a risk.

Minimizing risk to a few times a week seems prudent as your practice but you might as well combust a J at that point. The biggest factor I've found with combustion is oxygen deprivation in the bloodstream and any kind of overuse will bring on other issues (excess sputum etc). Dry herb vaping is still a wildcard in my book from a health perspective and I'm not competely sold on the rewards outweighing the risks. We know how a body responds and recovers from combustion (both long and short term users) Vaping has so many variables if it is in fact healthier than combustion than why is it so dang hard to get a system that works without irritation? thus most of us have gone through 1/2 dozen vapes trying to find one that works! (water perks, longer air path, solid steel, glass, plastic, solder and on and on ad nausea)

One rolling paper a week seems much easier and possibly the most prudent way to consume if inhalation is a must!
 
Truth Seeker,
  • Like
Reactions: shredder

daeso393

New Member
Great stuff! My conclusion at the end of the day is that dry herb vaping is not proven to be healthier than limited combustion (maybe a J a week).
The vapor qualities of heat hitting the back of throat, terpenes and possible grow chemicals might actually make dry herb vaping worse than combustion. I'm leary of any concentrates and consider them even more of a risk.

Minimizing risk to a few times a week seems prudent as your practice but you might as well combust a J at that point. The biggest factor I've found with combustion is oxygen deprivation in the bloodstream and any kind of overuse will bring on other issues (excess sputum etc). Dry herb vaping is still a wildcard in my book from a health perspective and I'm not competely sold on the rewards outweighing the risks. We know how a body responds and recovers from combustion (both long and short term users) Vaping has so many variables if it is in fact healthier than combustion than why is it so dang hard to get a system that works without irritation? thus most of us have gone through 1/2 dozen vapes trying to find one that works! (water perks, longer air path, solid steel, glass, plastic, solder and on and on ad nausea)

One rolling paper a week seems much easier and possibly the most prudent way to consume if inhalation is a must!

Great points. That unknown factor definitely worries me as well. Often researchers will emphasize that nicotine is the real danger (as many vaping papers focus on ecigs w/ tobacco), which gives me a little comfort. Then there's the vapes themselves, as some studies have found that ecig devices w/ metal coils will expose you to metals, so there's reason to think vapes w/ metal coils will have a similar effect. That severely limits the number of "safe" vapes. I think mixing it up could be a viable strategy, with occasional Js/vaping to limit exposure to any one thing.
 

Siebter

Less soul, more mind
But cancer isn't entirely heritable, epigenetic research suggests it's multifaceted. Certain cancers like oral cancer are more sensitive to environmental triggers. There's even a case report of a heavy vape user being diagnosed with oral cancer - https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-022301. Obviously it's a case report and n=1 but there's value in that.

I don't see any value in that and if there was any, I couldn't see it because
You do not currently have access to this content.
...which would be necessary to understand the history behind this case. One typical thing this kind of research (trying to find harm from e cigarettes) does is ignoring that e cigarette users pretty much always have smoked heavily prior to using an e cig. And as you mentioned, one case is never useful enough to make any kind of assumption. That's just plain bad science.

This is too:
Given lag times (extrapolating from tobacco smoke data) of perhaps 20 years, this may have significant future public health implications.
...because there is absolutely no reason to extrapolate assumptions for using e cigarettes from cigarettes. As I said: it looks like smoking, so it has to harm like smoking – absolute nonsense with no scientific base to it.

If you want to look at potential risks of e cigarettes, look at peer reviewed studies with clear results, not at case studies full of assumptions that „may“ (or may not) be true, for example →this one. Don't rely on articles about studies or studies that are not peer-reviewed (or behind a paywall); in those you can always muse about things that may or may not happen, but that's not very useful.
 
Last edited:

Truth Seeker

Well-Known Member
But cancer isn't entirely heritable, epigenetic research suggests it's multifaceted. Certain cancers like oral cancer are more sensitive to environmental triggers. There's even a case report of a heavy vape user being diagnosed with oral cancer - https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-022301. Obviously it's a case report and n=1 but there's value in that.

Here's a quote from a recent journal article on vaping/lung cancer: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.12.030


These aren't "suspicious notions". These are experts encouraging caution based on their read of the literature and understanding of the pathophysiology that far exceeds my limited knowledge. Given how little variance for many cancers we can explain it seems prudent to be somewhat cautious. Ultimately it comes down to personal choice and your own risk level. I'm someone who limits consumption of red meat/deli meat due to cancer, avoids anti-cholinergic drugs due to the dementia risk, and limits my alcohol/vaping consumption to a few days a week. These are relatively small changes that make me feel more secure about my future.
"repeated exposure" is probably always the culprit when inhalation is the case (look at environmental toxins like paint fumes, asbestos etc)
The issue with me about dry herb vaping is that many of us got into it as a "healthier" alternative to combustion. There are some positives for sure but there's negatives too and the bottom line is "is it truly healthier than combustion" and there is no definitive answer and I've been on this forum for years. There's very little medical literature and with the amount of quackery in modern medicine you really can't get any answers from what they have as they have very little experience/clinical observation of long term dry herb users.

Many people here have had problems and there's probably many more that won't post about dry herb vaping problems as they might feel fear of repercussion from vape enthusiasts here. Folks that have been into this for a while have invested their time and resources into buying vapes and kind of are always going to take a stand for the team as opposed to an unbiased approach and putting vaping under a critical light.
 
Truth Seeker,
  • Like
Reactions: shredder

Siebter

Less soul, more mind
There's very little medical literature and with the amount of quackery in modern medicine you really can't get any answers from what they have as they have very little experience/clinical observation of long term dry herb users.
There is some:


These studies suggest that with vaping we don't see any of the carcinogenic components which are known to be present in smoke. I agree, there's too little research about it yet and it's not always easy to understand which are legit and which are trash, especially when reading about them from 3rd parties. Hence we have to insist on peer-reviewed studies – you don't refer to what I have linked, I don't understand why it's not even worth referring to while articles with lotsa „ifs“ and „maybes” make you be concerned.

Many people here have had problems and there's probably many more that won't post about dry herb vaping problems as they might feel fear of repercussion from vape enthusiasts here. Folks that have been into this for a while have invested their time and resources into buying vapes and kind of are always going to take a stand for the team as opposed to an unbiased approach and putting vaping under a critical light.

I don't see that at all. We have some threads here that ask about issues and I have never seen them being played down, just the opposite. This is not about ignoring potential health risks in order to keep a good vibe or to better justify ones expenses. That's a very questionable imputation.
 

florduh

Well-Known Member
That severely limits the number of "safe" vapes. I think mixing it up could be a viable strategy, with occasional Js/vaping to limit exposure to any one thing

I don't understand how switching to a route of administration that definitely involves carcinogens from a ROA that possibly contains carcinogens is an improvement from a health perspective.

Also, it's important to know that the vast majority of scientists conducting these studies know fuck-all about vaping. To the best of my knowledge, most of the "e-cigs emit cancer causing chemicals" studies involved running the vapes at voltages no real world user would. Because it would taste like burnt ass.

It's like saying "apples cause cancer"....... if you burn them to a crisp before eating them. Ok cool, but no one eats apples that way so I'm not sure what this proves exactly.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom