Is vaporizing REALLY healthier for you?

[Ramahs]

Where does it go?

It's absorbed by our lungs...because that's how lungs work.
If it wasn't absorbed, then you wouldn't get high.

 

[west-elec]

It's absorbed by our lungs...because that's how lungs work.
If it wasn't absorbed, then you wouldn't get high.

I think it is more of a gaseous exchange in the lungs that allows us to absorb vapour. So any vapour that has re-condensed into oil will not be absorbed and has to be physically removed from the lung. It is trapped in mucus, moved by the Cillea and up she comes when you cough, usually coughed and swallowed. So short answer to where does it go? Mostly out the back door.
There is something new for the keen reclaimer, shit reclaim...yummy

 

[Kins]

I think it is more of a gaseous exchange in the lungs that allows us to absorb vapour. So any vapour that has re-condensed into oil will not be absorbed and has to be physically removed from the lung. It is trapped in mucus, moved by the Cillea and up she comes when you cough, usually coughed and swallowed. So short answer to where does it go? Mostly out the back door.
There is something new for the keen reclaimer, shit reclaim...yummy

Damn, how baked are you?. You should cut yourself off because you're talking nonsense.

 

[west-elec]

Damn, how baked are you?. You should cut yourself off because you're talking nonsense.

Pretty baked, why what did I say?, oh right shit reclaim. Fair enough.

 

[Shadooz]

It is trapped in mucus, moved by the Cillea and up she comes when you cough, usually coughed and swallowed

Usually just swallowed subconsciously, no cough

But most part of people coughing is due to throat irritation not mucus expectoration. Where most part of the oil stay, think of the drop down glass that retain reclaim.

Prolonged high temp will reduce the epithelial lining fluid and so cause mucus secretion. Things that could be usefull if controlled but problematic with repetitive superficial burn, even more with lungs hyposecretive mucus symptom of some diseases. Same as smoker tumerous formation but substiancialy lower.

Just know your limit, i take it easy and never cough

 

[LesPlenty]

I've run marathons as a smoker,

Fuck that, tried once as a young fella, nearly killed me!

 

[sunyata]

I mean surely inhaling any non-gaseous particulates into your lungs is not a great idea, full stop. Lungs are generally not built for that, they can deal with it, but in a way similar to how your digestive system feels about you eating gravel with your sandwich. But also, when you vape rather than smoke it's not a bunch of tar and freshly burnt crap, less gravel. And obviously some vapes are likely to be easier on your lungs than others. Blowing out massive clouds means more particulates means more potential for irritations. Similarly with massive hits, bong hits tend to be worse for your lungs than just small sips aye. But the case against smoking is pretty clear...

Vaping is essentially a harm reduction method. Takes out some of the harm, leaves some in. Eating by comparison probably reduces the harm further, yet with its own trade-offs. Any consumption has drawbacks at the end. But smoking is pretty high on the list of risky practices, along with injecting it or rubbing it into your eyes. I guess suppositories may be the healthiest option, and I salute the brave few visionaries that go for that option.

 

[Ramahs]

I think it is more of a gaseous exchange in the lungs that allows us to absorb vapour. So any vapour that has re-condensed into oil will not be absorbed and has to be physically removed from the lung. It is trapped in mucus, moved by the Cillea and up she comes when you cough, usually coughed and swallowed. So short answer to where does it go? Mostly out the back door.
There is something new for the keen reclaimer, shit reclaim...yummy

I don't think you know how lungs work.

 

[Shadooz]

@Ramahs @Kins which part of lung assimilation or lung expectoration, @west-elec barely "touch", is wrong to you ?
Negation without argumentation...

He may have pass on the dissolution that occur, which let some re-condensate get assimilated

 

[vapirtoo]

ok guys lets cut to the chase!?
We all know cig. smokers who have to hack up
all type of shit every morning because their
cilia have been burnt to stubs.
NON of my addicted, smoking blunts
all the time, pot heads hack up black and brown
stuff every morning.
After 50 years of continuous weed smoking
my doctor just said my lungs sound great,
and as I posted earlier, they still work great too.

 

[Polarbearboy]

The real crux of the matter is that because of the War on Drugs we just don't have enough

Before prohibition in Australia they used to sell 'Joy's cigarettes' made with 100% ''cannabis indica' which in those days meant weed from India, not some kush or hash plant, probably southern Indian sativa, whole plants chopped and rolled into thin joints. They were a medical product sold to treat ASTHMA!
Cannabis is a vaso-dilator so once absorbed it opens airways and can actually relieve asthma symptoms and help clearing phlegm (the problem is also the cure- so this post is relevant to topic).
The crap delivery method would be hard to take mid episode if you can't breathe. If they had vaping tech back then maybe many lives would have been saved.
Just googled it, the package says "Agreeable to use, certainl in their effects, and harmless in their action they may be safely smoked by ladies or children" Hilarious

Some of us are old enough to remember the tail end of doctors appearing in cigarette ads, touting the positive effects on lungs and throat. Lucky Strikes, strong and unfiltered, had doctors testifying that it was better for you because it was "toasted". When menthol cigarettes came out in the 50s and 60s, they would have whole medical clinics in ads declaring how it cleared up throat irritation and coughing. Marketing, gullibility, and self-delusion are central components of the human psyche and society. Because we like the way pot makes us feel, we rationalize that it isn't harmful and exaggerate the tiniest potential benefits. Just human nature.

 

[Kins]

The real crux of the matter is that because of the War on Drugs we just don't have enough


Some of us are old enough to remember the tail end of doctors appearing in cigarette ads, touting the positive effects on lungs and throat. Lucky Strikes, strong and unfiltered, had doctors testifying that it was better for you because it was "toasted". When menthol cigarettes came out in the 50s and 60s, they would have whole medical clinics in ads declaring how it cleared up throat irritation and coughing. Marketing, gullibility, and self-delusion are central components of the human psyche and society. Because we like the way pot makes us feel, we rationalize that it isn't harmful and exaggerate the tiniest potential benefits. Just human nature.

I don't rationalize that it isn't harmful. I know it's not harmful from reading it's history and studies. Plus no one has actually died from exclusively smoking weed. What I've been reading on the forum here people are doing the exact opposite of what you're saying.

 

[Siebter]

I've run marathons as a smoker, ultramarathons and triathlons. Possible.

Are you the guy who created the Barkley Marathons? :-)

Seriously, that's impressive, but for me working out with a healthier physique is just *much* more fun.

Edit: Vapor is not a gas.

Edit 2:

Plus no one has actually died from exclusively smoking weed.

How do you even know that? :-) Smoking kills, be it tobacco, weed or lavender. It's the smoke that kills, not nicotine, thc or terpinen-4-ol.

 

[djelibebbi]

How do you even know that? :-) Smoking kills, be it tobacco, weed or lavender. It's the smoke that kills, not nicotine, thc or terpinen-4-ol.

"Recent studies have shown that nicotine can affect several important steps in the development of cancer, and suggest that it may cause aggravation and recurrence of the disease."

Nicotine: Carcinogenicity and Effects on Response to Cancer Treatment – A Review

Tobacco use is considered the single most important man-made cause of cancer that can be avoided. The evidence that nicotine is involved in cancer development is reviewed and discussed in this paper. Both tobacco smoke and tobacco products for oral use ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic"
"Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer."

Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic

More people are using the cannabis plant as modern basic and clinical science reaffirms and extends its medicinal uses. Concomitantly, concern and opposition to smoked medicine has occurred, in part due to the known carcinogenic consequences of smoking ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Just sayin'...

 

[Siebter]

"Recent studies have shown that nicotine can affect several important steps in the development of cancer, and suggest that it may cause aggravation and recurrence of the disease."

That is true (and the same applies to plain sugar btw), however, nicotine itself is not carcinogenic (see→here).

"Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer."

The article assumes that certain properties of cannabis are anti carcinogenic, however, it also states that smoking cannabis is most likely carcinogenic. Just *potentially less* carcinogenic because of said properties.

 

[djelibebbi]

That is true (and the same applies to plain sugar btw), however, nicotine itself is not carcinogenic (see→here).



The article assumes that certain properties of cannabis are anti carcinogenic, however, it also states that smoking cannabis is most likely carcinogenic. Just *potentially less* carcinogenic because of said properties.

That supposition is because testing in the US is incredibly hard at the federal level, it being illegal

But the stats are such that in Canada where it's legal there's major life insurance companies treat weed only smokers as non smokers

Five Canadian Insurers Recognize Marijuana Users as Non-Smokers

Recently, five insurers in Canada announced their plans to begin underwriting medical and recreational marijuana users as non-smokers

www.hfgb.ca

research in Canada is ongoing, however this is what Health Canada (like US Dept of Health for Americans) officially says they know (emphasis added):

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/information-medical-practitioners/information-health-care-professionals-cannabis-cannabinoids.html#a7.1

• Evidence from pre-clinical studies suggests cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogens and mutagens as tobacco smoke and that cannabis smoke is as mutagenic and cytotoxic, if not more so, than tobacco smoke.
• However, limited and conflicting evidence from epidemiological studies has thus far been unable to find a robust and consistent association between cannabis use and various types of cancer, with the possible exception of a link between cannabis use and testicular cancer (i.e testicular germ cell tumours).

The summary of conflicting studies is down the page. Many have design flaws you may notice, but there is one meta analysis worth looking into at the end

In summary Health Canada says:

• Evidence from pre-clinical studies suggests that cannabis smoke contains many of the same respiratory irritants and toxins as tobacco smoke, and even greater quantities of some such substances.
• Case studies suggest that cannabis smoking is associated with a variety of histopathological changes in respiratory tissues, a variety of respiratory symptoms similar to those seen in tobacco smokers, and changes in certain lung functions with frequent, long-term use.
• The association between chronic heavy cannabis smoking (without tobacco) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, is unclear, but if there is one, is possibly small.

So, while it is complicated, to my mind all this implies less risk is smoking cannabis than tobacco,

This implies tp me that vaping cannabis is lower risk than smoking cannabis

"The potential advantages of vapourization include the formation of a smaller quantity of toxic by-products such as carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and tar, as well as a more efficient extraction of Δ9-THC (and CBD) from the cannabis materialReference402Reference411-Reference414"

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/information-medical-practitioners/information-health-care-professionals-cannabis-cannabinoids.html#a2.2.1.2

But for sure there's still risk. Heart rate increase, testicular cancer. So I do what I can to mitigate those as well.

That said, nano-edibles are compelling, just not very tasty, and hard to make yourself. I'd go the nano-spray sublingual route if it was easier to make

 

[djelibebbi]

As for why cannabis smoker mortality rates are close enough to normal for insurance companies, this is still pre-clinical, but it looks like cannabinoid induced autophagy of cancer cells is still what they observe in vitro, but still not fully understood

Anticancer mechanisms of cannabinoids

In addition to the well-known palliative effects of cannabinoids on some cancer-associated symptoms, a large body of evidence shows that these molecules can decrease tumour growth in animal models of cancer. They do so by modulating key cell signalling ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Siebter]

@djelibebbi – Yeah, I said that smoking weed may be less carcinogenic than smoking cigarettes (one major factor seems to be the higher frequency when smoking cigs), but in either case, it's not the substance we want to beam in our bloodstream, but the application → smoking. The carcinogenic properties are solely created by the smoke – that has nothing to do with the weed. Smoke is very harmful, especially when being inhaled directly in our lungs.

 

[djelibebbi]

@djelibebbi – Yeah, I said that smoking weed may be less carcinogenic than smoking cigarettes (one major factor seems to be the higher frequency when smoking cigs), but in either case, it's not the substance we want to beam in our bloodstream, but the application → smoking. The carcinogenic properties are solely created by the smoke – that has nothing to do with the weed. Smoke is very harmful, especially when being inhaled directly in our lungs.

My main concern with the original statement was that it could be construed to mean nicotine consumption is safe if you don't smoke it. I mean, you can get cancer from chawing too. But, I'm stoned so...

 

[Siebter]

My main concern with the original statement was that it could be construed to mean nicotine consumption is safe if you don't smoke it.

Well, nicotine is a very potent substance, it can kill you no doubt, so saying it's „safe“ is very wrong. However, more recent research in nicotine shows that we have misunderstood many of its properties, mainly its toxicity, dependency and carcinogenic potential. For a long time „nicotine“ was equal to „tobacco smoke“, nowadays we discriminate between those two things very carefully (hence for example the „Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence” was renamed to „Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence”).

I mean, you can get cancer from chawing too.

From what I know chewing tobacco can be seen as a form of harm reduction, but the data seems a bit conflicting and unclear. I would still prefer to discriminate between nicotine as a substance and tobacco, which contains many other substances too.

 

[BrianTL]

Well, nicotine is a very potent substance, it can kill you no doubt, so saying it's „safe“ is very wrong. However, more recent research in nicotine shows that we have misunderstood many of its properties, mainly its toxicity, dependency and carcinogenic potential. For a long time „nicotine“ was equal to „tobacco smoke“, nowadays we discriminate between those two things very carefully (hence for example the „Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence” was renamed to „Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence”).



From what I know chewing tobacco can be seen as a form of harm reduction, but the data seems a bit conflicting and unclear. I would still prefer to discriminate between nicotine as a substance and tobacco, which contains many other substances too.

In my completely non-scientific opinion, chewing tobacco should never be considered a form of harm reduction. IMO that shit is just as likely to give you some form of cancer...although it is supposed to be a much "purer" form of tobacco I think? In my experience though, a lot of people who chew also smoke.

If you're going to take any form of nicotine through oral absorption, I think "Swedish Snus" is supposed to be the most healthy/pure form of nicotine intake. Something like this:

Buy Siberia -80 Degrees White Dry - Order online & save 9%

Buy Siberia -80 Degrees White Dry Portion online at SnusDirect.com. Save $4 per roll when ordering a roll today. ✓ Good prices ✓ Fast shipping ✓ Fresh snus in stock

www.snusdirect.com

 

[Siebter]

As I said, I'm not sure about chewing at all – it is definitely not a pure tobacco, it's actually cut with many different sweeteners and aromas etc.

Snus seems to be a good way to avoid bad effects indeed.

I personally prefer to stay away from tobacco in general, though.

Getting a bit offtopic in here... :-)

 

[shopdognyc]

"Recent studies have shown that nicotine can affect several important steps in the development of cancer, and suggest that it may cause aggravation and recurrence of the disease."

Nicotine: Carcinogenicity and Effects on Response to Cancer Treatment – A Review

Tobacco use is considered the single most important man-made cause of cancer that can be avoided. The evidence that nicotine is involved in cancer development is reviewed and discussed in this paper. Both tobacco smoke and tobacco products for oral use ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic"
"Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer."

Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic

More people are using the cannabis plant as modern basic and clinical science reaffirms and extends its medicinal uses. Concomitantly, concern and opposition to smoked medicine has occurred, in part due to the known carcinogenic consequences of smoking ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Just sayin'...

There are also work on using nicotine as a nootropic or something. Choose your plus I guess.

 

[shopdognyc]

Are you the guy who created the Barkley Marathons? :-)

Seriously, that's impressive, but for me working out with a healthier physique is just *much* more fun.

Edit: Vapor is not a gas.

Edit 2:



How do you even know that? :-) Smoking kills, be it tobacco, weed or lavender. It's the smoke that kills, not nicotine, thc or terpinen-4-ol.

I had aspirations trying to get into the race, running through razor thorns for days without rest. Now, I like to pick things up and put them down. Though I am itching to do it again.

 

[Ramahs]

@Ramahs @Kins which part of lung assimilation or lung expectoration, @west-elec barely "touch", is wrong to you ?
Negation without argumentation...

He may have pass on the dissolution that occur, which let some re-condensate get assimilated

Because the vapor droplets have to get into the mucous membrane before your lungs can absorb it. So it basically has to condense into that mucous first.