Vape Carts Health Crisis Megathread

[Tranquility]

Describe one way that any part of the cannabis plant can harm any person anywhere ... what compound or molecule or Whatever is harmful in the plant ? please do not say = some research says this ot that .. I want you personally to explain it

I don't have to explain/know the water cycle to know I get wet when it rains.

There are tons of people who have looked at things and find differences in some areas between people who use cannabis and those who don't. Some of those studies show correlations with negative outcomes with cannabis users. These studies are from many places and cover many areas and it seems the constituents of cannabis are a drug that has effects on people. Some effects are positive and some are negative.

Correlation is not causation and, while there are some suggestions for some of the harms, I'll agree it has not been explained as yet.

But, all we have showing cigarette smoking causes cancer is correlation as causation is not proven. (Some smokers don't get cancer.) If someone were to make the same demand you did about cigarette smoking (explain causation) they couldn't do it. Because, they don't know.

 

[C No Ego]

I don't have to explain/know the water cycle to know I get wet when it rains.

There are tons of people who have looked at things and find differences in some areas between people who use cannabis and those who don't. Some of those studies show correlations with negative outcomes with cannabis users. These studies are from many places and cover many areas and it seems the constituents of cannabis are a drug that has effects on people. Some effects are positive and some are negative.

Correlation is not causation and, while there are some suggestions for some of the harms, I'll agree it has not been explained as yet.

But, all we have showing cigarette smoking causes cancer is correlation as causation is not proven. (Some smokers don't get cancer.) If someone were to make the same demand you did about cigarette smoking (explain causation) they couldn't do it. Because, they don't know.

we do know - tobacco is a bronchorestrictor , it disturbs breathing , less breath avaiable ETC.... it is a nightshade plant/ Solanacea ( that describes lots there) .

cannabis is opposite, it is bronchodilator / vasodilator ETC... in the cannabaceae family of plants ( five to seven leaves means safe to ingest) . that is but one part of explaining it in relation to tobacco plants . we too do not eat tobacco plants like we do cannabis plants ...

so far the only biochemistry we have that follows without question the molecules as they metabolize shows neuroprotection in the bodies cells that metabolize those types of ligands into cellular expression . Hell, we even found the endocannabinoid system while identifying the biochemistry .

Still, I did not ask you lightly either that questuion ... bare in mind I've asked thousands of people by now who claim the cannabis pl;ant harms you = Where / How ? . these is always my response and honestly over the years the best example I've had explained is that activating cb receptors with one compound only seems to make just a few pathways go active, like 5HT1 was the example given to me by a biochemist ... that would qualify for say THC isolates or something not whole plant ETC... how we ingest it matters most ( literally solid matter)

 

[Tranquility]

we do know - tobacco is a bronchorestrictor , it disturbs breathing , less breath avaiable ETC.... it is a nightshade plant/ Solanacea ( that describes lots there) .

cannabis is opposite, it is bronchodilator / vasodilator ETC... in the cannabaceae family of plants ( five to seven leaves means safe to ingest) . that is but one part of explaining it in relation to tobacco plants . we too do not eat tobacco plants like we do cannabis plants ...

so far the only biochemistry we have that follows without question the molecules as they metabolize shows neuroprotection in the bodies cells that metabolize those types of ligands into cellular expression . Hell, we even found the endocannabinoid system while identifying the biochemistry .

Still, I did not ask you lightly either that questuion ... bare in mind I've asked thousands of people by now who claim the cannabis pl;ant harms you = Where / How ? . these is always my response and honestly over the years the best example I've had explained is that activating cb receptors with one compound only seems to make just a few pathways go active, like 5HT1 was the example given to me by a biochemist ... that would qualify for say THC isolates or something not whole plant ETC... how we ingest it matters most ( literally solid matter)

For cannabis to be such a positive effect, there must be some sampling error in all those other tests/studies that find a relationship with cannabis directly associated with negative outcomes. That is the problem with your theory, reality says differently. Is it cannabis causing the issue? No one knows. But, if it isn't, there is some hidden commonality that has not been found. Actually, hidden commonalities. That is, not just on one study in one field, but many studies in multiple disciplines.

At some point the data has to be explained. Saying we don't eat tobacco but do eat cannabis ergo opposite, is not going to do it.

It is reasonable to claim there is no proof (depending on how proof is defined) cannabis is harmful. It is NOT reasonable to claim there is proof it is harmless.

 

[Haze Mister]

Vape carts/pods/ whatever are bad, mmkay?

 

[shredder]

For cannabis to be such a positive effect, there must be some sampling error in all those other tests/studies that find a relationship with cannabis directly associated with negative outcomes. That is the problem with your theory, reality says differently. Is it cannabis causing the issue? No one knows. But, if it isn't, there is some hidden commonality that has not been found.

If you look at the whole picture and how many people use cannabis and that we have for 5000 years the negative outcomes pale when compared to the positive outcomes.

For me personally I mostly eat my cannabis. Inhaling vapor isn't helpful with my asthma. But I don't blame cannabis or vapes for my conditions. There may be an effect, but cannabis is not a cause.

 

[Tranquility]

If you look at the whole picture and how many people use cannabis and that we have for 5000 years the negative outcomes pale when compared to the positive outcomes.

For me personally I mostly eat my cannabis. Inhaling vapor isn't helpful with my asthma. But I don't blame cannabis or vapes for my conditions. There may be an effect, but cannabis is not a cause.

I agree. That's why I've made the risk/reward choice I have. But, everything has risk--even water. Even though water is essential to life.

 

[Siebter]

But, all we have showing cigarette smoking causes cancer is correlation as causation is not proven. (Some smokers don't get cancer.)

I think the causation has been shown clearly in the 60s first. One strong sign is for example that while not all smokers do get lung cancer, lung cancer used to be an exclusive and rare symptom among coal miners and the like and yet can be found 10 to 15 times more in smokers lungs than in non smokers lungs. The evidence is *very* strong.

It is reasonable to claim there is no proof (depending on how proof is defined) cannabis is harmful. It is NOT reasonable to claim there is proof it is harmless.

There is also no proof that bananas don't cause cancer. I agree though it's not wise to claim it's harmless, however, I don't see any proof of whatever sort from your side that it is harmful. Also I rarely see anyone claiming that it is harmless, that's a typical strawman argument from the anti cannabis movement.

 

[C No Ego]

For cannabis to be such a positive effect, there must be some sampling error in all those other tests/studies that find a relationship with cannabis directly associated with negative outcomes. That is the problem with your theory, reality says differently. Is it cannabis causing the issue? No one knows. But, if it isn't, there is some hidden commonality that has not been found. Actually, hidden commonalities. That is, not just on one study in one field, but many studies in multiple disciplines.

At some point the data has to be explained. Saying we don't eat tobacco but do eat cannabis ergo opposite, is not going to do it.

It is reasonable to claim there is no proof (depending on how proof is defined) cannabis is harmful. It is NOT reasonable to claim there is proof it is harmless.

so to sum it up = the parts and pieces in the cannabis plant that are medically viable are unknown , the harmful parts too = unknown, we keep on guessing ? is that the summary of this discussion as per your post ?

Still , we have the biochemistry and can trace , map , identify the biochemical pathways ... they are there for the cell survival ... No cannabis type pathways have been identified that are not supportive lipid pathways ETC.... this is the bases of my post to you... until we can prove or show with a biochemical representation how the lipids /terpenes in the plant harm a person we are but guessing ... so with all that, the Smoke when the plant is ignited into cinder is a harmful By product ( not of the [plant initially ) that can be unhealthy ... obviously all research has proved that however even in all that smoke is the medical type compounds as well

 

[Tranquility]

I think the causation has been shown clearly in the 60s first. One strong sign is for example that while not all smokers do get lung cancer, lung cancer used to be an exclusive and rare symptom among coal miners and the like and yet can be found 10 to 15 times more in smokers lungs than in non smokers lungs. The evidence is *very* strong.

While the facts you state may be true, "causation" of cancer from smoking is not proven. (At least to the level required of negative information on cannabis.) I agree smoking causes cancer. But, we don't have "proof". By the way, how much smoking causes cancer?
Here's the history from an organization very, very, much in favor of the link. (As am I.)
The Study That Helped Spur the U.S. Stop-Smoking Movement

Now, with more cowbell:
Cancer Mythbusters: Smoking and Lung Cancer

So, myth busted — smoking is not the only risk factor for lung cancer. There are lung cancers that are related to smoking, and there are lung cancers that (as far as researchers can tell right now) occur due to bad luck. A smoker can get a nonsmoker's lung cancer, and a nonsmoker can be exposed to certain elements that lead him or her to develop a smoker's lung cancer.

That being said, there are many cases of lung cancer that are seemingly unexplainable. Researchers are exploring genes that might explain rare families of people that develop lung cancer, and they will continue to explore the question of inherited risk.

There is also no proof that bananas don't cause cancer. I agree though it's not wise to claim it's harmless, however, I don't see any proof of whatever sort from your side that it is harmful. Also I rarely see anyone claiming that it is harmless, that's a typical strawman argument from the anti cannabis movement.

That's because they might. There are many studies showing ionizing radiation causes cancer. Bananas have radioactive potassium. What is the dose where the radiation does not cause cancer? We don't know. We have safe levels of exposure but we have no idea if a cancer has formed from some cells' DNA getting ionized. When they were doing whole body scans as a health scam to everyone, one odd factor they found was that there are a TON of little bits and pieces of cancer-like things in us, even if they don't result in a later diagnosis of "cancer". One theory is our immune system fights off some of the cells and they don't develop into a problem. Maybe it is bananas.

I think one would have to be an idiot to worry about eating too many bananas because of the radiation dose from them. But, there will not ever be proof bananas don't cause cancer unless someone with money to burn wants to do an actual study. The anti-banana lobby are not interested as of yet. But, the apple people are looking into it. (Recognizing how much the Alar didn't keep the doctor away.)

As to strawman, did you read the post I was responding too? I believe @C No Ego feels it is harmless. Not just harmless, but nutritive with no down side. Perhaps I was wrong. But, it sure seems like the followup post is making the same harmless claim.

 

[MinnBobber]

I agree. That's why I've made the risk/reward choice I have. But, everything has risk--even water. Even though water is essential to life.

Note that more people die each year from drinking too much water than from consuming too much cannabis.... no one has ever died from consuming too much cannabis.
Cannabis risk is very low and cannabis reward is very high.

Can anyone name a substance or activity with a higher reward: risk ratio????

Cannabis may have some risk BUT the value it brings as a supplement to our Endocannabinoid System is gigantic.

 

[Tranquility]

Note that more people die each year from drinking too much water than from consuming too much cannabis.... no one has ever died from consuming too much cannabis.
Cannabis risk is very low and cannabis reward is very high.

Can anyone name a substance or activity with a higher reward: risk ratio????

Cannabis may have some risk BUT the value it brings as a supplement to our Endocannabinoid System is gigantic.

There is a lot to cannabis we don't know. Before we start marking the final score, we have to look to the more subtle effects on attitude and personality as well as physical health. Most of us know of at least one person who has or who has had a "problem" with cannabis. It might be in their personal life, it might be in their professional life, it might just be in how happy they are, but, a problem.

Most? No. But, some. You know it, I know it and if we had tons of studies saying it's not true we'd have to challenge them because we know THAT guy.

Death is not the only potential harm.

 

[Siebter]

While the facts you state may be true, "causation" of cancer from smoking is not proven. (At least to the level required of negative information on cannabis.) I agree smoking causes cancer. But, we don't have "proof".

Please. Scientists do not speak of „proof“ at all. They have data and models that either work or do not work.

Ask yourself: how could a proof in this case even look like?

 

[Tranquility]

Please. Scientists do not speak of „proof“ at all. They have data and models that either work or do not work.

Ask yourself: how could a proof in this case even look like?

I think you finally understand my point.

Others were asking for proof of a particular thing.

Does HIV *cause* AIDS?

One person (https://www.thebody.com/article/hiv-cause-aids) answered it this way:
In light of the fact that yet another book is being released by the HIV critics, we are supplying the attached document for your information. It is an official summary of the evidence collected over the last 15 years which has lead to the nearly universal consensus that HIV is the primary cause of AIDS (on the NIH Web Site). It represents the work of hundreds of scientists and references several hundred scientific papers on this matter. HIV critics make the argument that "there isn't a single scientific paper which proves that HIV is the cause of AIDS." In a sense, they are correct. The argument is made not by a single paper, but by hundreds of them.

 

[Siebter]

In a sense, they are correct.

Because that's how science works, esp. when we try to understand things which naturally can not be proofed. The theory of relativity or quantum mechanics can not be proofed per se, but they are models which do not even explain things we observe, but are even able to predict things we haven't observed yet. However, they are not „truth”. But unless someone comes up with a better model for our universe or why that guy suffers from lung cancer, it seems wise to use what we have.

 

[Tranquility]

Because that's how science works, esp. when we try to understand things which naturally can not be proofed. The theory of relativity or quantum mechanics can not be proofed per se, but they are models which do not even explain things we observe, but are even able to predict things we haven't observed yet. However, they are not „truth”. But unless someone comes up with a better model for our universe or why that guy suffers from lung cancer, it seems wise to use what we have.

I'm glad we agree.

Now, to bring us back to the start, do we have any "models" showing cannabis has negative effects on some people?

 

[Siebter]

I'm glad we agree.

Just to be clear: we do most certainly not agree here. Your idea of science and scientific research is fundamentally different from mine.

 

[C No Ego]

@Tranquility why I state the cannabis plant is mostly benign , healthy ETC.... phytocannabinoids are non selective ... that means . they do not force a cb receptor pathway but will metabolize into pathways that select them to do so ... unlike Anandamide and 2-ag which both are selective and will select to metabolize into a cannabinoid receptor plant cannabinoids will not ... if our cells do not require them @ the moment they are sent into a waste elimination sequence ...

Quote " Now, to bring us back to the start, do we have any "models" showing cannabis has negative effects on some people? " unquote
Yes! the monkeys in gas masks are Real science ! it proves cannabis is a bad bad plant

 

[Tranquility]

@Tranquility why I state the cannabis plant is mostly benign , healthy ETC.... phytocannabinoids are non selective ... that means . they do not force a cb receptor pathway but will metabolize into pathways that select them to do so ... unlike Anandamide and 2-ag which both are selective and will select to metabolize into a cannabinoid receptor plant cannabinoids will not ... if our cells do not require them @ the moment they are sent into a waste elimination sequence ...

Quote " Now, to bring us back to the start, do we have any "models" showing cannabis has negative effects on some people? " unquote
Yes! the monkeys in gas masks are Real science ! it proves cannabis is a bad bad plant

As you say.

Consider something like adrenaline. It is naturally produced by our body and we require it for regulation and for fight or flight. It is generally not a problem for people to get a little scare that gives a little squeeze from the adrenal glands that cause effect. In fact, many find it quite pleasurable. One reason why horror films are liked is because of the effect of that kitty jumping out from behind the toaster that you didn't expect. Snow boarding, sky diving and any of a number of "extreme" sports all give the same adrenaline rush some find so pleasurable.

Getting those little squirts at times does not seem that dangerous. Seeing a lot of scary movies does not seem to be directly related to negative cardiovascular effects. Now, if you get those little squirts ALL the time, there is effect over time. The physical stress of always being chemically told to fight or flee, and you don't, DOES have a direct relationship to negative cardiovascular effects. While the "waste" breaks down, the continual process causes long-term problems.

Now, imagine injecting adrenaline so you have a higher level than naturally produced all the time.

Just because a molecule can naturally react with our bodies seemingly without harm does not mean flooding the body with that molecule results in a similar lack of harm.

As to your claim the fact cannabis has negative effects makes it a bad plant, I disagree.

 

[C No Ego]

As you say.

Consider something like adrenaline. It is naturally produced by our body and we require it for regulation and for fight or flight. It is generally not a problem for people to get a little scare that gives a little squeeze from the adrenal glands that cause effect. In fact, many find it quite pleasurable. One reason why horror films are liked is because of the effect of that kitty jumping out from behind the toaster that you didn't expect. Snow boarding, sky diving and any of a number of "extreme" sports all give the same adrenaline rush some find so pleasurable.

Getting those little squirts at times does not seem that dangerous. Seeing a lot of scary movies does not seem to be directly related to negative cardiovascular effects. Now, if you get those little squirts ALL the time, there is effect over time. The physical stress of always being chemically told to fight or flee, and you don't, DOES have a direct relationship to negative cardiovascular effects. While the "waste" breaks down, the continual process causes long-term problems.

Now, imagine injecting adrenaline so you have a higher level than naturally produced all the time.

Just because a molecule can naturally react with our bodies seemingly without harm does not mean flooding the body with that molecule results in a similar lack of harm.

As to your claim the fact cannabis has negative effects makes it a bad plant, I disagree.

the safety profile of whole plant is known too . LD50 / therapeutic index .. 50,000 to 1 .

here is the math and what the plant biomimics - predicted that each cell that is part of metabolically active tissue signals 15,000 biochemicals a second . theses are cannabinoid signals ... this is where I lose people in the conversation .. 70 trillion cells at least each signaling 15 thousand cannabinoid signals a second is your endocananbinoid system . Each signal touches interior of cell 7 times before finalizing ...
another way we can show with the biochenmistry that cannabis is safe is the way that the enzymes in the cells use the [phytocananbinoid and then finalize that signal with waste elimination ... they are the Epoxides , the fatty acid binding proteins ... Here I am explaining endocannabinoid system while in the origianl post all I asked of you was to do the same ... describe with biochemcistry and then make some conclusions .. so far you've stated some people may react badly to the plant , well no shit.

also , the most simple way to expalin ... lipids in the C-18/C-22 size range with a weight of around 300 to 400 G/mols
phytocannabinoids are lipids with a terpene backbone ... meroterpinoids / terpenophenolic compounds

Edit - show any examples of flooding the body with phytocannabinoids and I'll remind you that is RSO / FECO medication

 

[Tranquility]

There's a new theory, not just vitamin E, on the damage from vape pens.

THE FACTS ARE IN: HERE’S HOW THC VAPES CAUSE LUNG DAMAGE

...A century-old cancer mystery was just uncovered in January 2021 – and cancer is on the other side of lung damage. (2) This detailed the importance of a messenger known as PI3K. Cell-division in the immune system, as well as cancerous tissue, is driven by this special messenger. The surfactants, Vitamin E acetate and Polysorbate 80, block this messenger and potentially slow down cell division. This might ramp lung damage if the surrounding tissues are not fed enough oxygen (Warburg Effect).

New tissue will still need to form via cell division if lung tissue is attacked by a toxin and killed in any condition. Otherwise, the result might be catastrophic lung damage....

 

[RustyOldNail]

There's a new theory, not just vitamin E, on the damage from vape pens.

THE FACTS ARE IN: HERE’S HOW THC VAPES CAUSE LUNG DAMAGE

It’s interesting, as I recently got into distillate carts, and as the THC is already Delta9, I was curious as to what happens to the heated THC. Seems there is a lot more testing needed, but at least I’m finding I satisfied with using lower volts/Watts on my heaters. However, the articles title is a bit misleading.

This is a copy/paste from the end of that article:

What happens to the cannabis oil itself in a vape pen?

Heat influences THC to turn into Delta-8 or Delta-10. So, heat is an issue in the identity of the molecule. When you put THC in a vape cartridge, it is Delta-9 THC in the beginning. But, does anything happen to the THC when you heat it for vaporization?

That question hasn’t really been answered, yet. Everyone tests if the material that is in the cartridge is safe. But, no one tests if the material that comes out of the cartridge is safe.

It is like testing the grape juice that goes in a wine bottle to ensure there is no alcohol in it after you get the bottle out of the cellar 80 years later. You missed a step. Therefore, it would be good to test the vapour that comes out of a cartridge to know if there is any risk factor.
Dr. Markus Roggen

Thank you for your time, Dr. Roggen. End of the phone call.

 

[invertedisdead]

Dr Markus Roggen is the guy who formulated the co2 extraction process for the unwinterized non distilled oil cartridges made by OutCo here in California. Good stuff!

IMO the moral of the story is always the same here, you don’t want ANY additives in your cartridge, it’s simply not necessary.

 

[Tranquility]

It’s interesting, as I recently got into distillate carts, and as the THC is already Delta9, I was curious as to what happens to the heated THC. Seems there is a lot more testing needed, but at least I’m finding I satisfied with using lower volts/Watts on my heaters. However, the articles title is a bit misleading.

I think more than just the title. The article was a mess and very hard to even see what they were claiming. I only posted it because I just saw it and the research was linked at the bottom and that seemed fairly new as well.