Why would anyone not prefer vaporizing?

[brandonjacobs]

What's up everyone? New here as you can all see. Been blazing for nearly a year and I must say when I first heard about vaporizing, I immediately bought the Vapir One 5.0 vape which was a great investment. After buying it I asked a few of my friends who I blaze with if they wanted to use it and they all said "No way man vaporizing is stupid" or "Pfff I like the taste too much bro screw vaporizers" etc.

Maybe it's just me but my reaction after I used it with a different friend was "Why would you want to smoke bud and take in the tar and carcinogens when you can do it another way that's so much healthier for you and gives you the same, if not a better high?" That's why you buy the stuff right? To get high...

Anyways I'll leave my rant at that and just say that I'll never go back to smoking it again when I can just vaporize it. Thoughts?

 

[Beezleb]

I agree. I am a big vaporist for the health reasons and all other reasons are what I consider extra benefits hehe.

Some dont always agree and mostly its because the manner of use is different and vaping takes a bit longer where anyone can step out and smoke a J or bowl real quick. A vape is slightly more complex even when using a lighter based vape. No matter how you do it, smoking is faster and more user friendly so to speak so people tend to stick with what they know.

As anti-smoking gains strength and in time vaporizers will get better in that regard. Its just a matter of time but im not sure they will really be mainstream and I kind of dont want it mainstream.

 

[Acolyte of Zinglon]

heh, most of my friends who smoke are already vapor fans, they just cant find it in their budget to get one apparently, their favorite vape is just the vapor box type whip vape, in fact, when i just first started smoking (actually just over a year now), i went with one of them to a headshop (still 17, so i went with him because the guys know him and therefore would be less likely to card me, and we met a guy who was going to buy a volcano, my friend proceeds to talk him out of getting a volcano and to instead get a vapor box, i dont recall which brand, but it was pretty funny, i find myself wondering if that guys happy with the box vape

 

[stickstones]

I know people who would like to vape but don't because of the cost involved.

I also know people who are heavy smokers of both mj and cigs, and their reasoning is that they are going to fuck up their lungs with cig smoke anyhow, so who needs to vape mj for health reasons.

I also know people who smoke a ton of mj and have owned a vape before, but prefer the ritual of a joint and feel that vaping can't replace a good bong hit.

In the end, none of these people value their health more than their money, ritual or perceived high. It all comes down to priorities, and we all have different ones. The perceived high can be overcome if you vape just a little bit, as most will enjoy the vape high more. But money and ritual are hard to overcome, and it is for this reason that I think vaping will continue to be non-mainstream for many years to come.

Note...moving this thread to the lounge.

 

[Spiderman]

I'm sorry, but threads like this are pretty silly. Do the research, its not as night and day as some claim.

Realistically, smoking MJ alone is not bad for your health. Thousands of years of human use, plus any study done with any scientific basis, are gonna back me up on that. MJ smoke is not really bad for you...it has not been linked to any illness but bronchitis. Look up what causes bronchitis....

Furthermore, the major studies that everyone likes to cite about the "benefits" of vaping are a bit suspect. The big one was funded by none other than Storz and Bickel (who trusts the clinical trial that GSK does for their own drugs?), and had an incredibly small sample size (150 people who vaporized daily total, and about 6000 smokers). The differences in smoke related illness were pretty minimal (65% on vape, 56% on smoke....difference is not statistically relevant).

Where the study gets interesting is in the breakdown of the different hits (smoke v vapor). Turns out that vaporizers deliver a hit that manages to mostly grab the THC out of sample, without vaporizing the other various cannabinoids (CBD, CBN, etc) while smoking carried them all evenly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2cAFRAX3Gs

THC alone is not a terribly pleasant drug, in fact it is the wash of cannabinoids that makes the various highs of different strains of herb so subtle and unique. So this "perceived high difference" is actually backed up scientifically, by a number of studies.

Yes, smoke has a certain taste to it, just as vapor has a certain taste to it...but the flavor of your hit is mostly a factor of the flavor of your shit.

 

[max]

You've got it covered pretty well stick. Also for those who like a simple joint or blunt, the vape hardware is not appealing. And if you're young, smoke probably doesn't bother you or concern you as much. You've got the 'immortal' feeling of youth.

Welcome to the forum brandonjacobs. I can tell your buddies have some of the disdain for vapes that's expected from younger people. Consider yourself lucky that you're moving to vapor before your lungs make up your mind for you. I do think the attitude that "vaporizing is stupid" is pretty funny. That's like saying giving up cigarettes is stupid. :/ Bottom line is that you'll never convince everybody that vapor is superior to smoke. If nothing else, there'll always be people who love the couchlock that smoke toxins provide.

Stick, I hope you're right about vaping staying under the radar for years to come. The less the authorities know about vapor and vapes, the better off we are.

I'm sorry, but threads like this are pretty silly.

We have lots of silly threads here but I wouldn't put this one high on that list. You seem to get quite antagonistic with threads of this type. Being pro-smoking is a bit of an uphill battle on a forum called fuckcombustion.

Turns out that vaporizers deliver a hit that manages to mostly grab the THC out of sample, without vaporizing the other various cannabinoids (CBD, CBN, etc) while smoking carried them all evenly.

Unlike hemp, cannabis has a low % of CBD, which is good, since it's antipsychoactive and just serves to counter the high.

 

[Spiderman]

Well, apart from the quick cheap shot (antagonistic? there have been probably 20 of these threads, this is the second I've commented in), you're continuing to respond with the same closeminded attitude I argued against originally.

You also ignored about 90% of my post, choosing instead to highlight two minor sections (one of which had no content, just an introduction). However, because you mentioned the "low CBD" thing: THC alone has less medical benefit, CBD is where many of the medicinal properties arise from. And, I cited CBD as ONE of the specific, major chemicals which are often left out of vaporizer hits. Fact is, its a large and complex number of different PSYCHOACTIVE chemicals, the specific effects of which have not been studied. They are known to cause the different highs. Suffice to say, you're getting the second drug the BBC reporter takes in the youtube link.

I find it funny that the majority of the users on this board are relatively new tokers (a year, maybe two), who are very quick to extoll just how much better vaping is.

regardless.....
Max, i realize I may have an "uphill battle" as you call it, but I am asking you only to wake up, and stop patting yourself on the back for your "healthy alternative" to smoking. Vaping is all well and fine...but this attitude that seems to exude from some of these vape heads is, without a doubt, just silly. Check your ego.

 

[stonemonkey55]

Spiderman, I'm just trying to clarify here, are you saying that there aren't any significant benefits from vaporizing over smoking? What about one joint containing the same amount of tar as 20 cigarettes? Not trying to be antagonistic, but this is the first time I've read anywhere, someone claiming that vaporizing is only marginally better than smoking.

Also, you seem to portray the study that S&B sponsored as one that wouldn't contain data that was skewed by the people paying for the study. If not S&B, who else would pay for such a study? And why do you think this study isn't as legit as the other studies that you are referring to?

plus any study done with any scientific basis, are gonna back me up on that

Is GSK shady? doesn't the FDA have to be part of the clinical trials and not GSK themselves? Again, I'm not trying to say that you aren't right, or that you are wrong, you're just the first person that I've met in 10 years of vaping with this viewpoint and I'd like to explore it further so that I can have a more well rounded viewpoint on smoking versus vaping

One last thing, why does years of smoking/vaping make a difference? It's not like Stoner X with 10 years of smoking is automatically going to know more than Stoner Y who has been smoking for 1 year but has been doing a lot of research online...just food for thought.

 

[ILoveRadiohead!]

I don't condemn smoking and I understand why some people prefer it. I have a couple friends who own or have used vapes that love the "ritual" act of smoking. Smoking from a pipe or joint has more of a laid back personal quality contrasted instead to what they perceive as cold technical impersonal vaporizer use. They also dig the heaviness to the high associated with smoking which spiderman touched upon though how I understood it that also has something to do with the auto-immune response by your body sent to your lungs after smoking.

All I can say is that while smoking MJ might not lead to cancer, I think its very likely it does have other negative health aspects connected to it. This summer I stayed with a friend and used a bag vaporizer exclusively. During this time my lung capacity/performance got better (I jog and exercise), random phlegmy coughs and sinus congestion disappeared, and my chest quit having random tiny pains. My overall energy levels also seemed higher but I can't attribute that solely to vaping. Since leaving and switching back to smoking those same symptoms previously mentioned have returned.

To sum it up, while smoking cannabis may not cause serious illness in the same vein as cigarettes, I believe it can lower your overall health wellness.

 

[Beezleb]

I actually consider myself to be pretty stupid for smoking for all the years I have rather than using a vaporizer. I would say the younger people who take up vaporization are far smarter than I was but in my defense vaporizing was hardly known to me as I was only aware of it from an article or movie or something. I only knew of the concept of it and never saw a device.

Heck I never knew anyone who vaped until I introduced it to my circle so to speak and if it was not for tolken I probably would still not be vaping as his videos gave me the confidence to make the leap of faith so to speak but also along with many helpful insights and information from others too.

This is why I am here. To help explain vaping and I do not care what vape a person chooses. I more or less stress a vape that tends to fit what the person says they are looking for and one that matches their imbibing style.

I have also never before heard that vaporizing was only marginally better. I find this hard to accept as vaporizers for smoking tobacco are more common in some places in Asia such as in China and has been recommended for use in Europe to enable people to use tobacco in a public bldgs. Say what you want about the FDA but the fact the European Union feels its safe is a good sign.

If there is evidence in a scientific report that indicates smoking is marginally better than vaporizing than I would certainly like to see that and to know precisely what areas there is disagreement.

Thank You,
Beezleb

 

[max]

My lungs tell me that vapor is preferable to smoke. It doesn't matter if smoke delivers a ton more of the good stuff if I can't ingest it. At the end of my smoking days I could barely tolerate a small hit or two per night. I'm also not a fan of the sleep inducing toxins that are so prevalent in smoke.

Max...Check your ego.

Yes sir. Right away. I can tell that's what you're doing Since you have all the answers and have us all nailed- "I find it funny that the majority of the users on this board are relatively new tokers"- we'll just close down the forum and go back to smoking.

 

[vaporcloud]

20 years a bong and pipe smoker. Constant phlegm and lung tightness and reduced vocal range (singing).

Last 14 months being vapping 97% of the time - less phlegm, no more lung tightness and a vocal range I didn't know I had

So far spiderman I can't find one appealing thing about smoking.

Yes, smoke has a certain taste to it, just as vapor has a certain taste to it...but the flavor of your hit is mostly a factor of the flavor of your shit.

This is a wind up right? hahahahah you got me bro! The flavour of the hit from a vap is the taste of the herb and its resins and oils. The taste of smoke is to laced with Tar and doesn't have the sweet flavour of vapor.

I don't think this thread is silly. Its not all science and seriousness on FC. We're flying the flag for vaporists everywhere and a little bit of chest beating is a good thing IMO.

 

[stickstones]

Spiderman has done a good job here of answering the original question of 'Why would anyone not prefer vaporizing?" His answer is 'I don't think vaporizing is much better for you than smoking.' Whether he is right or not, it's probably a common perception among educated mj smoking enthusiasts. I do have some comments, in bold:

I'm sorry, but threads like this are pretty silly. Do the research, its not as night and day as some claim.

Do you have any links or studies you recommend? I have heard this claim before but have never seen any proof, as legitimate study is probably hard to come by.

Realistically, smoking MJ alone is not bad for your health. Thousands of years of human use (I wouldn't use this argument, as it is easy to flip the coin on it. We have thousands of years of human history documenting stuff that is bad for us as well, such as war, rape, alcohol abuse, etc. AS a race, we don't always do what is best for us, even long term.), plus any study done with any scientific basis, are gonna back me up on that (Again, I don't know of any, but I would love to see them if they are there. If they don't exist, then let's not assume they would support either side yet.). MJ smoke is not really bad for you...it has not been linked to any illness but bronchitis. Look up what causes bronchitis....

Smoking, in general, is not beneficial to your health. I honestly cannot understand the thinking of anyone who thinks that smoking does not have an effect on your lungs. I've been an occasional smoker for 22 years now, and a daily consumer for about five years now. It wasn't until the daily consumption of smoke caused me to constantly cough throughout the day and not be able to withstand as much physical activity that I decided to give vaping a try. Within two weeks I was not coughing anymore and felt like my lungs were cleaned out. All I have to do is look at the stem of my bong and see all that black shit stuck on it to know that I don't want that shit in my lungs.

Furthermore, the major studies that everyone likes to cite about the "benefits" of vaping are a bit suspect. (I've never read any of these either...any links?) The big one was funded by none other than Storz and Bickel (who trusts the clinical trial that GSK does for their own drugs?), and had an incredibly small sample size (150 people who vaporized daily total, and about 6000 smokers). The differences in smoke related illness were pretty minimal (65% on vape, 56% on smoke....difference is not statistically relevant). I don't understand what that last sentence says. What do the 65% and 56% represent?

Where the study gets interesting is in the breakdown of the different hits (smoke v vapor). Turns out that vaporizers deliver a hit that manages to mostly grab the THC out of sample, without vaporizing the other various cannabinoids (CBD, CBN, etc) while smoking carried them all evenly. I find this VERY interesting and need to learn about it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2cAFRAX3Gs

THC alone is not a terribly pleasant drug, in fact it is the wash of cannabinoids that makes the various highs of different strains of herb so subtle and unique. So this "perceived high difference" is actually backed up scientifically, by a number of studies. If I read you correctly here, then vaporizing leads to a more generic high among strains, losing the subtle (maybe not subtle?) differences in high. Did I get you right here?

Yes, smoke has a certain taste to it, just as vapor has a certain taste to it...but the flavor of your hit is mostly a factor of the flavor of your shit.

Agree and disagree here. Certainly different strains have different tastes. However, I find that these differences are much more noticeable when vaping as opposed to when smoking.

Spiderman, I hope you are able to provide some links for me, as there is much documentation on this site attesting to my laziness!

 

[Spiderman]

Well....

Since I have no interest whatsoever in picking the 6 posts against me apart piece by piece, I will say this and leave...

Lung and throat irritation due to smoke is a real drawback. I have said many times before, that for pursuits in which you cant have that burning tickle in your throat (such as singing), I see every reason to vaporize.

You treat this as though I have said some blasphemy. You believe vaporizing is better "because everyone knows it." Not a single of these examples has been anything other than subjective ("well i smoked for this long, and then when i switched i felt better" is not factual in any way).

stickstones:
Well...I didnt say that smoking was clearly beneficial....ever. Just that MJ smoke clearly doesnt have too strong of a detrimental effect on humans, as it has been used extensively for decades as a medicine, food, fiber, drug....but simply, its been smoked for however many thousand years, can you think of something else that humans have been actively ingesting in large quantities that long that is actually hazardous to you? (No, tobacco isnt....popularized in the 1900's, used mostly as an entheogen for shamans before that). Saying "well rape and murder have been around" is a bad comparison, because you dont ingest rape or murder. Nor were they prescribed as medicine.

As for "my lungs felt better when I switched," iv addressed it before...thats a pretty bad test, and the vape itself doesnt "clean" anything. Your lungs clean themselves, when you cough. Switching up between vapes and the bong could provide this same break.

The numbers i cited were "instace of users who had no respiratory problems" in both vaporizer users and MJ smokers. 65% of vaporizer users, 55% of smokers. the difference is not statisically relevant.

Yes, vaporizers will destroy the differences in high. Anything indica side is getting a good portion of its high left in the bud (unless you vape the shit down WAAAY too hard, which no one on here does) and you only really get one gear on sativa side.

The flavor difference is purely a factor of what you're used to. for the first few days of hittin diff strains out of the vape, they all taste a little popcorny to me (and yes, I know how to use my SilverSurfer correctly), then it starts tasting proper. Bong tastes a little smokey, for a similar time frame.

If the flavor gets destroyed when you burn it, then its probably not a flavor the bud should have had....grassy wet mersh smell.

You want numbers on smoking vs. vaping and respiratory disease?
http://harmreductionjournal.com/content/4/1/11

Here's the S&B thing too....
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/jcantgieringervapor.pdf

Ya'll have fun now.

 

[CapnVape]

And, I cited CBD as ONE of the specific, major chemicals which are often left out of vaporizer hits. Fact is, its a large and complex number of different PSYCHOACTIVE chemicals, the specific effects of which have not been studied.

Well SM, you did cite CBD, but unfortunately forgot to provide a source. I'm sorry to have to inform you that you are wrong about CBD not being in a typical vape hit. CBD boils at 320 - 356 fahrenhiet, meaning that any vape on the market will give you CBD in your hits. Here's the information you forgot when you "informed" us about CBD's not being vaped.

Phytocannabinoids, their boiling points, and properties

?-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
Boiling point: 157*C / 314.6 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Euphoriant, Analgesic, Antiinflammatory, Antioxidant, Antiemetic

cannabidiol (CBD)
Boiling point: 160-180*C / 320-356 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Anxiolytic, Analgesic, Antipsychotic, Antiinflammatory, Antioxidant, Antispasmodic

Cannabinol (CBN)
Boiling point: 185*C / 365 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Oxidation, breakdown, product, Sedative, Antibiotic

cannabichromene (CBC)
Boiling point: 220*C / 428 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Antibiotic, Antifungal

?-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (?-8-THC)
Boiling point: 175-178*C / 347-352.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Resembles ?-9-THC, Less psychoactive, More stable Antiemetic

tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV)
Boiling point: < 220*C / <428 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Analgesic, Euphoriant





Terpenoid essential oils, their boiling points, and properties

?-myrcene
Boiling point: 166-168*C / 330.8-334.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Analgesic. Antiinflammatory, Antibiotic, Antimutagenic

?-caryophyllene
Boiling point: 119*C / 246.2 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Cytoprotective (gastric mucosa), Antimalarial

d-limonene
Boiling point: 177*C / 350.6 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Cannabinoid agonist?, Immune potentiator, Antidepressant, Antimutagenic

linalool
Boiling point: 198*C / 388.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Sedative, Antidepressant, Anxiolytic, Immune potentiator

pulegone
Boiling point: 224*C / 435.2 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Memory booster?, AChE inhibitor, Sedative, Antipyretic

1,8-cineole (eucalyptol)
Boiling point: 176*C / 348.8 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: AChE inhibitor, Increases cerebral, blood flow, Stimulant, Antibiotic, Antiviral, Antiinflammatory, Antinociceptive

?-pinene
Boiling point: 156*C / 312.8 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Bronchodilator, Stimulant, Antibiotic, Antineoplastic, AChE inhibitor

?-terpineol
Boiling point: 217-218*C / 422.6-424.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Sedative, Antibiotic, AChE inhibitor, Antioxidant, Antimalarial

terpineol-4-ol
Boiling point: 209*C / 408.2 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: AChE inhibitor. Antibiotic

p-cymene
Boiling point: 177*C / 350.6 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antibiotic, Anticandidal, AChE inhibitor

borneol
Boiling point: 210*C / 410 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antibiotic, ?-3-carene 0.004% 168 Antiinflammatory

?-3-carene
Boiling point: 168*C / 334.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antiinflammatory





Flavonoid and phytosterol components, their boiling points, and properties

apigenin
Boiling point: 178*C / 352.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Anxiolytic, Antiinflammatory, Estrogenic

quercetin
Boiling point: 250*C / 482 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antioxidant, Antimutagenic, Antiviral, Antineoplastic

cannflavin A
Boiling point: 182*C / 359.6 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: COX inhibitor, LO inhibitor

?-sitosterol
Boiling point: 134*C / 273.2 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antiinflammatory, 5-?-reductase, inhibitor

 

[stonemonkey55]

Spiderman, c'mon man, you come on here and basically make these claims on a vaporizing forum and some people ask some legit questions and you don't have the interest or desire to answer them? I don't think it is subjective at all when you look at what smokeing does to a waterpipe and and what vaporizing does to the same pipe. You basically came on here and discredited a study done on vaporizing then expect us to think your sources are credible? What are you doing on this site anyways? Spreading the truth? I just don't understand your motive? Again, if you could answer my questions, I would be appreciative. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt to prove us wrong in our beliefs and why the studies you cite are any more valid than the studies that we looked at....educate us.

 

[Spiderman]

I know i said I was leaving, but Iv got time for one more....

copied from wikipedia
"When one considers that there are at least 60 pharmacologically-active compounds in cannabis and that the aromatic terpenoids begin to vaporize at 126 C, but the more bio-active cannabidiol (CBD), Cannabinol (CBN), and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) do not vaporize until near their respective flash points: CBD 206.3 C[6], CBN 212.7 C[7], THC 149.3 C[8] then it becomes apparent that the only way to get a full spectrum vapor inhalation is to extract and deliver rapidly from a small sample at a time. Because most commercial vaporizers are slow in extraction and delivery, the vapor inhaled is first aromatic, but only minimally active; and then as the apparent temperature rises, the vapor becomes increasingly bio-active, but minimally aromatic as most of the aromatics already released."

# ^ http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.2446.html
# ^ http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.2447.html
# ^ http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.118751.html


The Storz and Bickel study found similar results.

Tell you what, I havent taken the time to get personal with you and be a dick....you can provide me the same courtesy

 

[Beezleb]

Spider, you said your view and its apprecriated.

This is a discussion and not attacks and such but I can understand your reason for feeling like that. Only through discussion can people truly learn here, just agreeing with people because they give good information on other issues can only go so far.

I welcome a serious discussion on smoking verse vaping. Nothing you say nor anyone here can say will wholly be correct on every term and aspect of the discussion but understanding it as a whole can be a learning experience no matter how much anyone of thinks and believes how much we really know. In truth we all know only bits and pieces of the larger issue and through discussion and through the stating of perceptions, reasoning and such it can give insight that otherwise may not have been as apprecriated.

Understand that when you rock a boat you make waves. Waves care not about right or wrong or what ever is in between. No matter how you look at, speaking subjectively in a pro vaporizer forum is going to cause waves. When you speak on a subject that is contrary to poplar views, have a thick skin and a sense of humor otherwise your good intentions might be unappreciated. No hard feelings and its a good discussion. At the end of the day no one can win every point nor should one expect too. If a point is better made by another view, so what. You stated your views and your reasons for it. Not much else to do and if those reasons and views are accepted than great and if they are not then you allow your reasoning to speak for you and each person can decide on what view makes more sense to them on the subject.

 

[Spiderman]

Absolute final post, and Im out.

STonemonkey, dont piss on my hat and tell me its raining. Just cause you say "im giving you the benefit of the doubt" doesnt mean your not being an asshole in your post.

legit questions? Dude, you werent even a member here when the last one of these discussions occurred. The reason I say this is not so that you can know start a rant about "i guess because im new i dont matter," but to explain to you the importance of context. This conversation has happened before, and a good number of the points have been discussed ad nauseam. We dont need this to go on and on while 6 people in a row post up arguments just so that I can waste my day debunking them.
"I dont think it is subjective at all" Well theres your problem right there. "I think" is a subjective statement. Just because one has less resin, its better?
Discredited a study? I merely said that the sample size for vaporizers users (150 people, 1/40th the number of smokers) was too small.
What am i doing on this site? Iv been here longer than you, and I enjoy reading and posting about cannabis, vaporization, and glass.

 

[stickstones]

Spiderman, you've probably already left as your last post was only 2 minutes after mine, but you gotta relax, man. As far as I can tell, no one here is coming after you, and I know I am certainly not. You've always had well informed, quality posts here, and your posts in this thread are no different. But you know damn well that no one gets to come to this forum and throw around statements as fact without backing it up, whether it be about a specific vaporizer or about health in general.

With regard to your post #14, you are definitely overreacting. No one has called blasphemy here. No one has used the words "because everyone knows it" except you. And now you are contradicting yourself by saying:

"Not a single of these examples has been anything other than subjective ("well i smoked for this long, and then when i switched i felt better" is not factual in any way)."

I understand statistics and the scientific method, and while the above statement may not be very specific, it most definitely is factual and can be used in scientific study. In fact, the methodology for the study you linked to uses this exact same method and criteria, only more specifically. I quote from the study:

Participants reported respiratory symptoms by answering six questions: Do you usually have a cough? Does your chest sound wheezy or whistling other than from colds? Are you troubled by shortness of breath when hurrying on the level ground or walking up a slight hill? Do you have to walk slower than most people your own age on the level ground because of breathlessness? Do you cough up phlegm in the morning? and Do you wake up at night with tightness in your chest?

While this study leaves much to be desired in terms of reliability, the results are stated as such:

These results suggest that the respiratory effects of cannabis can decrease with the use of a vaporizer. The data reveal that respiratory symptoms like cough, phlegm, and tightness in the chest increase with cigarette use and cannabis use, but are less severe among users of a vaporizer. Because a sample this large can produce statistically significant effects that might not be clinically meaningful, a focus on odds ratios could prove fruitful. The odds ratio suggests that vaporizer users are only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled. The use of cigarettes in conjunction with cannabis exacerbated symptoms, as found in previous work [6]. The interaction between vaporizer use and cannabis consumption also appeared, suggesting that a vaporizer should have more impact on respiratory symptoms in people who use more marijuana. Odds ratios suggest that these effects are relatively small, but interactions often prove difficult to detect at all [9].

Sounds like the performers of the study you quote came to a different conclusion than you have.

Spidey, I hope you come back to continue this discussion, as I think it is important to us all. But if you do, please try to be more objective and thick skinned. I've not seen you get wigged out like this before, and it is uncharacteristic of you.

Now, without regard to Spidey, I have often wondered if vaporizing has the potential to cause harm in ways that smoking can't. For example, are we inhaling substances that get destroyed during smoking that could be harmful to us because they don't get destroyed in the vaporization process? Are we, by vaporizing, not inhaling some of the good quality of cannabis that get released when combusting? Bottom line, as people have pointed out here before, there just isn't enough data or enough freedom to do studies to get to the bottom of it right now. That leaves me having to believe my lungs first and foremost. I just hope we don't all discover 20 years from now that vaporizing as a technology did unintended harm, such as auto exhaust, etc.

 

[stickstones]

Damn...five posts while I was writing my last one!

 

[ILoveRadiohead!]

As for "my lungs felt better when I switched," iv addressed it before...thats a pretty bad test, and the vape itself doesnt "clean" anything. Your lungs clean themselves, when you cough. Switching up between vapes and the bong could provide this same break.

I don't quite get your rationale here.

No the vape doesn't "actively" clean your lungs but if you are not coughing as a vaporizer user thats an indication to me that your lungs aren't needing to rid themselves of crap. If you are coughing as a smoking user that "crap" your lungs are trying to get out of your system has to be coming from somewhere.

The numbers i cited were "instace of users who had no respiratory problems" in both vaporizer users and MJ smokers. 65% of vaporizer users, 55% of smokers. the difference is not statisically relevant.

You want numbers on smoking vs. vaping and respiratory disease?
http://harmreductionjournal.com/content/4/1/11

In that article you refer to the testers actually explain the numbers in greater detail and don't really come to the conclusions you seem to have drawn. If anything they support the claims made by the vaporizer supporters here.

The assessment of respiratory symptoms was also not particularly elaborate, but the same measures revealed a significant impact of cannabis and cigarettes in this sample and in other work.

The current data are consistent, however, with the idea that cannabis vaporizers can decrease respiratory symptoms in regular users of the plant.

Nevertheless, a vaporizer has considerable potential for increasing cannabis drug safety by minimizing pulmonary troubles.

They even state that their tests might not have been fully suited to find out the true benefits from vaporizer use and that were several flaws.

** Some participants might use a vaporizer and be smoking in varying amounts but would still be included in the vaporizer percentage.

** Vaporizers are not created equal and some might not be as effective as others

** The tests don't take into account differences in casual and heavy users whether smoking or vaporizing.

** The amount of time a participant has been using vaporizers was not taken into consideration and might be more dramatic depending on length of use

** The data collected on the types of respiratory symptoms was not very detailed


And then they go on to suggest a better testing method for fully realizing the possible effects of vaporization use.

A better test of a vaporizer's potential for minimizing problems would require recruiting cannabis smokers who report respiratory troubles, randomly assigning a group to use a vaporizer, and assessing any decrease in symptoms. The current data suggest that such an intervention could prove helpful.

 

[stonemonkey55]

Spiderman, I'm not on here ranting, I'm here asking questions. Since you so nicely pointed out that I wasn't a member when these initial discussions were going on so I was asking legitimate questions for my own edification. If you want to take my questions as some sort of attack, then I can't control that. And me saying that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt is basically saying that I'm keeping an open mind that my beliefs might be incorrect. Whatever man, in my eyes, anyone who says "This is my last post and I'm out" is basically the grown up equivalent of the little bitch who takes his ball home so no one else can play.

By saying that the sample size is too small is basically discrediting a study. What else you want to call it? The sample size is too small so this study isn't legit, that's what I got out of the statement. It's not like you said, the results here are pretty conclusive, but the sample size was too small. I think the sample size to be of sufficient size, oops, there I go thinking again.

How about I use "I observe" instead of "I think" next time? Wouldn't it be logical to think that if there is a less resin on a waterpipe, the same would be true when the same substance traveled to your lungs? Why wouldn't someone positively correlate the two? Unless something happens magically as it travels down your throat into your lungs, I think cleaner waterpipe equates to cleaner lungs.

Whatever man, this is my last post and that's it! (joking)

 

[stickstones]

Absolute final post, and Im out.

STonemonkey, dont piss on my hat and tell me its raining. Just cause you say "im giving you the benefit of the doubt" doesnt mean your not being an asshole in your post.

If I laid out your posts and SM's side-by-side, there would be no doubt who is acting like an asshole...hint: it's not SM.

legit questions? Dude, you werent even a member here when the last one of these discussions occurred. The reason I say this is not so that you can know start a rant about "i guess because im new i dont matter," but to explain to you the importance of context. This conversation has happened before, and a good number of the points have been discussed ad nauseam.

I remember this coming up before, although I don't recall the ad nauseam feeling. I do remember that we concluded there wasn't adequate data to draw a credible conclusion. Is it possible that SM read that thread? It is still there and just because he didn't participate doesn't mean he didn't benefit from it by reading it.

We dont need this to go on and on while 6 people in a row post up arguments just so that I can waste my day debunking them.

Fuck you and your precious time. My time is not worthless. If you are not going to take the time to respond to people who took the time to respond to you, then take a hike. I'm getting pissed...can you tell!

"I dont think it is subjective at all" Well theres your problem right there. "I think" is a subjective statement. Just because one has less resin, its better?

Exactly. Less shit in your lungs is better.

Discredited a study? I merely said that the sample size for vaporizers users (150 people, 1/40th the number of smokers) was too small.
What am i doing on this site? Iv been here longer than you, and I enjoy reading and posting about cannabis, vaporization, and glass.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're about 19 years old...because that's about how you're acting. You come on here and make a post that will challenge everyone's beliefs on this site and then get pissy when a few members ask you to back it up? All you gotta do is back it up, or even say it's just a hunch. But that's too hard and it's easier just to pick up your ball and go home to play by yourself. {SM -- too funny we both typed the same analogy!}

 

[bongoman]

I want to sidestep the controversy here and go straight to the issue of whether vaporising does indeed deliver a "full-spectrum" high, and if not, maybe that's a reason why people might prefer smoking to vaping.

It seems CBD has very useful medical properties but as a non-medical user it's probably not a necessary component in enjoyable vapor.

I know the Vriptech crew make a point of selling their heat gun method and tools as a way to get the full-spectrum high.

I personally like the high I get from vaporising. I'm not a medical user and enjoy the clear, functional effect from vaporised cannabis.

But I wonder what cannabinoids I am missing out on (as well as terpenoids)?

I don't care about CBN as I understand it is a degradation product and can tend to muddy the high and add a sedative quality according to wikipedia.

Anyone have any thoughts about what we are missing out on, in terms of cannabinoids and terpenoids, in vapor? Why does smoking bring out a greater difference between indica and sativa strains compared to vaporising? Is this proof that vaporising does not give a full-spectrum of psychoactive compounds?

And if there is a gap in the spectrum with vapor, especially with medically useful compounds, then why do medical users get the relief they seek from vapor?