Vaporizing Really That Good?

[mantiszn]

Some people really should educate themselves before opening their mouths.

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk

This article looks at both sides of the argument.. If you can be bothered to read, or read at all..

Yes there is no proof, there is also no study that says chopping your left hand off and then jumping into a pool of sharks may be detrimental to your health... Do you know why? Because it's blatantly obvious.

 

[Jogro]

Hello to all I know my statement will not change anything. However I have read the article in the new england journal of medicine pertaining to what causes cancer in cigarettes they have come to determine that it comes from burning the radioactive material in tobacco which gets into the tobacco from the pesticides in the soil they have a half life of 18 years.

The seminal article on that was published in NEJM in 1964. . .this isn't exactly news, at least not to anyone in the field.

In short, the concept is that phosphate rich fertilizers contain lots of radioactive Polonium 210, which gets trapped in tobacco leaves then inhaled in tobacco smoke. Under ordinary conditions, radioactive polonium is a harmless weak alpha emitter, but once trapped inside a smokers' impaired lungs, it gets concentrated and pushed right up to already weakened tissue where it can have a more damaging effect. Many believe that this is probably THE most important single contributing factor in causing lung cancer in smokers.

This more recent paper from Spain hypothesizes that Polonium is specifically responsible for one type of lung cancers (adenocarcinomas), and goes into good detail about the mechanisms involved. You can read the whole thing here:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jo/2011/860103/

Even assuming its true, polonium is still only ONE carcinogen in tobacco smoke; there are plenty of other ones:

Besides well-known organ-specific carcinogenic substances, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 4-(methyl-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), 2-Naphthylaine, 4-aminobiphenyl, arsenic, and chromium. . .

At least some of THOSE substances (eg polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) are specifically created by burning. Vaporizing instead should preven their formation.

In terms of cannabis vs tobacco, its not just quality of the plant, its also quantity. The *average* cigarette smoker will smoke 20 cigarettes per day, averaging one per wakng hour, EVERY day, for decades. But even the heaviest cannabis smokers rarely smoke anywhere near that amount.

Again, even if we assume that cannabis cigarettes are on average several times as toxic as tobacco ones (which they probably are), someone who is only smoking 4-10 of them per week is still only getting a fraction of the dose of tar and total aggregated particle mass as a typical smoker.

That said, smoking weed definitely isn't "safe". There is plenty of medical data linking cannabis smoking to bronchitis and other respiratory diseases. Again, vaporization will probably help out there too.

 

[Jogro]

Some people really should educate themselves before opening their mouths.

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk

This article looks at both sides of the argument.. If you can be bothered to read, or read at all..

Yes there is no proof, there is also no study that says chopping your left hand off and then jumping into a pool of sharks may be detrimental to your health... Do you know why? Because it's blatantly obvious.

Its actually a fairly good summary article. Thanks for posting it. Obviously NORML has its own point of view here.

I'd say the following:

It probably is safe to say that even if smoking cannabis DOES increase the risk of cancer, the increase in risk is relatively small, ESPECIALLY compared to the well-documented increase in risk associated with cigarette smoking.

You have to take these things in context. Lots of things are associated with increased cancer risk: Working in certain industries, living in the State of NJ (!), drinking alcohol, etc.

Even assuming smoking cannabis can increase the risk of lung cancer, that doesn't mean that this is the most important negative side effect of smoking it.

I'd say by FAR the worst effects of smoking cannabis are development of chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and the risk of both of those things "should" be greatly reduced by vaporization.

 

[poplars]

read it and weap.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/01/11/marijuana-not-bad-your-lungs


and to the post above...

there is NO PROOF of cannabis alone causing chronic bronchitis, or any long term lung conditions such as emphasema, the only things they coudl find were bouts of bronchitis. not CHRONIC bronchitis.


here's the direct link to the study for all of you fools who think that anything linked to that isn't a direct medical journal is bullshit (even though within the article they have a direct link to the supplied study...)

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/2/173.short

 

[Jogro]

To answer the original question, "Is vaporizing all that good".

As someone who has recently retried it with one of the new high quality vapes (As opposed to those crappy soldering iron designs from 20+ years ago), I'd say emphatically "yes".

In a nutshell a good vaporizer will let you get nearly bong-like hits if you like, but with minimal harshness or irritation. You can take gigantic hits and especially if you're accustomed to actual smoking, barely even know you're doing so. You simply don't get the throat and chest "burn" that you will with smoking. Since you're not inhaling smoke, you don't cough/spit up smoke particles for 2-3 days after vaping. By not creating the smoke to begin with, you're also creating quite a bit less giveaway SMELL around where you're vaping or sticking to your clothes.

And there are the health benefits already mentioned above.

Downsides?

-Well, you do need the machine, and if you only have a plug-in one, that can limit WHERE you vape a bit. Of course portable vaporizers are also available, if you need to "vape" on the go.

-Vapor may not be as "tasty" as smoke, though I'd say the vapor actually gives you more of the clean taste of the actual bud, though with less intensity than smoke.

-More "head" high, less "body" high. This has to do with which cannabinoids are extracted in vapor, vs. extracted/destroyed with higher-temperature combustion.

If you want the "body" high, one way to help is to turn up the temperature of your vaporizer to the max you can before burning/combustion occurs. That way you're extracting as many of the cannabinoids as you can in the vapor. This definitely does help.

In converse, though, if you don't want the "body" high, you can turn the temp on your vape down, and get a pretty clear "head" high with most types of weed.

 

[poplars]

dude stop spreading misinformation. you don't get a body high from smoke vs vapor because of the destruction of chemicals, its because you simply get something from smoke that you don't from vape, accept it already instead of trying to call it a bad thing in the subtlest of ways.

 

[mantiszn]

cancer ... among other things...

its because you simply get something from smoke that you don't from vape

you're whole argument is based on that fact that it hasn't been proven in a study one way or another..

it hasn't been proven in a study that licking a bears nutsack will most likely get you killed.. do you know why...

 

[missnu]

I can smoke in the bedroom to unwind while sitting next to my nonsmoking husband and we can both relax together...so instead of my stress relief making him more stressed with stinky smells we can be side by side and he doesn't have to be bothered...my Arizer vape has been so awesome...

 

[poplars]

cancer ... among other things...





you're whole argument is based on that fact that it hasn't been proven in a study one way or another..

it hasn't been proven in a study that licking a bears nutsack will most likely get you killed.. do you know why...

no it's based on personal accounts of people living for a long ass time smoking weed and having no issues.


the only evidence you have that smoking is bad is through INDUCTING the logic from ciggarette smoking being bad for you ONTO the logic that cannabis smoke MUST be bad for you.

seriously this is pathetic, you guys can go do a circle jerk with your elitism I"m done.

 

[mantiszn]

My grandmother smoked 10 cigarettes every day of her life since she was 14.. She lived to 104.. Still doesn't make cigarettes healthy does it?

Logic is the key word here.

Inhaling smoke from anything that has been combusted is harmful, it's common sense.

To which degree depends on the individual and the substance

no it's based on personal accounts of people living for a long ass time smoking weed and having no issues.


the only evidence you have that smoking is bad is through INDUCTING the logic from ciggarette smoking being bad for you ONTO the logic that cannabis smoke MUST be bad for you.

seriously this is pathetic, you guys can go do a circle jerk with your elitism I"m done.

 

[poplars]

My grandmother smoked 10 cigarettes every day of her life since she was 14.. She lived to 104.. Still doesn't make cigarettes healthy does it?

Logic is the key word here.

Inhaling smoke from anything that has been combusted is harmful, it's common sense.

To which degree depends on the individual and the substance

I wouldn't call that common sense, I'd call that common ignorant sense.

there's tons of direct evidence and statistical evidence that straight cannabis smokers have less chance of getting cancer, no incidents of chronic lung conditions.

the only sources you will be citing stating otherwise will likely be fueled by big pharma or tobacco or alcohol company funds.


it's a good thing I don't actually care what you think, I only care about what the other people reading my posts think, so good day to you sir, and ihope the people reading this can see what is real and what is blatant propaganda.

 

[Dr High]

Im with you on that Pops, regular cannabis SMOKERS vs cigarette smokers have reduced chances of getting cancer and its been studied and proved already.

 

[mantiszn]

maybe you don't understand english that well..

Did I ever say that cannabis is as harmful as tabacco..? no I didn't
I am saying that smoking it is more harmful than vaping it.

I wouldn't call that common sense, I'd call that common ignorant sense.

there's tons of direct evidence and statistical evidence that straight cannabis smokers have less chance of getting cancer, no incidents of chronic lung conditions.

the only sources you will be citing stating otherwise will likely be fueled by big pharma or tobacco or alcohol company funds.


it's a good thing I don't actually care what you think, I only care about what the other people reading my posts think, so good day to you sir, and ihope the people reading this can see what is real and what is blatant propaganda.

 

[poplars]

maybe you don't understand english that well..

Did I ever say that cannabis is as harmful as tabacco..? no I didn't
I am saying that smoking it is more harmful than vaping it.

as someone who caught pneumonia after coughing out vape hits while sick I'd have to claim the contrary . . . .. lets agree to disagree shall we? just stop bashing smoke.

 

[mantiszn]

do you have a scientific study to validate this hypothesis?

as someone who caught pneumonia after coughing out vape hits while sick I'd have to claim the contrary . . . .. lets agree to disagree shall we? just stop bashing smoke.

 

[MyndMy]

yep you were right........your statement changed nothing...

www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/radioactive_tobacco.html

I do homework all the time so research what you say to me there's even links to the new england journal of medicine and the actual results of the doctors study so dell get a degree then get at me or do some of your own homework.

If you're on the side of cannabis stay informed and don't fall victim to the BIGS big pharma big tobacco big government

Learn for yourself don't let them lead you around by the nose.
The uneducated is easier to control

 

[FilthyFletch]

Vaporizing is probably the cleanest way to smoke that said I dont care for it as you loose the real tatses and aromas. The best way to smoke to get a real clean flavorful true aroma has to be water pipes/ bongs.

 

[del66666]

www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/radioactive_tobacco.html

I do homework all the time so research what you say to me there's even links to the new england journal of medicine and the actual results of the doctors study so dell get a degree then get at me or do some of your own homework.

If you're on the side of cannabis stay informed and don't fall victim to the BIGS big pharma big tobacco big government

Learn for yourself don't let them lead you around by the nose.
The uneducated is easier to control

dont be so silly............

 

[del66666]

Im with you on that Pops, regular cannabis SMOKERS vs cigarette smokers have reduced chances of getting cancer and its been studied and proved already.

yes cannabis has stuff in it that helps prevent cancer but it also has cancer causing agents if smoked by some filthy idiot dirty dumb smoker.....double edge sword........

 

[MyndMy]

dont be so silly............

Wuts so silly dear delly the fact that the uneducated are easier to control?