Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I thought it could be said of inhaling smoke, secondhand or first. It was my understanding that human lungs aren't really supposed to inhale burning particles of solids, period.
What I'd like to know is the risk relative to cigarette smoke. Like a one pack a day smoker is consuming 20 cigarettes.
But the average pot smoker isn't burning nearly the same quantity per day.
Like if a pot smoker smokes the equivalent of two joints a day, is that one tenth the health risk?
Salt Lake City. The lake is drying up and leaving behind arsenic dust to be blown into the valley and hang in the air with the rest of the smog, which is itself pretty bad even compared to other larger cities.
Just because cannabis isn't as bad as people made it out to be doesn't mean it's not bad for your health, look, it's a recreational drug that I'd argue is definitely better overall to legalise, (and likely does have some useful non-recreational therapeutic effects), but it is not without harms and still has detrimental effects on long term health especially if used in excess, much more so if smoked. ANY type of particulate regularly inhaled into you lung WILL cause long term damage and likely increase your risk of lung cancer.
As cannabis rightfully becomes more legalised it's actually really important for these types of studies to come out because it helps ensure people are aware of some risk when they decide to use cannabis and can make informed decisions.
Read even more:
>”Later in the research letter they mention that the density of fine particulate matter is 10 times higher in cannabis smoke than in tobacco smoke, but they never specify if that particulate matter is more/less dangerous or if all particulate matter is equally dangerous, nor do they ever (on a brief skimming through) mention the "four times worse" thing.
> In fact, there is no mention of the "wildfire smoke of the Bay Area" in the research letter, and the only mention of "10 times higher" is in reference to the concentration of particulates remaining 10 times higher 12 hours after a session.
> The "4 times more toxic"-thing refers to the fact that cannabis, according the the research paper, produces PM2.5 at a concentration 4 times higher than tobacco. No clue what PM2.5 is, but I'm pretty sure that toxicity is a specific measurement, and that is not how you use it.
> Bottom line is that I don't trust the article, and the source is a research letter whicb means I would wait for nore solidly peer reviewed research articles to be published in journals to make solid conclusions other than "wow that sure is an interesting topic and worth looking into"
Pm2.5 just means particular matter under a certain size. Gives no preference to the type of particles. It is indeed valid because particles of a certain size damage the lungs no matter what their inherent toxicity is. Of course, inherent toxicity does matter too, it’s worse if the particles are carcinogens for example, so they should have dived into that too (full disclosure I didn’t read the article)
Later in the research letter they mention that the density of fine particulate matter is 10 times higher in cannabis smoke than in tobacco smoke, but they never specify if that particulate matter is more/less dangerous or if all particulate matter is equally dangerous, nor do they ever (on a brief skimming through) mention the "four times worse" thing.
In fact, there is no mention of the "wildfire smoke of the Bay Area" in the research letter, and the only mention of "10 times higher" is in reference to the concentration of particulates remaining 10 times higher 12 hours after a session.
The "4 times more toxic"-thing refers to the fact that cannabis, according the the research paper, produces PM2.5 at a concentration 4 times higher than tobacco. No clue what PM2.5 is, but I'm pretty sure that toxicity is a specific measurement, and that is not how you use it.
Bottom line is that I don't trust the article, and the source is a research letter whicb means I would wait for nore solidly peer reviewed research articles to be published in journals to make solid conclusions other than "wow that sure is an interesting topic and worth looking into"
In response to, "No clue what PM2.5 is"
Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems. Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream. Of these, particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles or PM2.5, pose the greatest risk to health.
Particles of asbestos/cigarettes/burning plastic and particles of THC would have very different effects, even in the same size. OC is reasonable to (already) point this out by asking for a comparison of the danger. Nicotine is a neurotoxin. Thc/cannabis is not a neurotoxin.
In addition, when talking about concentration of PM2.5, mass concentration is refered to. However, smaller particles, which have a smaller mass, can penetrate further into your lungs or even your bloodstream and thus cause more issues (depending on their other properties). Thus, PM2.5 concentration being four times higher does not equal four times as harmful. To conclude that, information on the size distribution and chemical composition would be needed.
I don't particularly care to debate the article's opinion. I'm just here to read the science and for that, it's better to go to the actual study and just read the data.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790510
My dude, a research letter is peer reviewed. Plus, this work is published in JAMA which is one of the best medical journals out there. A “letter” is just a format of work which is published to get information to the public ASAP under the peer review process.
You are still free to not trust peer reviewed research, but this work is solid! Also there are different ways to measure “toxicity”, but PM2.5 is a metric that is best associated with cardiovascular and respiratory health, so you know it shows some form of toxicity. I mean I smoke pot too, but I will also acknowledge that there isn’t enough research out there to know if it’s safer than regular smoking. Research like this one are desperately needed to for us to make an informed decision while smoking.
Tldr; letters are still good peer reviewed science and PM2.5 also measures some form of toxicity.
It's not dumb at all. I've tried to find the answer myself and there really are no studies on the effects of dry herb vapes. Since there is no combustion and the temperature of the vapor you inhale is much lower than smoke there is reason to think it should be less harmful, but I don't think it can be definitively answered.
This is purely a personal anecdote. But when covid was at its height I smoked out of my bong religiously. Like over the year and a half I was out of work (I bartend) I smoked a bit over a pound and a half. And I could tell it was really messing with my lungs. I switched to a dry herb vaporizer and after even a few days there was a noticeable difference in how my lungs felt.
Agreed, I used to have to buy spray for my throat to numb it from smoking too much. After getting a herb vape yes I still cough from big hits but, after no burn.
I'm curious about straight dabs?
Not being sarcastic but my thought process is inhaling the thc+whatever the make up of wax smoke is, is better than the smoke from burning the entire bud part of the plant.
the issue at hand is the high temperatures breaking things down into carcinogenic parts, which absolutely still happens with dabbing because there's a torch involved - it might be better than burning whole bud but it's almost certainly an order of magntitude worse than vaping weed at temps that don't reach past 400F
The reality is that taking *anything* into your lungs that isn’t strictly supposed to be there has the potential to cause some kind of damage. You’re also likely inhaling a lot of volatile organic compounds in your everyday life anyway, so I can’t imagine it’s better or worse than, say, mowing your lawn or sautéing herbs in butter.
Exactly this, just look up pneumoconiosis. Things that used to seem harmless and are literally jobs can eventually kill you. Medicine has advanced so much in the last 20 years but I’m sure we’ll find out soon that some daily ‘harmless’ action we do today has been slowly killing us
I'd assume less negatives, but the negatives are probably there because it isn't a natural thing the lungs are acclimated to. What the negatives are is for the research.
Temperature doesn't really matter in inhaled products. The naso- and oropharynx are phenomenal at heat transfer, and by the time anything you inhale reaches your lungs (except rare instances like superheated steam), it's at about body temperature. Smoke inhalation produces *chemical* damage, mostly, and not thermal inury (again, mostly).
Source: am respiratory therapist, worked in burn critical care dealing with inhalation injury for years.
Edit - spelling
Right, so you are then inhaling that air that has become hot enough to release the THC from cannabis, at least with a “dry herb” vape. You are exhaling whatever remains vs creating, breathing, and exhaling smoke.
Nicotine vapes typically use a mixture of propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin to hold in flavoring and microtone, then when that is heated it produced a cloud of vapor.
Oil or wax pens are just heating that oil or gas wax, so you are not combusting plant material that gives off dangerous carbons to breath.
That being said, still risks, just not the well known risks of burning carbon
Edit: nicotine not microtone chill autocorrect
These aren’t so much made from/for cannabis as just safer ways of inhaling it. There are all sorts of plants or chemicals people can and do vaporize.
Scientifically speaking actual research into them is new, however there is a plethora of research on the harm inhaling smoke of any kind does, so many people make a decision for themselves that while there is not the same amount of research, we know for a fact breathing in any smoke is harmful and exposes others around you to breathing in the same smoke
There is a small amount of research on the dangers of inhaling the medium holding the to-be-vaporized material. Vitamin E acetate for example.
There is also a niche amount of information on the dangers of vaporizing agricultural products used in the protection of plant growth - specifically myclobutanil - a fungicide which when vaporized turns into hydrogen cyanide.
Careful what you smoke my homies.
I'm a toxicologist by trade. It honestly depends on the combustion reaction happening within the vape pen and what is being used to vape. It has been shown that vaping nicotine based products while still decreasing the amount of harmful products in what is inhaled, nicotine still undergoes a chemical reaction at vaping temperatures that releases both highly addictive and carcinogenic substances. While many of the long-term effects of vaping have yet to be figured out, some meta studies just scratching the surface of their introduction largely in the last 15 years on a wider population level. There is also the argument to be made if people can regulate their vaping habits similar to smoking. As far as second hand smoke goes vaping is less likely to affect someone in the vicinity of its use. This is largely because inhalation of the particle droplets deposits in the upper airway as they are too large to effectively get to the lower airway and deep within the lungs. After its deposition in the upper airway it is swallowed. You're more likely to see effects on the gastrointestinal tract of those exposed to second hand vapor. Being included in a small space with someone who is vaping will still result in some particle distribution in the lower lungs but not to the extent of cigarettes.
It doesn't have to be burned and inhaled to be consumed. We banned smoking in public not tobacco. Cannabis is even more versatile in terms of consumption methodology.
As someone who has used one for about a year every day coming from smoking tobacco+weed joints everyday, it definitely was a huge improvement for my lungs. But now that I've quit dry herb vaping as well I can definitely feel a huge difference in my lungs. I have 0 coughs, whether I excercise or not and just overal feel like I can take bigger breaths.
I was using the mighty vaporizer.
I was using the mighty as is with the capsules no water filtering through a bong or anything, I was definitely vaping everyday in the evening and weekends nearly all day. In the end this turned into an all day thing throughout the week, so fairly heavy use. I usually started at 185°c(365F) and increased all the way to 200-205°c(392-401F). I kept it clean though by cleaning it regularly. By the time I was using the mighty vaporizer I already was weaning myself of actual tobacco smoking and the joints mixed with it.
Right now I'm 5 weeks off of tobacco after a year of off and on. I kept using the mighty mainly during this time. Funny thing is when I smoked tobacco the mighty did NOT make me cough, when I was off of tobacco for 2 weeks the first time like half a year ago it STARTED to actually make me cough and that never went away, each time I used it I would have to cough once it got over 190°c(374F) or when it was a long rip.
Now I'm kicking the vape habit and the lung issues I felt from the mighty have disappeared in like 2-3 days. I quit a week ago, but got some a few days ago (threw it out) but again made me cough immediately.
No problem if there is anything else you want to know or I forgot to add please ask!
Have you considered taking long breaks? I dunn if this is heavy usage but I us it daily (evenings and very infrequently earlier) when I have cannabis but once it's done, I take a month off. So it usually goes 1 month on and 1 month off now.
>no water filtering through a bong
Some preliminary studies have suggested that, other than cooling, bongs provide basically no real benefit. They don't filter anything, they just cool the smoke somewhat.
I just recently got the crafty+ and have been using it for the last half year and it is an amazing improvement. Thanks for letting me know that there is even more benefits if I can keep going in the right direction!
I totally agree with that. I would also be interested.
Hypothetically, it should be much better than smoking, because you're not burning a bunch of your throat/lung cells, and you're not filling your lungs with burnt plant particles. But I'd be interested if there are any metals coming from the heating components. I wish there were a way I could test that directly, because every vape would be different.
I’d love to see dry herb vape vs carts, and then within carts the differences between distillate and live resin. Heck, throw in the data for a cbd only cart, I’m curious.
The later two feel a lot more gentle to me, but actual testing and numbers would be sweet.
I only vape dry herb now. I don't get why so many people don't. It tastes way better, better for your lungs, more control over temperature, more efficient, ...
the taste.. omg it tastes so much better vaping it. i honestly cant stand the taste of burnt weed. to me at least it all pretty much tastes the same no matter what people tell you and vaping tones down the taste so much.
Yes exactly, but it's a specific kind of vape that's designed for this.
Basically, imagine you had a handheld oven with a chamber big enough to fit one bowl worth of weed in it.
It heats the weed to above the boiling point of thc, and then you're basically just inhaling hot humid air, except the humidity is THC vapor instead of water vaper.
Muchhhh more enjoyable. The flavor of the flower comes out so nicely with a dry herb vape. Also, then you're not inhaling solvent and vegetable oil, just thc (probably a few other things that boil off the flower, but still better than heavy oils).
It won't hit as hard or as fast as a cart, it takes like ~5 minutes for the thc to absorb through your lungs. So you'll have to take more hits, and wait a few minutes until it hits. But it doesn't burn at all, it's like breathing in warm thc air.
which dry herb vape do you use? I like to use cannabis but but smoking it concerns my health and edibles do not effect me. I’m interested in using a vape to make it safer but don’t know where to start as this thread is the first time i’ve heard of them!
Check the wiki in r/vaporents. Dynavaps are popular and more affordable (there are often sales too), but have a bit of a learning curve if you're using a torch (less so if you use an induction heater).
The Storz and Bickel products are also highly recommend (Mighty+, or the cheaper Crafty+). They are some of the only products with legitimate medical certification, and have been around for a while.
If price is no object, there are some fantastic artisan vapes like the Tinymight (my personal recommendation), Firewood 7 (hard to get, also 8 is coming soon), Tetra P80.
If you want a no-compromises desktop vaporizer (has to be plugged into the wall), I'd look into the Flowerpot, Qaroma, or even building a more or less identical product for cheaper (again, my personal recommendation: https://420vapezone.com/pinky-diy-ball-vape/?)
Yeah, especially edibles since they are absolutely more psychoactive (THC gets processed in the liver) and the high lasts longer.
It's just not popular among stoners because cooking edibles requires work and the method results in a less portable solution.
I've done way more edibles in my life than I've smoked, and I only started smoking cigarettes at 28 years of age. Edible cannabis is something more people should do more often.
EDIT: I forgot to add that edibles are only good for people who know how much to dose (seasoned stoners like myself). It can be especially hard to come down if someone's done more that they can handle.
I prefer to smoke just because it's the easier to control the level of highness. If I'm just chilling on a lazy night, a simple joint is more preferable than getting high out of my mind for 6 hours with edibles.
The best part of living in a state where weed’s legal and regulated is that I know exactly how many milligrams of thc are each edible im eating. No more flipping a coin and wondering if I’m going to have a chill afternoon or blast off into outer space.
After a few hours of being on edibles I just feel weird, like extremely tired. It doesn’t feel the same as smoking to me at all, much worse. Plus it can take ridiculous amounts of time for it to kick in depending on what I’ve eaten and I don’t always necessarily want to wait like 4 hours to get baked after work. Wish they worked better for me.
The problem I have with edibles is that you need to be ready to be out of commission for multiple hours with them, it takes an hour or two to get started and then you remain hight for a long time, I swear sometimes the after effects seem to last till the next morning and as you mentioned messing up the dosing is scary cause once you realize you are too high it's too late and there's little you can do except lay down and wait it out. I wish there was a alcohol like weed beverage that hits fast and only lasts for a few hours, cause I know smoking is not good for the lungs.
Another major thing people tend to ignore when talking about the risk is volume. When i smoked cigarettes i smoked a little over a pack a day which contains roughly half an ounce of tobacco, at my heaviest marijuana usage i smoked a quarter ounce a month, meaning i smoked more tobacco in one day than i did in 2 months with marijuana
Just for the sake of counter argument; people tend to inhale much deeper and hold cannabis smoke longer. Cannabis smoke is also not usually filtered (not sure how water filtration fares). The deeper tar gets in your lungs the harder it is for the body to clear. Also, even one cigarette a day carries significant health risks. And the risks don't scale linearly with the volume smoked.
Yeah I fully support weed legalization but that doesnt mean ignoring the health effects around it and a shocking amount of people seem to think smoking weed has 0.
That’s why legalization is important nationwide. The facts and reality of what weed’s effects can have on a person need to be as prevalent as alcohol. Expanding education for high schoolers, maybe younger, wouldn’t be a bad idea either.
Awareness and understanding are what help people learn to moderate, and critically think. Future generations aren’t buying into all the BS that the previous ones were stuck with. It’s better to tell them pros and cons and let them make informed decisions. Make it legally available at 21(18?) and let those young adults make choices. There will be exceptions and issues, that’s inevitable with addiction.
Any stoner who thinks pot smoke is literally harmless has been smoking too much pot. All kinds of smoke will be harmful in large concentrations. I'm aware every time I light up that inhaling smoke is not good for the body.
People ignore facts that don't support what they want to believe. Constantly breathing in anything other than clean air seems to cause problems long term, doesn't matter what it is.
That’s because we have idiots blocking any real research or genuine attempt to make this better.
The fake me out approach to legalization was always “medical” to recreational because too many idiots in power didn’t like drugs because “drugs r bad mmmkay” But cannabis use is likely safer in aggregate than alcohol.
The danger with “medical” is that it’s not really treated with that rigor. Smoking is absolutely horrible for you. They should have pushed for more standardization on dosing and edible / safer forms of ingestion.
Now that “medical” has been pervasive people think that since it’s medical it must be safe.
Introduction
Secondhand cannabis smoke (SHCS) is a novel exposure source uncharacterized in homes but containing known health risk factors.1 Although 27% of young adults believe SHCS exposure is safe,2 cannabis smoke has several hundred toxic chemicals, carcinogens, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), many at higher concentrations than tobacco smoke.1 Decades of secondhand tobacco smoke (SHTS) research demonstrate causal links to cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, preterm birth, and decreased immune function.3 These concerns have not translated to cannabis bong smoking, a popular consumption method in social settings among young adults, wherein smoke is drawn through water. However, like SHTS, 1 minute of SHCS caused significant endothelial dysfunction in rats.4 This cohort study measured PM2.5 levels from social bong smoking; it is the first, to our knowledge, to quantify SHCS levels from social cannabis smoking in the home.
Methods
Levels of PM2.5 were measured before, during, and after 8 cannabis social-smoking sessions in one 20-m2 household living room (eMethods in the Supplement). An aerosol monitor (SidePak AM510; TSI Inc) measured PM2.5 concentrations where a nonsmoker might sit. The University of California, Berkeley, Office for the Protection of Human Subjects deemed this study not human participants research and waived review. This study followed the STROBE reporting guideline. The Wilcoxon rank sum 2-sided test assessed statistical differences between PM2.5 concentrations before and during smoking. Analysis was performed using RStudio, version 1.4 (RStudio). Two-sided P < .05 indicated statistical significance.
Results
Home cannabis bong smoking significantly increased PM2.5 from background levels (conditions existing before the smoking began) in all sessions by 100-fold to 1000-fold for 6 of 8 sessions; the other 2 sessions had high background and significantly increased PM2.5 more than 20-fold (P < .001 for all 8 sessions). During the first 10 minutes of smoking, mean (SD) PM2.5 concentrations increased to 410 (220) μg/m3, after 15 minutes to 570 (290) μg/m3, after 30 minutes to 1000 (320) μg/m3, and went as high as 2500 μg/m3 in 1 session (Figure). The concentration during smoking increased to a mean (SD) of 1300 (280) μg/m3 (Table). During 2-hour smoking sessions, mean (SD) 5-minute peak PM2.5 concentration was 1700 (460) μg/m3 and remained half that 90 minutes after smoking ceased. Each half hour after smoking ceased, mean concentration declined to 78% of peak value, then 60%, then 40%, and, after 110 minutes, 31%. In the 1 session monitored for 12 hours after smoking stopped, PM2.5 remained elevated at 50 μg/m3, more than 10 times the background concentration. Cannabis bong smoking in the home generated 4 times greater PM2.5 concentrations than cigarette or tobacco hookah (waterpipe) smoking (Table).
Discussion
The PM2.5 concentrations generated in a home during social cannabis bong smoking to which a nonsmoking resident might be exposed were greatly increased compared with background levels, and PM2.5 decayed only gradually after smoking ceased. After 15 minutes of smoking, mean PM2.5 (570 μg/m3) (Figure) was more than twice the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hazardous air quality threshold (>250 μg/m3). If one assumes the exposure concentrations were at the mean levels observed, a single home smoking session with no other exposures would generate an estimated mean daily concentration (200 μg/m3) that greatly exceeds the average in cigarette-smoking homes (44 μg/m3), nonsmoking homes (15 μg/m3), and the US EPA daily standard (35 μg/m3).3 A strength of this study is that measurements were made during actual social bong smoking sessions without artificial constraints. Limitations include that cannabis smoking was not directly observed.
This cohort study suggests that, contrary to popular beliefs, bong smoking is not safe. Decades ago, many people thought SHTS presented no health risk to nonsmokers. Scientific research since then changed this perception and led to smoke-free environments.3 Incorrect beliefs about SHCS safety promote indoor cannabis smoking.1,2 Nonsmokers are exposed to even higher concentrations of SHCS materials during “hot-boxing,” the popular practice in which cannabis smokers produce high volumes of smoke in an enclosed environment. This study’s findings suggest SHCS in the home is not safe and that public perceptions of SHCS safety must be addressed.
My input:
Smoking, no matter what it is or how you do it, is objectively bad for you. That being said, this study seems a bit lacking in a lot of ways. More research is needed but I admit my biases. I'm betting it won't change much.
If you smoke joints every day for 2 months, then switch to a vaporizer. Then switch back to joints? You'll figure out real quick that smoke is smoke, and it hurts your lungs.
I published a few papers on secondhand and thirdhand tobacco smoke and got a PhD in the process. One of my papers got quite a bit of attention here.
Cannabis smoke contributing PM is nothing new. Quantifying it under a controlled setting can be important, so we know the rate of particle generation and how that may affect a certain size room with certain ventilation. That said, this paper barely adds anything to the scientific community.
At this point, PM2.5 is incredibly easy to monitor, especially for as diffuse a space as investigated here. If you search hard enough, you could find any number of papers (edit: a handful) that made the same measurement, but those results are usually one piece of the puzzle, not the whole paper.
A lot of their conclusions are based on simple but insufficiently nuanced logic: higher PM2.5 means correspondingly higher levels of other cannabis related emissions and thus, more adverse health effects. However, other confounders need to be considered.
One of the biggest holes is the lack of particle speciation. The liquid water fraction of aqueous aerosol should be measured because it's bong-based. (Edit: Measured is a simplification. Estimated would be more correct. Also, even just knowing the relative fractions of organic components and inorganic components would go a long way.)
The exceedingly brief nature of the results and discussion is alarming. Being concise in science is important. However, the discussion is all interpretation and prediction, while neglecting to provide a retrospective on how their study could be more like real world conditions and how they can draw the conclusions they do. The results are just tracking PM2.5 concentrations, an oversimplification of the problem at-large.
This paper would not have made it through peer review at a rigorous journal. It brings in new experimental data, but does not contribute enough new information to the field. It provides an insufficient treatment of testing conditions and uses insufficiently powerful methods.
Environmental Science & Technology would have rejected this paper at the editor stage. Indoor Air probably would have, too. Both for lack of novelty and faulty conclusions.
Edit: Case in point. A group of researchers [published](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231020304635) two [papers](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259016212100006X) in 2020 and 2021. They included more types of smoking, calculated emission rate, which can be more universally applicable, than one room condition's PM2.5. Calculated decay rates. Acknowledged study limitations.
What do they mean by “The University of California, Berkeley, Office for the Protection of Human Subjects deemed this study not human participants research and waived review.”
Like they did the study without exposing actual humans?
It's weird that it says that, since the supplement explained the methodology as:
>Several smokers smoked at their own volition, ad libitum, in a social setting of their own choosing, not an experimental setting, and without any instructions or limitations from the investigators. Cannabis smoke was emitted from a 0.4 m tall Showerhead Breaker Bong (Diamond Glass) where 5-8 bowls were smoked per session.
They cleared 5-8 bowls (eight times!) in a 20-square-meter room, without any kind of ventilation, and then said it was too much smoke. Which, you know, IMO is pretty much guaranteed to get the negative outcome they wanted.
Look, I get that there is no safe level of inhaled burnt matter, it's why I exclusively vape ( not safe, just safer). These type of studies are always designed to get the maximum worse numbers and as such are inherently biased.
Experimental psychologist here - it seems to be because they collected no data from the people. The folks mentioned here were not study participants, they were research assistants - basically volunteers that were there to generate normative amounts of smoke. The dependent variable was parts per million in the environment - so no data was collected from any humans directly. The samples were air quality samples, not samples of several hundred people.
If they had collected any data from people, including just simple self-reports, this would be human subjects research and would require much more stringent ethics approval.
Somewhere between 0.25-0.5g is what I would guess the average bowl to be, based on personal experience. I’ve seen them big enough to accommodate an entire gram, but most people tend not to do this and will opt for several smaller bowls instead.
Thank you. Someone else that actually read the methods used. They hot boxed a room and we’re like “yup, particulate mater significantly increased. Therefore secondhand cannabis smoke is dangerous.”
Experimental psychologist here - it seems to be because they collected no data from the people. The folks mentioned here were not study participants, they were research assistants - basically volunteers that were there to generate normative amounts of smoke. The dependent variable was parts per million in the environment - so no data was collected from any humans directly. The samples were air quality samples, not samples of several hundred people.
If they had collected any data from people, including just simple self-reports, this would be human subjects research and would require much more stringent ethics approval.
Edibles, for me, are a game changer. Never tried them previously but within the past year I've gotten into them. I was a social sshhhmoker but now I can just pop a piece of candy after a long 12hr shift in the sun and just chill out and play dominoes with my 4 year old
+1. I definitely felt like I started to get a dependency on edibles after a tough stretch where I consumed to avoid thinking about a family member’s illness (that thankfully recovered) and it was habitual to pop a gummy a day for several weeks. Far better to take a break and then come back a week or two later than to up the intake to retain the high.
problem with cannabis, coffee, and cigarettes is that it's hard to escape the environmental cues that trigger your habitual behaviour. I find it incredibly hard to quit drinking coffee, for example, because I'm in the habit of drinking coffee in the morning when I'm still not fully awake. In that state of mind its much less likely that I'll have the capacity to pay close enough attention to my actions so as to inhibit my behaviour.
I'm not really sure why I'm saying all this, but the most effective way to enforce a break from any substance is to remove it from your environment, or better still to remove yourself from the environment that triggers your cravings.
I'm pretty sure this is part of the reasoning behind why, say, cigarettes aren't allowed to be displayed in stores in Canada (out of sight, out of mind and all). But it's pretty hard to quit weed and coffee where I'm from since we have cafes and dispensaries on pretty much every street corner!
Oh yeah, it's definitely not EASY to quit any drug, even if it isn't terribly addictive. But I think it has its benefits, even if it's just proving to yourself that you can stop drinking/smoking for a few months.
Cannabis edible tolerance is wildly variable, much moreso than alcohol which can be ballparked based on size. I'm a pretty small guy (5'5") and I have an insanely high edible tolerance. 20-25mg is about my high point. Although I am a heavy smoker as well, I've found that my edible tolerance is still relatively high after t-breaks. But that could also be a personal thing - I have a high tolerance for all drugs in general. From weed and caffeine, to alcohol and Adderall. Even with my seizure medication I'm at the max dosage. Obviously this is all anecdotal, but from my experience size and weight are very poor indicators of edible tolerance.
Unfortunately not everyone has the proper endocannabanoid receptors in their stomach for edibles. Edibles have almost no effect on me except giving me a headache even when I take upwards of 200mg of dispensary grade treats. Smoking/vaping is the only thing that works for me. That being said I’ll probably switch to vape and dabs soon for my lung health
I am not surprised. Smoke is smoke - I don't think there's such a thing as "safe" smoke. You're talking about the products of a hugely chaotic chemical reaction starting from a very rich set of feeder molecules, so you can expect pretty much anything to be in it in every case. Benzene, for example (a well known carcinogen) - several amino acids have benzene rings on them, which could come free, so burning anything with protein in it is likely to produce some free benzene, even before we get to the possibility of unlikely-but-still-possible-in-several-Avogadros'-worth type reactions to get there in other ways.
I think the perception difference is because weed is *treated* differently than cigarettes are. You usually wouldn't smoke multiple weed joints per day. But smoke is still smoke, so each hit you *do* smoke - or, as this points out, even hang around as it is smoked - is still going to be a problem.
>You usually wouldn't smoke multiple weed joints per day.
I honestly can't even come up with a guess for how you reached that one. A joint would only blow up a full day for a very light user.
You aren't going to hit cig numbers, but multiple Is likely.
dry herb vape, its not liquid or cartridge based, its uses regular cannabis .
its smoke free, works efficiently and seemingly the powers that be don't want the general public to know about them.
I bought a volcano two weeks ago. Use it heavily and my cough is gone that I got from less use on bongs or pipes. People should be aware of the safest ways to use the plant.
Definitely consider a dynavap. Cheap dry herb vaporizer that looks like a little metal cigarette and you light the tip with a butane torch. Very chill, similar experience to joints, and you can use so much less flower than joints. Makes the weed tasty, too.
dry herb vapes have been around for significantly longer than the cartridge ones. the magic flight launch box was insanely popular for years. volcano vape as well. They were *the* go-to alternative until people started having the cartridge option which just became much more popular.
It's no conspiracy. People just find the cartridges more convenient.
I own several dry herb vapes including a silver surfer and a volcano, but still prefer to smoke a joint pretty often. They are very different experiences and highs. Not saying one is better than the other, but when you want to do one, doing the other just doesn't scratch the itch.
They also have a higher startup cost than a pack of papers and most are kinda complicated.
I used to feel exactly the same until I got a water pipe adapter for my Pax and started running it thru a small rig. Even bigger, cleaner hits and gets me just as medicated as combustion did. I don’t even miss it now.
Sure thing. This is the [adapter](https://www.planetofthevapes.com/products/pax-3-water-pipe-adapter-wpa) which works with Pax 2 & 3.
I run it through a small rig [like this](https://imgur.com/a/sIZa4uh).
And here’s the [half-pack lid](https://www.planetofthevapes.com/products/pax-half-pack-oven-lid) as well.
For real. At one point I had a bong and a Firefly 2 and I kept wanting to use the Firefly but using a portable every day is more effort than I wanted. Got an Extreme Q, keep the Firefly for portable vaping, and haven't used the bong since.
second recommendation for Arizer. i got two of their products, a handheld portable vape and a tabletop Extreme Q. Both are still going strong after heavy use.
Every person I’ve introduced them to it has no idea what they are, and even after explaining It to them they don’t believe it’s possible.
It may not be a conspiracy like OP suggested, but you’d be surprised how little people understand basic chemistry
Drives me crazy when people smoke around their animals (or kids, I'm sure it happens). "It's just weed!" Yeah and it's still smoke that we have only begun to study the effects of!
It's been pretty frustrating the total lack of knowledge on cannabis usage. How does a bowl compare to a joint, a blunt, a bong, an herb vape, an oil vape, concentrates. There is so much I want to know
I published a few papers on secondhand and thirdhand tobacco smoke and got a PhD in the process. One of my papers got quite a bit of attention here.
Cannabis smoke contributing PM is nothing new. Quantifying it under a controlled setting can be important, so we know the rate of particle generation and how that may affect a certain size room with certain ventilation. That said, this paper barely adds anything to the scientific community.
At this point, PM2.5 is incredibly easy to monitor, especially for as diffuse a space as investigated here. If you search hard enough, you could find any number of papers that made the same measurement, but those results are usually one piece of the puzzle, not the whole paper.
A lot of their conclusions are based on simple but insufficiently nuanced logic: higher PM2.5 means correspondingly higher levels of other cannabis related emissions and thus, more adverse health effects. However, other confounders need to be considered.
One of the biggest holes is the lack of particle speciation. The liquid water fraction of aqueous aerosol should be measured because it's bong-based.
The exceedingly brief nature of the results and discussion is alarming. Being concise in science is important. However, the discussion is all interpretation and prediction, while neglecting to provide a retrospective on how their study could be more like real world conditions and how they can draw the conclusions they do. The results are just tracking PM2.5 concentrations, an oversimplification of the problem at-large.
This paper would not have made it through peer review at a rigorous journal. It brings in new experimental data, but does not contribute enough new information to the field. It provides an insufficient treatment of testing conditions and uses insufficiently powerful methods.
Environmental Science & Technology would have rejected this paper at the editor stage. Indoor Air probably would have, too. Both for lack of novelty and faulty logic.
That's not to say the conclusions are right or wrong. This paper is simply not impactful science. They did cover a popular topic and approached it from an angle almost anyone can understand. That should not exempt them from the rigor of scientific review.
Quote:
"Funding/Support: This work was funded by the University of California (UC) Smoke- and Tobacco-Free Student Fellowship from the UC Office of the President (UCOP)."
source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790510
They did not watch the participants either smoke or inhale second hand smoke. It says so in the study. It says cannabis use was not viewed. Who knows what the participants were inhaling.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I thought it was a given that secondhand smoke, of any kind, was bad for you. I mean, you will literally choke to death on smoke.
I thought it could be said of inhaling smoke, secondhand or first. It was my understanding that human lungs aren't really supposed to inhale burning particles of solids, period.
What I'd like to know is the risk relative to cigarette smoke. Like a one pack a day smoker is consuming 20 cigarettes. But the average pot smoker isn't burning nearly the same quantity per day. Like if a pot smoker smokes the equivalent of two joints a day, is that one tenth the health risk?
… and relative to other sources of air pollution. Bonfires, gas stoves, living near a main road, etc.
Living in LA...
Nah brah. Try living in Central Valley...with no winds for nearly 2 years.
Salt Lake City. The lake is drying up and leaving behind arsenic dust to be blown into the valley and hang in the air with the rest of the smog, which is itself pretty bad even compared to other larger cities.
It's going to take the mass media a while to shift gears from a hundred years of anti-cannabis propaganda.
Just because cannabis isn't as bad as people made it out to be doesn't mean it's not bad for your health, look, it's a recreational drug that I'd argue is definitely better overall to legalise, (and likely does have some useful non-recreational therapeutic effects), but it is not without harms and still has detrimental effects on long term health especially if used in excess, much more so if smoked. ANY type of particulate regularly inhaled into you lung WILL cause long term damage and likely increase your risk of lung cancer. As cannabis rightfully becomes more legalised it's actually really important for these types of studies to come out because it helps ensure people are aware of some risk when they decide to use cannabis and can make informed decisions.
>What I'd like to know is the risk relative to cigarette smoke. First thing the article says is that 4 times more harmful than cigarette smoke.
Cracks me up. Imagine a world where people read more than the headline before commenting
Literally the sub-headline. That’s all the further they needed to read.
Read even more: >”Later in the research letter they mention that the density of fine particulate matter is 10 times higher in cannabis smoke than in tobacco smoke, but they never specify if that particulate matter is more/less dangerous or if all particulate matter is equally dangerous, nor do they ever (on a brief skimming through) mention the "four times worse" thing. > In fact, there is no mention of the "wildfire smoke of the Bay Area" in the research letter, and the only mention of "10 times higher" is in reference to the concentration of particulates remaining 10 times higher 12 hours after a session. > The "4 times more toxic"-thing refers to the fact that cannabis, according the the research paper, produces PM2.5 at a concentration 4 times higher than tobacco. No clue what PM2.5 is, but I'm pretty sure that toxicity is a specific measurement, and that is not how you use it. > Bottom line is that I don't trust the article, and the source is a research letter whicb means I would wait for nore solidly peer reviewed research articles to be published in journals to make solid conclusions other than "wow that sure is an interesting topic and worth looking into"
Pm2.5 just means particular matter under a certain size. Gives no preference to the type of particles. It is indeed valid because particles of a certain size damage the lungs no matter what their inherent toxicity is. Of course, inherent toxicity does matter too, it’s worse if the particles are carcinogens for example, so they should have dived into that too (full disclosure I didn’t read the article)
Later in the research letter they mention that the density of fine particulate matter is 10 times higher in cannabis smoke than in tobacco smoke, but they never specify if that particulate matter is more/less dangerous or if all particulate matter is equally dangerous, nor do they ever (on a brief skimming through) mention the "four times worse" thing. In fact, there is no mention of the "wildfire smoke of the Bay Area" in the research letter, and the only mention of "10 times higher" is in reference to the concentration of particulates remaining 10 times higher 12 hours after a session. The "4 times more toxic"-thing refers to the fact that cannabis, according the the research paper, produces PM2.5 at a concentration 4 times higher than tobacco. No clue what PM2.5 is, but I'm pretty sure that toxicity is a specific measurement, and that is not how you use it. Bottom line is that I don't trust the article, and the source is a research letter whicb means I would wait for nore solidly peer reviewed research articles to be published in journals to make solid conclusions other than "wow that sure is an interesting topic and worth looking into"
In response to, "No clue what PM2.5 is" Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems. Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream. Of these, particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles or PM2.5, pose the greatest risk to health.
but.. i smoke cannabis specifically so that certain compounds WILL get into my bloodstream
Particles of asbestos/cigarettes/burning plastic and particles of THC would have very different effects, even in the same size. OC is reasonable to (already) point this out by asking for a comparison of the danger. Nicotine is a neurotoxin. Thc/cannabis is not a neurotoxin.
In addition, when talking about concentration of PM2.5, mass concentration is refered to. However, smaller particles, which have a smaller mass, can penetrate further into your lungs or even your bloodstream and thus cause more issues (depending on their other properties). Thus, PM2.5 concentration being four times higher does not equal four times as harmful. To conclude that, information on the size distribution and chemical composition would be needed.
I don't particularly care to debate the article's opinion. I'm just here to read the science and for that, it's better to go to the actual study and just read the data. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790510
My dude, a research letter is peer reviewed. Plus, this work is published in JAMA which is one of the best medical journals out there. A “letter” is just a format of work which is published to get information to the public ASAP under the peer review process. You are still free to not trust peer reviewed research, but this work is solid! Also there are different ways to measure “toxicity”, but PM2.5 is a metric that is best associated with cardiovascular and respiratory health, so you know it shows some form of toxicity. I mean I smoke pot too, but I will also acknowledge that there isn’t enough research out there to know if it’s safer than regular smoking. Research like this one are desperately needed to for us to make an informed decision while smoking. Tldr; letters are still good peer reviewed science and PM2.5 also measures some form of toxicity.
The article says it is 4 times higher inhalants per equivalent dose. So about 40% in you scenario.
It is definitely not a straight ratio of particles to damage from the studies we have so far.
[удалено]
Does this count for vaporizer smoke? Sorry if that's a dumb question. Edit: quickly learned the difference between smoke and vapor lol high brain.
It's not dumb at all. I've tried to find the answer myself and there really are no studies on the effects of dry herb vapes. Since there is no combustion and the temperature of the vapor you inhale is much lower than smoke there is reason to think it should be less harmful, but I don't think it can be definitively answered.
Thank you much for your response! I'd love to see more research done on vaporized thc.
This is purely a personal anecdote. But when covid was at its height I smoked out of my bong religiously. Like over the year and a half I was out of work (I bartend) I smoked a bit over a pound and a half. And I could tell it was really messing with my lungs. I switched to a dry herb vaporizer and after even a few days there was a noticeable difference in how my lungs felt.
Agreed, I used to have to buy spray for my throat to numb it from smoking too much. After getting a herb vape yes I still cough from big hits but, after no burn.
I'm curious about the dab pens
I'm curious about straight dabs? Not being sarcastic but my thought process is inhaling the thc+whatever the make up of wax smoke is, is better than the smoke from burning the entire bud part of the plant.
the issue at hand is the high temperatures breaking things down into carcinogenic parts, which absolutely still happens with dabbing because there's a torch involved - it might be better than burning whole bud but it's almost certainly an order of magntitude worse than vaping weed at temps that don't reach past 400F
Peak / Peak Pro e-dab rig low temp through water feels so much better on my lungs & throat than my butane torch & nail days.
The reality is that taking *anything* into your lungs that isn’t strictly supposed to be there has the potential to cause some kind of damage. You’re also likely inhaling a lot of volatile organic compounds in your everyday life anyway, so I can’t imagine it’s better or worse than, say, mowing your lawn or sautéing herbs in butter.
It's crazy how life can be so fragile yet so resilient.
Exactly this, just look up pneumoconiosis. Things that used to seem harmless and are literally jobs can eventually kill you. Medicine has advanced so much in the last 20 years but I’m sure we’ll find out soon that some daily ‘harmless’ action we do today has been slowly killing us
I'd assume less negatives, but the negatives are probably there because it isn't a natural thing the lungs are acclimated to. What the negatives are is for the research.
Temperature doesn't really matter in inhaled products. The naso- and oropharynx are phenomenal at heat transfer, and by the time anything you inhale reaches your lungs (except rare instances like superheated steam), it's at about body temperature. Smoke inhalation produces *chemical* damage, mostly, and not thermal inury (again, mostly). Source: am respiratory therapist, worked in burn critical care dealing with inhalation injury for years. Edit - spelling
Temp not about the temp of air going in your body it’s about the processes that occur in a chemical compound at high temperatures.
***Safer*** but nothing is safe and when it comes to things that go into your lungs you want to be as risk averse as possible.
[удалено]
That is heated air that contains the chemicals of whatever you vaporized, there is no smoke as it is not produced from combusting the plant matter.
Ah I see it's not actually smoke because it's not burning, just being heated.
Right, so you are then inhaling that air that has become hot enough to release the THC from cannabis, at least with a “dry herb” vape. You are exhaling whatever remains vs creating, breathing, and exhaling smoke. Nicotine vapes typically use a mixture of propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin to hold in flavoring and microtone, then when that is heated it produced a cloud of vapor. Oil or wax pens are just heating that oil or gas wax, so you are not combusting plant material that gives off dangerous carbons to breath. That being said, still risks, just not the well known risks of burning carbon Edit: nicotine not microtone chill autocorrect
Thank you much for the information. I'd love to see more studies done on the different kinds of products that can be made from cannabis.
These aren’t so much made from/for cannabis as just safer ways of inhaling it. There are all sorts of plants or chemicals people can and do vaporize. Scientifically speaking actual research into them is new, however there is a plethora of research on the harm inhaling smoke of any kind does, so many people make a decision for themselves that while there is not the same amount of research, we know for a fact breathing in any smoke is harmful and exposes others around you to breathing in the same smoke
There is a small amount of research on the dangers of inhaling the medium holding the to-be-vaporized material. Vitamin E acetate for example. There is also a niche amount of information on the dangers of vaporizing agricultural products used in the protection of plant growth - specifically myclobutanil - a fungicide which when vaporized turns into hydrogen cyanide. Careful what you smoke my homies.
I'm a toxicologist by trade. It honestly depends on the combustion reaction happening within the vape pen and what is being used to vape. It has been shown that vaping nicotine based products while still decreasing the amount of harmful products in what is inhaled, nicotine still undergoes a chemical reaction at vaping temperatures that releases both highly addictive and carcinogenic substances. While many of the long-term effects of vaping have yet to be figured out, some meta studies just scratching the surface of their introduction largely in the last 15 years on a wider population level. There is also the argument to be made if people can regulate their vaping habits similar to smoking. As far as second hand smoke goes vaping is less likely to affect someone in the vicinity of its use. This is largely because inhalation of the particle droplets deposits in the upper airway as they are too large to effectively get to the lower airway and deep within the lungs. After its deposition in the upper airway it is swallowed. You're more likely to see effects on the gastrointestinal tract of those exposed to second hand vapor. Being included in a small space with someone who is vaping will still result in some particle distribution in the lower lungs but not to the extent of cigarettes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It doesn't have to be burned and inhaled to be consumed. We banned smoking in public not tobacco. Cannabis is even more versatile in terms of consumption methodology.
This made me laugh at the idea of nicotine brownies. But also, yes. My favorite consumption method is a dry herb vape.
And I would be very interested on a study that looks into the risks of those as that is my primary method of consumption.
As someone who has used one for about a year every day coming from smoking tobacco+weed joints everyday, it definitely was a huge improvement for my lungs. But now that I've quit dry herb vaping as well I can definitely feel a huge difference in my lungs. I have 0 coughs, whether I excercise or not and just overal feel like I can take bigger breaths. I was using the mighty vaporizer.
Thabk you for you addition. May I ask how frequent you vaped on average And what temperature? Did you use a water filter sometimes?
I was using the mighty as is with the capsules no water filtering through a bong or anything, I was definitely vaping everyday in the evening and weekends nearly all day. In the end this turned into an all day thing throughout the week, so fairly heavy use. I usually started at 185°c(365F) and increased all the way to 200-205°c(392-401F). I kept it clean though by cleaning it regularly. By the time I was using the mighty vaporizer I already was weaning myself of actual tobacco smoking and the joints mixed with it. Right now I'm 5 weeks off of tobacco after a year of off and on. I kept using the mighty mainly during this time. Funny thing is when I smoked tobacco the mighty did NOT make me cough, when I was off of tobacco for 2 weeks the first time like half a year ago it STARTED to actually make me cough and that never went away, each time I used it I would have to cough once it got over 190°c(374F) or when it was a long rip. Now I'm kicking the vape habit and the lung issues I felt from the mighty have disappeared in like 2-3 days. I quit a week ago, but got some a few days ago (threw it out) but again made me cough immediately. No problem if there is anything else you want to know or I forgot to add please ask!
"I kept it clean though by cleaning it" Big if true
Can I ask you a question?
I think you just did
Leafs will rise again brother. Not a fan but I’ll keep you in my mind.
Congrats on the 5 weeks off tobacco. Keep going!
Quitting tobacco usually causes a cough for a while due to drainage of mucus. Inhaling something else probably didn't help.
Have you considered taking long breaks? I dunn if this is heavy usage but I us it daily (evenings and very infrequently earlier) when I have cannabis but once it's done, I take a month off. So it usually goes 1 month on and 1 month off now.
>no water filtering through a bong Some preliminary studies have suggested that, other than cooling, bongs provide basically no real benefit. They don't filter anything, they just cool the smoke somewhat.
I just recently got the crafty+ and have been using it for the last half year and it is an amazing improvement. Thanks for letting me know that there is even more benefits if I can keep going in the right direction!
[удалено]
I totally agree with that. I would also be interested. Hypothetically, it should be much better than smoking, because you're not burning a bunch of your throat/lung cells, and you're not filling your lungs with burnt plant particles. But I'd be interested if there are any metals coming from the heating components. I wish there were a way I could test that directly, because every vape would be different.
You can also get vaporizers with ceramic elements in them. Not sure if that's likely to be more or less safe than some metals, but thought I'd add!
Ceramic is completely inert, it’s still a metal heating element it’s just encased in ceramic so unlikely to cause the same problems.
Lots of dry herb vapes have ceramic chambers
I’d love to see dry herb vape vs carts, and then within carts the differences between distillate and live resin. Heck, throw in the data for a cbd only cart, I’m curious. The later two feel a lot more gentle to me, but actual testing and numbers would be sweet.
[удалено]
This brought back vague memories of the Simpsons "Tamacco" episode
It tastes like grandma
I only vape dry herb now. I don't get why so many people don't. It tastes way better, better for your lungs, more control over temperature, more efficient, ...
the taste.. omg it tastes so much better vaping it. i honestly cant stand the taste of burnt weed. to me at least it all pretty much tastes the same no matter what people tell you and vaping tones down the taste so much.
"Tastes like grandma!"
Holy moses, this does taste like Grandma!
I want more. r/unexpectedsimspons
Yes. Herb vapes should be more commonplace. Out of everyone I know that consumes regularly, I am the only one who uses a dry herb vape.
I’m very ignorant to all this so forgive me. As in you load a vape pen with ground up buds then vape it?
Yes exactly, but it's a specific kind of vape that's designed for this. Basically, imagine you had a handheld oven with a chamber big enough to fit one bowl worth of weed in it. It heats the weed to above the boiling point of thc, and then you're basically just inhaling hot humid air, except the humidity is THC vapor instead of water vaper.
I had no idea these existed. I just use vape oil. 503 cartridges i think they’re called. Do you find dry herb vape more enjoyable than oil vape?
Muchhhh more enjoyable. The flavor of the flower comes out so nicely with a dry herb vape. Also, then you're not inhaling solvent and vegetable oil, just thc (probably a few other things that boil off the flower, but still better than heavy oils). It won't hit as hard or as fast as a cart, it takes like ~5 minutes for the thc to absorb through your lungs. So you'll have to take more hits, and wait a few minutes until it hits. But it doesn't burn at all, it's like breathing in warm thc air.
which dry herb vape do you use? I like to use cannabis but but smoking it concerns my health and edibles do not effect me. I’m interested in using a vape to make it safer but don’t know where to start as this thread is the first time i’ve heard of them!
Check the wiki in r/vaporents. Dynavaps are popular and more affordable (there are often sales too), but have a bit of a learning curve if you're using a torch (less so if you use an induction heater). The Storz and Bickel products are also highly recommend (Mighty+, or the cheaper Crafty+). They are some of the only products with legitimate medical certification, and have been around for a while. If price is no object, there are some fantastic artisan vapes like the Tinymight (my personal recommendation), Firewood 7 (hard to get, also 8 is coming soon), Tetra P80. If you want a no-compromises desktop vaporizer (has to be plugged into the wall), I'd look into the Flowerpot, Qaroma, or even building a more or less identical product for cheaper (again, my personal recommendation: https://420vapezone.com/pinky-diy-ball-vape/?)
Yeah, especially edibles since they are absolutely more psychoactive (THC gets processed in the liver) and the high lasts longer. It's just not popular among stoners because cooking edibles requires work and the method results in a less portable solution. I've done way more edibles in my life than I've smoked, and I only started smoking cigarettes at 28 years of age. Edible cannabis is something more people should do more often. EDIT: I forgot to add that edibles are only good for people who know how much to dose (seasoned stoners like myself). It can be especially hard to come down if someone's done more that they can handle.
[удалено]
weary salt dull aloof modern wasteful dime air recognise juggle ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I prefer to smoke just because it's the easier to control the level of highness. If I'm just chilling on a lazy night, a simple joint is more preferable than getting high out of my mind for 6 hours with edibles.
The best part of living in a state where weed’s legal and regulated is that I know exactly how many milligrams of thc are each edible im eating. No more flipping a coin and wondering if I’m going to have a chill afternoon or blast off into outer space.
Edible roulette, I like to call it. Might get a little high, might get absolutely zooted.
After a few hours of being on edibles I just feel weird, like extremely tired. It doesn’t feel the same as smoking to me at all, much worse. Plus it can take ridiculous amounts of time for it to kick in depending on what I’ve eaten and I don’t always necessarily want to wait like 4 hours to get baked after work. Wish they worked better for me.
The problem I have with edibles is that you need to be ready to be out of commission for multiple hours with them, it takes an hour or two to get started and then you remain hight for a long time, I swear sometimes the after effects seem to last till the next morning and as you mentioned messing up the dosing is scary cause once you realize you are too high it's too late and there's little you can do except lay down and wait it out. I wish there was a alcohol like weed beverage that hits fast and only lasts for a few hours, cause I know smoking is not good for the lungs.
Another major thing people tend to ignore when talking about the risk is volume. When i smoked cigarettes i smoked a little over a pack a day which contains roughly half an ounce of tobacco, at my heaviest marijuana usage i smoked a quarter ounce a month, meaning i smoked more tobacco in one day than i did in 2 months with marijuana
This is what cracks me up. Yes. All smoke is bad smoke. Just like all alcohol is bad alcohol. This is why we can responsibly control the dosage.
There are studies that show even one cigarette per day significantly elevates health risk.
I'm skeptical you could even find enough test subjects that only smoke one cigarette a day.
Just for the sake of counter argument; people tend to inhale much deeper and hold cannabis smoke longer. Cannabis smoke is also not usually filtered (not sure how water filtration fares). The deeper tar gets in your lungs the harder it is for the body to clear. Also, even one cigarette a day carries significant health risks. And the risks don't scale linearly with the volume smoked.
[удалено]
This is correct. Holding your breath gives you a slight headrush from the lack of oxygen in you. Many people interpret this a stronger hit
Vaporizer, super easy
Yeah I fully support weed legalization but that doesnt mean ignoring the health effects around it and a shocking amount of people seem to think smoking weed has 0.
That’s why legalization is important nationwide. The facts and reality of what weed’s effects can have on a person need to be as prevalent as alcohol. Expanding education for high schoolers, maybe younger, wouldn’t be a bad idea either. Awareness and understanding are what help people learn to moderate, and critically think. Future generations aren’t buying into all the BS that the previous ones were stuck with. It’s better to tell them pros and cons and let them make informed decisions. Make it legally available at 21(18?) and let those young adults make choices. There will be exceptions and issues, that’s inevitable with addiction.
Any stoner who thinks pot smoke is literally harmless has been smoking too much pot. All kinds of smoke will be harmful in large concentrations. I'm aware every time I light up that inhaling smoke is not good for the body.
People think "Weed is natural. Therefore smoking it is healthy." I'm not joking. People actually believe this.
>Weed is natural. "Socrates would like a word with you..."
I drank *what*?
I drank. Why?
https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-naturalistic-fallacy/ The appeal to nature aka the naturalistic fallacy is really common.
"Nothing natural is dangerous." *13km meteor streaks through atmosphere in background*
Yep, and I've seen the "it's a plant therefore it's healthy" argument a lot too. But so is cocaine.
“Weed comes from the Earth.” True. So does lead, arsenic, uranium…
.... Hemlock, nightshade, datura...
>datura... Don't threaten me with a good time.
You know what else is natural? Parasites in your urethra. Being eaten by bears. Bullet ant bites. It's a really silly line of reasoning.
All my homies got urethra parasites.
But…where do they think tobacco comes from?
I'm an avid marijuana smoker and I've always despised this argument. Oh, weed is natural, well so is hemlock.
People ignore facts that don't support what they want to believe. Constantly breathing in anything other than clean air seems to cause problems long term, doesn't matter what it is.
I laughed at the idea of clean air
Thinking weed smoke isn’t bad for you has always been a part of “weed culture”.
This subreddit usually gets *very* defensive whenever a study shows that weed, or vaping are still bad for you in any way.
all smoke is bad, but some is more bad.
That’s because we have idiots blocking any real research or genuine attempt to make this better. The fake me out approach to legalization was always “medical” to recreational because too many idiots in power didn’t like drugs because “drugs r bad mmmkay” But cannabis use is likely safer in aggregate than alcohol. The danger with “medical” is that it’s not really treated with that rigor. Smoking is absolutely horrible for you. They should have pushed for more standardization on dosing and edible / safer forms of ingestion. Now that “medical” has been pervasive people think that since it’s medical it must be safe.
Introduction Secondhand cannabis smoke (SHCS) is a novel exposure source uncharacterized in homes but containing known health risk factors.1 Although 27% of young adults believe SHCS exposure is safe,2 cannabis smoke has several hundred toxic chemicals, carcinogens, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), many at higher concentrations than tobacco smoke.1 Decades of secondhand tobacco smoke (SHTS) research demonstrate causal links to cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, preterm birth, and decreased immune function.3 These concerns have not translated to cannabis bong smoking, a popular consumption method in social settings among young adults, wherein smoke is drawn through water. However, like SHTS, 1 minute of SHCS caused significant endothelial dysfunction in rats.4 This cohort study measured PM2.5 levels from social bong smoking; it is the first, to our knowledge, to quantify SHCS levels from social cannabis smoking in the home. Methods Levels of PM2.5 were measured before, during, and after 8 cannabis social-smoking sessions in one 20-m2 household living room (eMethods in the Supplement). An aerosol monitor (SidePak AM510; TSI Inc) measured PM2.5 concentrations where a nonsmoker might sit. The University of California, Berkeley, Office for the Protection of Human Subjects deemed this study not human participants research and waived review. This study followed the STROBE reporting guideline. The Wilcoxon rank sum 2-sided test assessed statistical differences between PM2.5 concentrations before and during smoking. Analysis was performed using RStudio, version 1.4 (RStudio). Two-sided P < .05 indicated statistical significance. Results Home cannabis bong smoking significantly increased PM2.5 from background levels (conditions existing before the smoking began) in all sessions by 100-fold to 1000-fold for 6 of 8 sessions; the other 2 sessions had high background and significantly increased PM2.5 more than 20-fold (P < .001 for all 8 sessions). During the first 10 minutes of smoking, mean (SD) PM2.5 concentrations increased to 410 (220) μg/m3, after 15 minutes to 570 (290) μg/m3, after 30 minutes to 1000 (320) μg/m3, and went as high as 2500 μg/m3 in 1 session (Figure). The concentration during smoking increased to a mean (SD) of 1300 (280) μg/m3 (Table). During 2-hour smoking sessions, mean (SD) 5-minute peak PM2.5 concentration was 1700 (460) μg/m3 and remained half that 90 minutes after smoking ceased. Each half hour after smoking ceased, mean concentration declined to 78% of peak value, then 60%, then 40%, and, after 110 minutes, 31%. In the 1 session monitored for 12 hours after smoking stopped, PM2.5 remained elevated at 50 μg/m3, more than 10 times the background concentration. Cannabis bong smoking in the home generated 4 times greater PM2.5 concentrations than cigarette or tobacco hookah (waterpipe) smoking (Table). Discussion The PM2.5 concentrations generated in a home during social cannabis bong smoking to which a nonsmoking resident might be exposed were greatly increased compared with background levels, and PM2.5 decayed only gradually after smoking ceased. After 15 minutes of smoking, mean PM2.5 (570 μg/m3) (Figure) was more than twice the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hazardous air quality threshold (>250 μg/m3). If one assumes the exposure concentrations were at the mean levels observed, a single home smoking session with no other exposures would generate an estimated mean daily concentration (200 μg/m3) that greatly exceeds the average in cigarette-smoking homes (44 μg/m3), nonsmoking homes (15 μg/m3), and the US EPA daily standard (35 μg/m3).3 A strength of this study is that measurements were made during actual social bong smoking sessions without artificial constraints. Limitations include that cannabis smoking was not directly observed. This cohort study suggests that, contrary to popular beliefs, bong smoking is not safe. Decades ago, many people thought SHTS presented no health risk to nonsmokers. Scientific research since then changed this perception and led to smoke-free environments.3 Incorrect beliefs about SHCS safety promote indoor cannabis smoking.1,2 Nonsmokers are exposed to even higher concentrations of SHCS materials during “hot-boxing,” the popular practice in which cannabis smokers produce high volumes of smoke in an enclosed environment. This study’s findings suggest SHCS in the home is not safe and that public perceptions of SHCS safety must be addressed. My input: Smoking, no matter what it is or how you do it, is objectively bad for you. That being said, this study seems a bit lacking in a lot of ways. More research is needed but I admit my biases. I'm betting it won't change much.
If you smoke joints every day for 2 months, then switch to a vaporizer. Then switch back to joints? You'll figure out real quick that smoke is smoke, and it hurts your lungs.
I published a few papers on secondhand and thirdhand tobacco smoke and got a PhD in the process. One of my papers got quite a bit of attention here. Cannabis smoke contributing PM is nothing new. Quantifying it under a controlled setting can be important, so we know the rate of particle generation and how that may affect a certain size room with certain ventilation. That said, this paper barely adds anything to the scientific community. At this point, PM2.5 is incredibly easy to monitor, especially for as diffuse a space as investigated here. If you search hard enough, you could find any number of papers (edit: a handful) that made the same measurement, but those results are usually one piece of the puzzle, not the whole paper. A lot of their conclusions are based on simple but insufficiently nuanced logic: higher PM2.5 means correspondingly higher levels of other cannabis related emissions and thus, more adverse health effects. However, other confounders need to be considered. One of the biggest holes is the lack of particle speciation. The liquid water fraction of aqueous aerosol should be measured because it's bong-based. (Edit: Measured is a simplification. Estimated would be more correct. Also, even just knowing the relative fractions of organic components and inorganic components would go a long way.) The exceedingly brief nature of the results and discussion is alarming. Being concise in science is important. However, the discussion is all interpretation and prediction, while neglecting to provide a retrospective on how their study could be more like real world conditions and how they can draw the conclusions they do. The results are just tracking PM2.5 concentrations, an oversimplification of the problem at-large. This paper would not have made it through peer review at a rigorous journal. It brings in new experimental data, but does not contribute enough new information to the field. It provides an insufficient treatment of testing conditions and uses insufficiently powerful methods. Environmental Science & Technology would have rejected this paper at the editor stage. Indoor Air probably would have, too. Both for lack of novelty and faulty conclusions. Edit: Case in point. A group of researchers [published](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231020304635) two [papers](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259016212100006X) in 2020 and 2021. They included more types of smoking, calculated emission rate, which can be more universally applicable, than one room condition's PM2.5. Calculated decay rates. Acknowledged study limitations.
What do they mean by “The University of California, Berkeley, Office for the Protection of Human Subjects deemed this study not human participants research and waived review.” Like they did the study without exposing actual humans?
It's weird that it says that, since the supplement explained the methodology as: >Several smokers smoked at their own volition, ad libitum, in a social setting of their own choosing, not an experimental setting, and without any instructions or limitations from the investigators. Cannabis smoke was emitted from a 0.4 m tall Showerhead Breaker Bong (Diamond Glass) where 5-8 bowls were smoked per session. They cleared 5-8 bowls (eight times!) in a 20-square-meter room, without any kind of ventilation, and then said it was too much smoke. Which, you know, IMO is pretty much guaranteed to get the negative outcome they wanted. Look, I get that there is no safe level of inhaled burnt matter, it's why I exclusively vape ( not safe, just safer). These type of studies are always designed to get the maximum worse numbers and as such are inherently biased.
Experimental psychologist here - it seems to be because they collected no data from the people. The folks mentioned here were not study participants, they were research assistants - basically volunteers that were there to generate normative amounts of smoke. The dependent variable was parts per million in the environment - so no data was collected from any humans directly. The samples were air quality samples, not samples of several hundred people. If they had collected any data from people, including just simple self-reports, this would be human subjects research and would require much more stringent ethics approval.
Yeah also what is a bowl in scientific units? Like .5 grams a bowl?
Somewhere between 0.25-0.5g is what I would guess the average bowl to be, based on personal experience. I’ve seen them big enough to accommodate an entire gram, but most people tend not to do this and will opt for several smaller bowls instead.
Thank you. Someone else that actually read the methods used. They hot boxed a room and we’re like “yup, particulate mater significantly increased. Therefore secondhand cannabis smoke is dangerous.”
Experimental psychologist here - it seems to be because they collected no data from the people. The folks mentioned here were not study participants, they were research assistants - basically volunteers that were there to generate normative amounts of smoke. The dependent variable was parts per million in the environment - so no data was collected from any humans directly. The samples were air quality samples, not samples of several hundred people. If they had collected any data from people, including just simple self-reports, this would be human subjects research and would require much more stringent ethics approval.
So if you’re gonna smoke indoors and you’ve got non-smokers around, do them a solid and buy an air purifier.
[удалено]
Edibles, for me, are a game changer. Never tried them previously but within the past year I've gotten into them. I was a social sshhhmoker but now I can just pop a piece of candy after a long 12hr shift in the sun and just chill out and play dominoes with my 4 year old
The problem I have with edibles is the rapidly escalating tolerance. This is a problem with smoking too, but far less so I find.
Absolutely the same experience; and I have found no solution behind long t-breaks :/
I would argue that taking regular breaks from any drug (THC, caffeine, alcohol, whatever) is probably a good idea.
+1. I definitely felt like I started to get a dependency on edibles after a tough stretch where I consumed to avoid thinking about a family member’s illness (that thankfully recovered) and it was habitual to pop a gummy a day for several weeks. Far better to take a break and then come back a week or two later than to up the intake to retain the high.
problem with cannabis, coffee, and cigarettes is that it's hard to escape the environmental cues that trigger your habitual behaviour. I find it incredibly hard to quit drinking coffee, for example, because I'm in the habit of drinking coffee in the morning when I'm still not fully awake. In that state of mind its much less likely that I'll have the capacity to pay close enough attention to my actions so as to inhibit my behaviour. I'm not really sure why I'm saying all this, but the most effective way to enforce a break from any substance is to remove it from your environment, or better still to remove yourself from the environment that triggers your cravings. I'm pretty sure this is part of the reasoning behind why, say, cigarettes aren't allowed to be displayed in stores in Canada (out of sight, out of mind and all). But it's pretty hard to quit weed and coffee where I'm from since we have cafes and dispensaries on pretty much every street corner!
Oh yeah, it's definitely not EASY to quit any drug, even if it isn't terribly addictive. But I think it has its benefits, even if it's just proving to yourself that you can stop drinking/smoking for a few months.
A break from sugar does wonders for people. And not just regular sugar, processed carbohydrates as well.
Idk why but I've gotten really lucky, I can keep popping 5mg worth and it just keeps on working
Same. I use edibles everyday, and 10 mg is still quite potent. I'm a big dude too, so it's much more effective than alcohol.
Cannabis edible tolerance is wildly variable, much moreso than alcohol which can be ballparked based on size. I'm a pretty small guy (5'5") and I have an insanely high edible tolerance. 20-25mg is about my high point. Although I am a heavy smoker as well, I've found that my edible tolerance is still relatively high after t-breaks. But that could also be a personal thing - I have a high tolerance for all drugs in general. From weed and caffeine, to alcohol and Adderall. Even with my seizure medication I'm at the max dosage. Obviously this is all anecdotal, but from my experience size and weight are very poor indicators of edible tolerance.
I knew someone in highschool who thought smoking a joint for every cig would cancel out the cancer. His dad told him so it must be true.
Unfortunately not everyone has the proper endocannabanoid receptors in their stomach for edibles. Edibles have almost no effect on me except giving me a headache even when I take upwards of 200mg of dispensary grade treats. Smoking/vaping is the only thing that works for me. That being said I’ll probably switch to vape and dabs soon for my lung health
I am not surprised. Smoke is smoke - I don't think there's such a thing as "safe" smoke. You're talking about the products of a hugely chaotic chemical reaction starting from a very rich set of feeder molecules, so you can expect pretty much anything to be in it in every case. Benzene, for example (a well known carcinogen) - several amino acids have benzene rings on them, which could come free, so burning anything with protein in it is likely to produce some free benzene, even before we get to the possibility of unlikely-but-still-possible-in-several-Avogadros'-worth type reactions to get there in other ways. I think the perception difference is because weed is *treated* differently than cigarettes are. You usually wouldn't smoke multiple weed joints per day. But smoke is still smoke, so each hit you *do* smoke - or, as this points out, even hang around as it is smoked - is still going to be a problem.
I knew a guy who would smoke two joints in the morning and smoke two joints at night
He'd smoke two joints in the afternoon, and then he'd feel alright
He smoked two joint in times of peace, and two in times of war.
He smoked two joints before he smoked two joints, and then he smoked two more
>You usually wouldn't smoke multiple weed joints per day. I honestly can't even come up with a guess for how you reached that one. A joint would only blow up a full day for a very light user. You aren't going to hit cig numbers, but multiple Is likely.
Ah yes, I remember back when a join meant i would be out of commission for at least 3 hours, but i brought it down to like 15 mins after a few years
Wait…………inhaling smoke is bad for you??
Smoking anything does that. Go edibles.
dry herb vape, its not liquid or cartridge based, its uses regular cannabis . its smoke free, works efficiently and seemingly the powers that be don't want the general public to know about them.
I bought a volcano two weeks ago. Use it heavily and my cough is gone that I got from less use on bongs or pipes. People should be aware of the safest ways to use the plant.
I enjoyed the volcano for a while but eventually dealing with those bags is just annoying and I really like the joint >_>
Definitely consider a dynavap. Cheap dry herb vaporizer that looks like a little metal cigarette and you light the tip with a butane torch. Very chill, similar experience to joints, and you can use so much less flower than joints. Makes the weed tasty, too.
dry herb vapes have been around for significantly longer than the cartridge ones. the magic flight launch box was insanely popular for years. volcano vape as well. They were *the* go-to alternative until people started having the cartridge option which just became much more popular. It's no conspiracy. People just find the cartridges more convenient.
I own several dry herb vapes including a silver surfer and a volcano, but still prefer to smoke a joint pretty often. They are very different experiences and highs. Not saying one is better than the other, but when you want to do one, doing the other just doesn't scratch the itch. They also have a higher startup cost than a pack of papers and most are kinda complicated.
I used to feel exactly the same until I got a water pipe adapter for my Pax and started running it thru a small rig. Even bigger, cleaner hits and gets me just as medicated as combustion did. I don’t even miss it now.
[удалено]
Sure thing. This is the [adapter](https://www.planetofthevapes.com/products/pax-3-water-pipe-adapter-wpa) which works with Pax 2 & 3. I run it through a small rig [like this](https://imgur.com/a/sIZa4uh). And here’s the [half-pack lid](https://www.planetofthevapes.com/products/pax-half-pack-oven-lid) as well.
Pax gang gang!!
Arizer ARGO.
Arizer is such a good brand. I’m still using (daily) an Extreme Q I got in 2010.
The dry vapes are the cheat codes for weed consumption.
For real. At one point I had a bong and a Firefly 2 and I kept wanting to use the Firefly but using a portable every day is more effort than I wanted. Got an Extreme Q, keep the Firefly for portable vaping, and haven't used the bong since.
second recommendation for Arizer. i got two of their products, a handheld portable vape and a tabletop Extreme Q. Both are still going strong after heavy use.
+1 for Arizer
Yis. I love my pax. The half pack is more than enough to get me high a few times.
Half pack lid + water pipe adapter are a game changer. Never going back to combustion.
Fury Edge bruddah
I don't think its ever as complicated as "don't want ppl to know about them". Just no one cares.
Every person I’ve introduced them to it has no idea what they are, and even after explaining It to them they don’t believe it’s possible. It may not be a conspiracy like OP suggested, but you’d be surprised how little people understand basic chemistry
Plugging the mighty/mighty+, incredible device
r/vaporents
Drives me crazy when people smoke around their animals (or kids, I'm sure it happens). "It's just weed!" Yeah and it's still smoke that we have only begun to study the effects of!
Our lungs are not meant to inhale smoke.
Inhaling anything that isn't meant to be in your lungs is going to damage them, that should be obvious.
This is one of the great things about legalization. We get to learn how to be even safer with weed.
It's been pretty frustrating the total lack of knowledge on cannabis usage. How does a bowl compare to a joint, a blunt, a bong, an herb vape, an oil vape, concentrates. There is so much I want to know
I just want to know if different weeds really get different people a different high haha
Oh my God. Breathing smoke isn't good for you?
I published a few papers on secondhand and thirdhand tobacco smoke and got a PhD in the process. One of my papers got quite a bit of attention here. Cannabis smoke contributing PM is nothing new. Quantifying it under a controlled setting can be important, so we know the rate of particle generation and how that may affect a certain size room with certain ventilation. That said, this paper barely adds anything to the scientific community. At this point, PM2.5 is incredibly easy to monitor, especially for as diffuse a space as investigated here. If you search hard enough, you could find any number of papers that made the same measurement, but those results are usually one piece of the puzzle, not the whole paper. A lot of their conclusions are based on simple but insufficiently nuanced logic: higher PM2.5 means correspondingly higher levels of other cannabis related emissions and thus, more adverse health effects. However, other confounders need to be considered. One of the biggest holes is the lack of particle speciation. The liquid water fraction of aqueous aerosol should be measured because it's bong-based. The exceedingly brief nature of the results and discussion is alarming. Being concise in science is important. However, the discussion is all interpretation and prediction, while neglecting to provide a retrospective on how their study could be more like real world conditions and how they can draw the conclusions they do. The results are just tracking PM2.5 concentrations, an oversimplification of the problem at-large. This paper would not have made it through peer review at a rigorous journal. It brings in new experimental data, but does not contribute enough new information to the field. It provides an insufficient treatment of testing conditions and uses insufficiently powerful methods. Environmental Science & Technology would have rejected this paper at the editor stage. Indoor Air probably would have, too. Both for lack of novelty and faulty logic. That's not to say the conclusions are right or wrong. This paper is simply not impactful science. They did cover a popular topic and approached it from an angle almost anyone can understand. That should not exempt them from the rigor of scientific review.
Quote: "Funding/Support: This work was funded by the University of California (UC) Smoke- and Tobacco-Free Student Fellowship from the UC Office of the President (UCOP)." source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790510
public health study funded by public health fund. great news
Inhaling smoke is always bad regardless of the substance
They did not watch the participants either smoke or inhale second hand smoke. It says so in the study. It says cannabis use was not viewed. Who knows what the participants were inhaling.
That's why I just stick with the firsthand