THIS IS WHAT A BONG LEAVES IN YOUR LUNGS!!!!

[Sour Deez]

RE: popcorn taste -- sounds like the heater temp is too high -- not all vapes do this.

Definitely the high from vaping is different from the stone from a joint. i personally prefer vaping -- smoking triggers asthma symptoms for me, but vaping never does.

When i started vaping half as much, and only 3 (or 4) times per day, the high lasts for hours.

I agree 100% about the temp being to high. When i first got my SSV i put it away after 2 days, i was going threw just as much bud, if not more and the high wasnt lasting.

Few months later i read that starting at a lower temp and working your way up is the best method, tried that and was blown away. Ive been hooked on vapor for over a year.

The popcorn taste comes when the pack is done, not right away. The first few hits are orgasmic with the intense flavors.

On my off days, Im vaked alllllllllll day and I only go threw .5g worth of bud. Each pack is .1g and the high lasts for hours until i need another .1g

The high still is slightly different, so its not for everyone, but to me the high is more enjoyable. Smoke in general seems to make me lethargic no matter what.

 

[Herborizer]

used to smoke out of a 3 foot triple perc'd bong with diffuser and icecatcher;
loved it until i started to hack up shit;

i tried to get on a health kick and move over to vape's but i just CANT stand the high; ive smoked volcanos; silver surfers; and many others -- i dont like the burnt popcorn smell and the high is just not the same;; can anyone comment on this?
obviously the vaporizer is not totally clean as there is a residue that builds up in the "whip"
over time.... but no question its cleaner than a bong hit...

so i have compromised and now i own a medium sized bubbler; not as bad for me as the bong; i don't inhale nearly as deeply and i no longer wheeze or hack up shit....

i no longer own any "bongs"

as far as doctors checkin out my lungs; i have always come out clean, but for many years i was an avid cross-country runner and im thinking that has something to do with my overall cardiovascular health

You need to dial-in your device. It helps tremendously to have a quality vaporizer. I HIGHLY suggest the Arizer products. They are the best in my opinion. Considering, I would buy the best I can get my hands on, and money isn't an issue when it comes to my health. I have both the Arizer Extreme Q and the Arizer Solo. I have put my Extreme away in the closet now, because the SOLO is the best vaporizer I have ever used. The best hits and the best for portability.

Dial-in is learning the correct temp to achieve your desired results. For example, on my Extreme I like 215C as my temp. On my Solo, I like temp #4.

Then, you must consider the starting material. Hopefully high quality (I can't help you there). Then, the grinder you use (though I have discovered out of laziness that the SOLO doesn't need you to grind your weed). Have a quality grinder and grind it fine.

Then, don't put too much in the bowl. Start with filling it 1/2 way.

If you are not in a hurry and you REALLY want the best taste, put the material in the bowl and then turn it on to temp. Let it sit in there 5-10 minutes. Then take your rips. The first 5 or so rips will be the best tasting. The quality of the taste will worse gradually after that.

Also, another thing that many people make a mistake with Vapes is the dryness of the starting material. With a vape, you want it DRY. Not wet. This is not burning. The dryer it is the better.

 

[Snoopster]

I only read the last couple pages and am surprised at the misinformation weed smokers labor under.

Go ahead and smoke bong hits. Smoked marijuana has been shown to have protective properties.

People who smoke marijuana and cigarettes tend to live longer than those that just smoke cigarettes.
People who smoke marijuana tend to live longer than those that do not.

I have been doing bong hits for over 20 years and I will continue until I do not like them any more.

I can't disagree that vaporizing is healthier, but there is no evidence that responsible marijuana smoking is a hazard to your lungs.

 

[krunchbubble]

but there is no evidence that responsible marijuana smoking is a hazard to your lungs.

grab a stethoscope, put it on my back and listen, that is all the evidence you need....

 

[VonBudí]

People who smoke marijuana tend to live longer than those that do not.

what? link

 

[stihgnobevoli]

grab a stethoscope, put it on my back and listen, that is all the evidence you need....

that's not evidence of anything, you live on planet earth with the rest of us right? you know that the atmosphere is full of pollution?

 

[ladydog]

Smoking anything is harmful for your lungs. Weed seems safer than cigarettes but obviously not healthy. When I smoked heavily I coughed up black shit. Now that I vaporize 99% of the time, I dont have any phlegm. I think that is evidence inhaling large amounts of burned plant matter is worse than vaporized. I think common sense is evidence for that too. I definitely think herb has healing properties mentally and physically, but combusted plant material is the most unhealthy method.

Maybe it doesn't seem to cause cancer, but that doesn't mean it can't. I like my lungs and I like weed. Im just glad I mostly vaporize now. The idea of inhaling all that extra plant matter seems so unhealthy. Vaping tastes a million times better too.

Edit: And sure you breathe all sorts of bad shit all day in the city, but taking concentrated amounts smoke on top of all the pollution is not better.

 

[Snoopster]

I am more inclined to believe Donald Tashkin than some guy on this board who says, "Dude, look at this napkin. It is gross dude."

Donald Tashkin set out to link marijuana and cancer and could not do so. He failed.

what? link

I can't find that study right now, my old hard drive crashed.
I think it was in the study Ganja in Jamaica. A medical anthropological study of chronic marihuana use. or The Study of Chronic Marihuana Users in Jamaica I couldn't find the specific parts about marijuana smokers living longer.

Marijuana smokers tend to have less cancer and less obesity than the general public. Those alone could lead one to believe that marijuana smokers live longer.

Pot smokers are less obese than the general population.

Marijuana use has not been shown to increase risk of cancer.
Several longitudinal studies have established that even long-term use of marijuana (via smoking) in humans is not associated with elevated cancer risk, including tobacco-related cancers or with cancer of the following sites: colorectal, lung, melanoma, prostate, breast, cervix. A more recent (2009) population-based case-control study found that moderate marijuana smoking over a 20 year period was associated with reduced risk of head and neck cancer (See Liang et al). And a 5-year-long population-based case control study found even long-term heavy marijuana smoking was not associated with lung cancer or UAT (upper aerodigestive tract) cancers.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/facts/drug-facts/marijuana-facts



Marilyn Bowman, in a battery of psychological tests on chronic cannabis users in Jamaica in 1972, found “no impairment of physiological, sensory and perceptual-motor performance, tests of concept formation, abstracting ability and cognitive style and tests of memory.” These Jamaicans had smoked anywhere from six to 31 years (16.6 mean average) and the average age at the first puff was at 12 years and six months.

In the 1975 study between users and non-users, no difference was found in plasma testosterone, no difference in total nutrition, slightly higher performance on the intelligence sub-tests (not statistically significant), and “a basic measure of cell-mediated immunity was no less vigorous in the users.”

Finally, “Users in our matched pair sample smoked marijuana in addition to as many tobacco cigarettes as did their partners. Yet their airways were, if anything, a bit healthier than their matches.”

“We must tentatively conclude either that marijuana has no harmful effects on such passages or that it actually offers some slight protection against the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. Only further research will clarify which, if either, is the case.”
http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/chapter-fifteen/

 

[Faith-Hope-Love]

Nearly every post I've read from Krunch, he is trying to manipulate or will others to think like he does. Or drop lines about how much money he has (and such little time was it? Yet you are constantly on ICmag... fucking hilarious) So your lungs are shot are they? Well if my lungs are fine(I have doctor proof as well Krunch, we just had our insurance health exams and my lungs are actually EXCEPTIONAL) and I smoke everyday for well over a decade, by your logic that PROVES cannabis is fine.

ANY SOLID MATTER BURNED LEAVES RESIDUE (RESIN).... I'm not arguing that fact at all. I'm just pointing out your lack of quality reasoning (and your constant attempts to be king shit online is rather annoying FYI)

Go spend all that money that you don't seem to have time for.... ICmag will still be here when you get back!



p.s. the resin from cannabis doesn't "cut through" the mucas layer of the lungs, thus if you clean your lungs (consistent expansion of lungs, like cardio workouts) it's amazing how easy and quickly your lungs are able to get rid of the resin layer. But I guess lazy people may end up with bigger issues down the road..... in which case stethoscopes on the back may even reveal unhealthy lungs!

 

[vegtable]

this guy is hella stupid if he thinks his paper towel experament is relevent to living tissue.

hey krunchbubble is only going to vape now LMAO

 

[budbasket]

The link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer is undeniable, but does smoking marijuana cause lung cancer, too? The short answer -- probably.

In 2006, many of us in medicine were shocked when a review of research to date did not show an increase in lung cancer related to marijuana use. There was even a suggestion that marijuana had a protective effect against lung cancer. Recent studies, in contrast, do appear to link smoking marijuana with lung cancer.

One study demonstrated a doubling in lung cancer for male marijuana smokers who also used tobacco. Another study found that long-term use of marijuana increased the risk of lung cancer in young adults (55 and under), with the risk increasing in proportion to the amount of marijuana smoked.

Why the controversy?

Since marijuana is illegal, it is hard to do the controlled studies that have been done with tobacco. Because of this, it helps to look at what we do know about marijuana:

Many of the carcinogens and co-carcinogens present in tobacco smoke are also present in smoke from marijuana.

Marijuana smoking does cause inflammation and cell damage, and it has been associated with pre-cancerous changes in lung tissue.

Marijuana has been shown to cause immune system dysfunction, possibly predisposing individuals to cancer.

Bottom line: Though marijuana most likely pales in cancer risk when compared to cigarette smoking, it's better to play it safe. There are reasons in addition to lung cancer risk (and the fact that it is illegal) to avoid marijuana. Marijuana likely increases the risk of testicular cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, a type of brain tumor, and the risk of leukemia in the offspring of women who use it during pregnancy.

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm

Everyone should at the very least vape, everyone arguing against the evils of smoking cannabis do not have serious health issues!!! Why can people not accept that there are much healthier forms of ingesting this "medicine". Everyone who wants to get high go have fun with it but for tens of thousands of actual patients who rely on this, let science take its course and let us find a delivery system with absolutely no detrimental effects.

How many of the arguers actually grow their own? Until you have an unlimited supply for multiple years you cannot understand how much someone can smoke and/or damage their lungs. Almost every single study I have found supporting the benefits of smoking cannabis involves smoking 1-5 joints a day. Not only do they not say what size/weight of joint, they do not specify the exact cannabinoid profile. We have no idea knowing what the possible benefits there are then.

Snoopster- show me an actual medical study rather than random posts from pro-marijuana sites or anyone that has something to gain from legalization and I will consider believing the results presented. Every study I have posted has been of an unbiased opinion. Most doctors actually have no issue with people using cannabis even recreationally. It is only when people start combusting leaves at very high temperatures and inhaling the products where issues arise.

 

[supermanlives]

can i get a dipstick so i can know when my lungs are half full?

 

[juicepuddle]

A lesson to take away from this thread: Its ok to smoke, but consistent smoking is going to lead to health issues. Vaping is ok, from what I understand as long as you don't over heat and combust the material, you will not have any problem with your lungs, even with long term use.

The reason smoking causes problems is because when materials are com-busted they produce carcinogenic materials in the smoke, this means if you smoke binder paper you will have similar carcinogenic materials in that smoke if you compared it to Marry J smoke!

Why this strange comparison to binder paper? Because some people in this thread OBVIOUSLY think tobacco causes cancer, they are wrong, its how most cigarette smokers use their tobacco that causes problems, AKA every cig is wrapped in thick white paper, every cig is SMOKED, who the fuck do you know that VAPES tobacco? Also you know about all the nasty additives in most commercial cigarettes.

TLDR Smoke causes cancer, weather or not your burning Marry J, tobacco OR binder paper lol! Vape that shit!

What I take away: I say do what YOU want with YOUR body. I smoke a shit ton currently What I do is smoke for about 6-10 months, then I vape for 6-10 months, its not going to be very good in the long run, but it works right now, and eventually I will switch to 95% vape, and the rare rare bong hit when I miss that old headchange.

Peace!!!

EDIT: Forgot one thing, there are exceptions to the rule, there are people who smoke like a chimney till they are old and never get cancer, and then there are young guys who have health issues way earlier from less use, many things differ in peoples bodies etc

 

[devilgoob]

THC and CBD are anti-oxidants.

Chemicals that result from burning the plant material itself, are carcinogenic.

Someone stated that the smoke was blown out, so it's "what's not left in your lungs."

I see smoke particulate, and resin. That is tar.

Tar is particles that are like...BURNED.

BURNED SHIT IS BAD!

THC is good, it's anti-tumoral. Which means it's not only good at fighting cancer, it fights neoplasms. Neoplasms are extra stuff. "New" material.

CBD is GOOD. Why? It fights inflammation and STUFF.


You see how my loosely connected facts JUST MAKE SENSE?


Smoke plant material.

Keep doing that.

If you would smoke leaves outside, like tobacco, you'd get cancer.

Cannabis has trichomes. Inside the glandularly stalked, capitate-headed trichome is essential oil.

The stalk contains more wax, not much THC if at all.


The heads.

They have THC.

THC stops a lot of cancer.

It helps when it's delivered in a thick tar, that stays on the lungs.

That you cough up anyway because cannabis is an expectorant.

Thc and other cannabinoids.

They stop cancer.

BURNING PLANT MATERIAL? Helps or hurts your chances of getting cancer?

Probably "helps" your chances of getting cancer.

THC? WHAT? KIND OF HELPS WITH INFLAMMATORY CANCERS AND THE ONES THAT METASTASIZE AND KILL LIKE BREAST, BALL, BRAIN AND LUNG.

.....I was going to go on a funnier informational rant, which included enlarging the text everytime I alternated between "burning plant material of any kind is bad" to "THC and CBD are free radical scavengers and fight cancer.".......

 

[Octopus garden]

I have also experienced 'bong' related lung issues...

I agree with 'common sense', regular breaks is very important and might I add the value of cooking with pot !

As i get older (damn I wish I was young again) I have been using my pot in the kitchen. I love making cookies, sure there is a delay and the hit is different but it is something you can get used to.

PEACE

 

[Bobby Stainless]

Commonly known as Bong Disease.

The best is when you are around a group of folks, and you hark up some lung turds...

 

[LouDog420]

A lesson to take away from this thread: Its ok to smoke, but consistent smoking is going to lead to health issues. Vaping is ok, from what I understand as long as you don't over heat and combust the material, you will not have any problem with your lungs, even with long term use.

The reason smoking causes problems is because when materials are com-busted they produce carcinogenic materials in the smoke, this means if you smoke binder paper you will have similar carcinogenic materials in that smoke if you compared it to Marry J smoke!

Why this strange comparison to binder paper? Because some people in this thread OBVIOUSLY think tobacco causes cancer, they are wrong, its how most cigarette smokers use their tobacco that causes problems, AKA every cig is wrapped in thick white paper, every cig is SMOKED, who the fuck do you know that VAPES tobacco? Also you know about all the nasty additives in most commercial cigarettes.

TLDR Smoke causes cancer, weather or not your burning Marry J, tobacco OR binder paper lol! Vape that shit!

What I take away: I say do what YOU want with YOUR body. I smoke a shit ton currently What I do is smoke for about 6-10 months, then I vape for 6-10 months, its not going to be very good in the long run, but it works right now, and eventually I will switch to 95% vape, and the rare rare bong hit when I miss that old headchange.

Peace!!!

What about the baccy chews with mouth cancer, esophagus, and pancreatic cancer??

Your logic is flawed my brother

Tobacco does cause cancer, feel free to do some reading

 

[Snoopster]

Snoopster- show me an actual medical study rather than random posts from pro-marijuana sites or anyone that has something to gain from legalization and I will consider believing the results presented. Every study I have posted has been of an unbiased opinion. Most doctors actually have no issue with people using cannabis even recreationally. It is only when people start combusting leaves at very high temperatures and inhaling the products where issues arise.

The studies are linked in the articles. If you want, I could link you to the same studies in articles in the Washington Post and other newspapers, if that makes you feel better.

I can link lots of studies that refute yours. I'm sure you could do the same.

Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/10/1829.full

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

Marijuana Unlikely to Cause Head, Neck, or Lung Cancer
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer

Science: No association between lung cancer and cannabis smoking in large study
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=219#2

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Smoking of cannabis does not increase risk for oral cancer
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=175#1

Now for some juicy Strawberry Cough bong hits.
Studies have shown Strawberry Cough bong hits are awesome.

 

[budbasket]

Helps to read the whole article....
Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study

Nonetheless, such inhibitory effects in some preclinical models do not necessarily imply that exposure to marijuana smoke can prevent cancer occurrence in humans. In contrast to the latter findings, moreover, 9-tetrahydrocannabinol has been shown to augment lung cancer growth in an immunocompetent mouse model due to its potent effect on immunosuppression (30).

Because consistent dose-response associations were not observed for ever-users of marijuana, it seems plausible that the inverse associations were due to chance or bias. Given the modest participation rates among eligible cancer cases identified by the cancer registry, selection bias may have occurred if marijuana use was associated with participation to a different extent for cases and controls. A downward bias in OR estimation would be expected if nonparticipation were selectively greater in exposed cases or unexposed controls, and the pattern we observed is most easily explained by the latter selection bias. We have no way of determining the direction or magnitude of selection bias, however; and the possibility simply adds to our uncertainty about the direction as well as the magnitude of effects.

Another major source of bias is error in measuring the lifetime use of marijuana. Although we devoted considerable attention and time to collecting detailed histories and we assured subjects of the confidentiality of the information they were giving, marijuana use is illegal and socially disapproved in the U.S. Thus, some subjects may have been reluctant to disclose marijuana habits to our interviewers, and this reluctance may have differed between cases and controls. In California, however, marijuana has long been only a minor infraction, and it has been legal for medical use since l996.

Of more concern, subject recall of how much marijuana they smoked many years ago was certainly imperfect. Consequently, we expected that underreporting of past marijuana use might be problematic. Our findings, however, do not seem indicative of serious underreporting. Rather, our estimates of lifetime frequency of usage among controls are consistent with findings from both the national and California samples of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (31, 32). Furthermore, other researchers have concluded that self-reports of past marijuana use to be reasonably reliable (33, 34). Finally, if there were differential underreporting, we would have expected more reluctance to report among controls than cases, which would have elevated the estimates; instead, we found inverse associations.

Additional error in measuring cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption may also have affected our OR estimates because these variables seem to be important confounders for lung and UAT cancers. Although the net bias due to the errors could be substantial in either direction, our adjustments tended to decrease the observed marijuana-cancer associations, suggesting that if the errors are nondifferential and independent of, or positively related to, marijuana reporting errors, more accurate measurements would further decrease the observed associations. Thus, it seems implausible that errors in confounder measurement would account for the weak inverse associations that we found. On the other hand, it is easily possible that errors in marijuana use assessment obscured the associations of marijuana with cancer.

If we focus on the upper 95% CL as an indication of the most harm that marijuana smoking may confer on cancer risk, perhaps marijuana use in the 10-joint-year range is at most a moderate risk factor that increases risk by 50% to 100%. Nonetheless, we cannot be sure that confounding has been fully controlled; and we have no data on selection effects, measurement errors, or their correlations. Thus, we have a greater degree of uncertainty about the effects of marijuana use on cancer risk than the confidence intervals reflect (35-38). These limitations may be insurmountable in studying marijuana use and cancer. Loss due to severe illness or death and refusals could be partially addressed by more rapid identification of cases, more aggressive recruitment of subjects (including payment for participation), and use of proxy respondents; but it seems unlikely that these efforts could eliminate the sources of bias, and they might produce new problems. It also seems unrealistic to expect that accurate information on errors in measurement of lifetime marijuana use will be obtainable. Furthermore, attempts to obtain reliability data (e.g., by applying more extensive questionnaires to subsamples) may face highly selective participation, as well as measurement errors. Cohort studies would be able to better address these concerns, but they would not have a large enough number of cases with heavy use to detect (let alone precisely estimate) associations.

It thus may be that some innovation will be needed in order to accurately estimate the effects of marijuana use on cancer risk. For example, it might be possible to augment data collected in a large cohort study by selecting additional cases and controls from a larger source population that includes the cohort (in essence, nesting the cohort within a large case-control study, the reverse of the usual nesting). In this design, the cohort would serve as a validation subsample to estimate selection biases and measurement errors.

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
This isn't even a study, its a newspaper article. Heres another "study" from the same source.
Oil dispersant does not pose environmental threat, early EPA findings suggesthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063004358.html


Marijuana Unlikely to Cause Head, Neck, or Lung Cancer
Another news article can't find the actual study.


Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
All this study says is that there are chemicals in cannabis specifically THC acting the CB1+2 receptors and impeding tumor growth in lungs. They say absolutely nothing about smoking benefiting lung tissue. Quote from article
"Preet says much work is needed to clarify the pathway by which THC functions, and cautions that some animal studies have shown that THC can stimulate some cancers. "THC offers some promise, but we have a long way to go before we know what its potential is," she said."

Science: No association between lung cancer and cannabis smoking in large study
Pro-cannabis website, have alot to gain without caring much for patients....Even so I found this on the same website....
"The major strategies to reduce the risks of smoking are:
- The use of cannabis strains with high THC content. (...) - The use of pure cannabis. Sometimes cannabis is smoked together with tobacco or other dried herbs. This procedure should be avoided to minimize the inhalation of smoke from burnt plant material.
- The use of pipes. Pipes are superior to cigarettes in some situations in that they easily allow the patient to smoke small amounts of pure high-grade cannabis. The percentage of tars in the smoke is reduced by condensation on the pipe walls. Pipes should be cleaned frequently. Water pipes are inferior to cigarettes and should be avoided. (...)
- The use of cannabis that is free of natural contaminants and adulterants. Only disease-free cannabis should be harvested and air-dried. (...)
- The use of inhalation devices that reduce output of tars. (...) Gieringer tested vaporizers that heat marijuana to 180-190°C vaporizing THC below the burning point of cellulose and other plant material. The production of polycyclic hydrocarbons was reduced. The best vaporizer delivered 10 parts of tar to one part of cannabinoids, cannabis cigarettes yielded a ratio of 13:1 (average), and water pipes an average of 27:1 (...). Thus, the best vaporizers achieved a performance ratio about 25% higher than the unfiltered cannabis cigarette, while water pipes were less favorable than cigarettes. The use of a filter in a cannabis cigarette was not advantageous since it not only filtered the tars, but also the cannabinoids. Indeed, the performance ratio was decreased by about 30% compared to the unfiltered cigarette.
In a new study Gieringer was able to demonstrate that combustion products were substantially reduced by using another vaporizer. The used device produced THC at a temperature of 185°C while completely eliminating benzene, toluene and naphthalene. Significant amounts of benzene began to appear at temperatures of 200°C, while combustion occurred around 230°C or above. Traces of THC were in evidence as low as 140°C. Carbon monoxide and tars were both qualitatively reduced by the vaporizer, but were not quantificated in this study. However, a significant reduction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons was assumed since vaporized cannabis emitted a thin gray vapor and the plant material was left with a green to greenish-brown "toasted" appearance, whereas the combusted sample produced thick smoke and turned to ash. (...)
- Combination of oral use and inhalation. In several indications, a combined regime of a basic oral medication with cannabis or THC and a demand inhaled medication may be useful to reduce risks from smoking and from possible overdosage with oral administration.
Grotenhermen F. Harm reduction associated with inhalation and oral administration of cannabis and THC. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 2001, in press."

 

[Snoopster]

The "pro-cannabis" websites you are crying about, sourced the studies.

Go read the actual studies, instead of whining about where they are written up.