patrick.net

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

I am referring to smoking the vegetative matter

So am I. It's the most natural form of cannabis. The first study you linked to uses cigarettes, what bongs and bubblers(I use a bubbler). It mentions the release of toxic gasses by the particles, but if those particles are organic, filtered through water, and absent butane, what is the source of the toxins?

Have you looked at absorption rates via ingestion vs smoking, and the dangers too much CBD can pose to the liver?

WookieMan says

Liver can recover. Lungs can't for the most part if we're talking specific organs. I'll eat it 10 out of 10 times and not smoke it. You can do it the way you want to, but smoking is categorically worse for you. This is coming from a former cig smoker. Outside of a cigar, I'm done smoking anything. It's awful for you.

All organs have a limit of abuse, the liver is not an exception. You can always ingest safe quantities, you just won't get much of a benefit compared to if you smoked.

Look again at all the specifics of how I smoke, and see if there's still a vector for harm. I can understand your concern given your past, but cannabis use should be fundamentally different from cigarettes in so many ways, starting with you growing the plant yourself. Things may have changed, but last time I checked the people in my market only care about profits, organic and cannabis for medicine are the last thing on their minds.

Something else to keep in mind, cannabis is inhaled, and exhaled through the mouth, at least I don't exhale through my nose. The smoke sits at the entrance to the throat and lungs, not deep down. The point is to get it into the blood stream, not to coat your entire lung with it. Maybe this is a nitpick. But what's not is the lack of study of cannabis in general. How many studies have used the method of smoking I prescribe? How many are looking at cannabis alone, and throwing tobacco cigarettes completely to the side, as the comparison is not even close after you factor in all the chemicals that go into commercial cigarettes, starting with the filter.

It really seems like you guys aren't very far from pulling out the frying pan stories. Cannabis is NOT a drug, and it's NOT tobacco. Measure it on it's own merits, don't make alarmist comparisons bundling it with cigarettes.

NuttBoxer says

Something else to keep in mind, cannabis is inhaled, and exhaled through the mouth, at least I don't exhale through my nose. The smoke sits at the entrance to the throat and lungs, not deep down. The point is to get it into the blood stream, not to coat your entire lung with it. Maybe this is a nitpick. But what's not is the lack of study of cannabis in general. How many studies have used the method of smoking I prescribe? How many are looking at cannabis alone, and throwing tobacco cigarettes completely to the side, as the comparison is not even close after you factor in all the chemicals that go into commercial cigarettes, starting with the filter.

It really seems like you guys aren't very far from pulling out the frying pan stories. Cannabis is NOT a drug, and it's NOT tobacco. Measure it on it's own merits, don't make alarmist comparisons bundling it with cigarettes.

How you smoke it definitely affects the uptake into the lungs, cigar smokers usually use the same technique, not inhaling, keeping most of the action in the front of the mouth.