• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

Effectivity of pulmonary absorption of various substances - relative to toxicity

Reverend Random

Reverend Random

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
334
So, I'm posting this in ADD, but if it fits better in another subforum, feel free to move the topic, oh mighty mods.

My question is as follows. Working in HR, I've always been taught that holding smoke in your lungs for an extended period does not really increase the amount of the psychoactive ingredient that is being absorbed. This is what I have been telling tobacco, cannabis and basecoke users, and at any rate it's not a bad thing to be telling anyone.

However, I am wondering about the science behind this. Is anyone able to elucidate the principle behind this? Is this the same for most substances - or is there a big difference between cannabinoids, methamphetamine and e.g. DMT?

In the DMT-topic, I was told by another experienced user that it definitely does make a difference in effect how long you hold the smoke in your lungs, although I debated this. This is the same thing that other users usually tell me. Is this scientifically feasible? Or is the warning relative to the amount of toxic substances one also inhales when holding the smoke in for a longer period?
 
Logically it would make sense some retention of the smoke would maximize the absorption of the vaporized target chemical, however I am sure the duration is far less then might be assumed or practiced and additionally the negatives might far outweight the smaller benefit from increased effect per dose.

Personally I would rather increase the total dosage per session then attempt to retain particles of burnt organic matter in your lungs for extended periods of time. However im sure more puffs is just as bad as fewer puffs held in longer. A lose lose scenario. I still enjoy smoking regardless.

Interesting question.
 
However, I am wondering about the science behind this. Is anyone able to elucidate the principle behind this? Is this the same for most substances - or is there a big difference between cannabinoids, methamphetamine and e.g. DMT?
Click to expand...

In short: Yes. Expanding gas + huge surface area of the lungs + essentially all drugs will dissolve instantly into either the water or the fatty cell membranes = rapid and extensive absorbtion.
 
Ok, that's a good start. Thanks. Any ideas on the amount of time needed to absorb the majority of the active ingredients in vapour/smoke? Has this been research? I imagine that tobacco and maybe cannabis researchers must've looked into this.

And provided that you have the pure vapour of a substance such as freebase DMT or cocaine, would it be more damaging to hold the smoke in for a longer period? If so, how would damage occur? I think that with the enormous amount of toxic chemicals in tobacco smoke, it's rather obvious that prolonged exposure does more damage, but does the same hold true for vapour?

Lastly: how can we explain the experience of users who state that keeping the smoke for as long as possible increases the effects? It can't all be placebo, can it? Oxygen deprivation?

Many questions, I know, but I think it'd be good to clear this up once and for all.
 
It may have already been answered.

Effects of varying marijuana smoking profile on deposition of tar and absorption of CO and delta-9-THC
longer [breath holding time] significantly increased both percent retention of tar in the lung and the pre- to postsmoking rise in blood [carbon monoxide], serum THC and heart rate, independent of puff volume and number. In contrast, the larger [puff volume] had no significant influence on these variables for the same amount of cigarette consumed. The longer [breath holding time] (and not the larger puff volume) characteristics of [cannabis] smoking contributes to the greater [carbon monoxide] boost and lung retention of inhaled tar during [cannabis] compared to [tobacco] smoking. In addition, the longer [breath holding time] appears to enhance THC absorption.
Click to expand...

This was comparing 5 vs 15 second inhalations of about 1 gram of really shitty ditch weed (1.2% THC?!) Holding your breath those extra 10 seconds results in 20-30% more THC and tar absorbed.

The anecdote seems to be "90% is absorbed in the first 2-5 seconds" but I have never seen the source of that, it's just been a word-of-mouth thing.

would it be more damaging to hold the smoke in for a longer period? If so, how would damage occur?
Click to expand...
oxygen starvation, chemical irritation, pyrolysis products (if exposed to flame), thermal damage etc
 
Last edited:
sekio said:
It may have already been answered.

Effects of varying marijuana smoking profile on deposition of tar and absorption of CO and delta-9-THC


This was comparing 5 vs 15 second inhalations of about 1 gram of really shitty ditch weed (1.2% THC?!) Holding your breath those extra 10 seconds results in 20-30% more THC and tar absorbed.
Click to expand...

Why, thanks a lot. I guess that's still not completely convincing, but at least gives us a direction. And indeed: what kind of weed has 1.2% THC? How different life was in 1991... ;)

The anecdote seems to be "90% is absorbed in the first 2-5 seconds" but I have never seen the source of that, it's just been a word-of-mouth thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I started this topic. Would like to get beyond word-of-mouth and have some solid data. I can see why educators would spread this message, though...

oxygen starvation, chemical irritation, pyrolysis products (if exposed to flame), thermal damage etc
Click to expand...

Right. Those would go for any vapour or smoke. Thanks man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top