[MEGA]Methods of Smoking

[Jibult]

Haha! My experience is the same too, to be honest.

Numbers, though, numbers don't lie. The people that publish those numbers, on the other hand.....


In all seriousness, though, there are several other factors that could increase the smoking efficiency of a bong over any non-filtered smoking method (i.e. increased lung capacity due to cooler smoke, increased "holding-of-the-hit" times, larger hits, wasting MUCH less smoke).

It's always good to lean on personal experience as a crutch, but sometimes the opposite of what we perceive holds true.

 

[TearItDown]

No, those numbers mislead you because the entire article is about tar/THC ratio. Not about the THC per (standardized) volume of smoke.

 

[Jibult]

See, I was comparing filtered smoking methods to non-filtered smoking methods. In a dry bong or bowlpiece I'd concede you that point, but with the water-filtration that I thought we were both referring to it just doesn't hold true.

 

[TearItDown]

See, I was comparing filtered smoking methods to non-filtered smoking methods. In a dry bong or bowlpiece I'd concede you that point, but with the water-filtration that I thought we were both referring to it just doesn't hold true.

I don't think you understand me at all tbh.

 

[Jibult]

You're speaking of the concentration of THC in smoke, normally referred to as PPM or parts per million.

When burnt, weed from a consistent source will have a relatively constant concentration of psychoactive cannabinoids in the resulting smoke.

Amongst all methods of smoking, that concentration is going to be the same immediately after combustion (so long as you've got a consistent source). The concentration changes, however, if the smoke passes through a medium before you inhale. In the case of water bongs, said medium is water.

According to the study, water filters out psychoactive cannabinoids more efficiently than it filters out "tars." Once the water filters out any of the psychoactive cannabinoids from the smoke, the concentration of THC is then less than what the concentration was immediately after combustion. The concentration doesn't increase with smoking methods, but smoking-efficiency most definitely does.



I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about, but, at the very least, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[TearItDown]

You're speaking of the concentration of THC in smoke, normally referred to as PPM or parts per million.

When burnt, weed from a consistent source will have a relatively constant concentration of psychoactive cannabinoids in the resulting smoke.

Amongst all methods of smoking, that concentration is going to be the same immediately after combustion (so long as you've got a consistent source). The concentration changes, however, if the smoke passes through a medium before you inhale. In the case of water bongs, said medium is water.

According to the study, water filters out psychoactive cannabinoids more efficiently than it filters out "tars." Once the water filters out any of the psychoactive cannabinoids from the smoke, the concentration of THC is then less than what the concentration was immediately after combustion. The concentration doesn't increase with smoking methods, but smoking-efficiency most definitely does.



I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about, but, at the very least, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Well if you know what you're talking about then you must know that the only information that is relative is the PPM of THC in a set volume of smoke in say a joint or blunt compared to a bong. Any other information is useless and unnecessary.

 

[sekio]

Whether or not the concentration of THC per liter of "smoke" increases after water filtration is irrelevant. Some THC dissolves into the bong water or condensed terpenes/pyrolysis products, thereby decreasing the total effective dose of THC receieved per gram of herb burned, and increasing the proportion of more toxic and less water soluble tars inhaled per milligram THC.

The only purposes of a bong are to 1. cool the smoke and 2. concentrate it for easier inhalation. "Filtration" at best removes water solubles and volatile gases; it does little for hydrocarbon "tars" and is detrimental to the total THC absorbed per dolar spent.

 

[TearItDown]

Whether or not the concentration of THC per liter of "smoke" increases after water filtration is irrelevant. Some THC dissolves into the bong water or condensed terpenes/pyrolysis products, thereby decreasing the total effective dose of THC receieved per gram of herb burned, and increasing the proportion of more toxic and less water soluble tars inhaled per milligram THC.

The only purposes of a bong are to 1. cool the smoke and 2. concentrate it for easier inhalation. "Filtration" at best removes water solubles and volatile gases; it does little for hydrocarbon "tars" and is detrimental to the total THC absorbed per dolar spent.

And some of the THC is burned away by all other methods (but vaping), so what I said still stands strong. I like the opposition. It's like you guys are actually trying to prove me wrong.

 

[LSDMDMA&AMP]

Jibuilt wins

 

[Wise420]

Lol it's not a competition.

I always thought warm/hot water caught more of the tar then cold water? I could be wrong.

Much nicer hits with cold icey water though.

 

[arthunter888]

According to the study, water filters out psychoactive cannabinoids more efficiently than it filters out "tars."

I would view this study with criticism. If this were true, then drinking bong water would create a noticeable high with relatively minimal nausea. Most idiots I've seen drink bong water became nauseous and did not get high, and since THC is not known to create nausea (it's actually anti-nausea), it's reasonable to assume therefore that the water contains a relatively high amount of toxins and a relatively low amount of THC.

Another thing to consider (from a more objective standpoint) is that THC is quite hydrophobic (nearly insoluble in water). Whether the worst toxins are more soluble in water than THC would be good info, but I can't research it ATM however the nauseating effect of drinking bong water would suggest the worst toxins ARE more soluble in water than THC.

Whether or not the concentration of THC per liter of "smoke" increases after water filtration is irrelevant. Some THC dissolves into the bong water or condensed terpenes/pyrolysis products, thereby decreasing the total effective dose of THC receieved per gram of herb burned, and increasing the proportion of more toxic and less water soluble tars inhaled per milligram THC.

The only purposes of a bong are to 1. cool the smoke and 2. concentrate it for easier inhalation. "Filtration" at best removes water solubles and volatile gases; it does little for hydrocarbon "tars" and is detrimental to the total THC absorbed per dolar spent.

The only question I am concerned with regarding water filtration vs. dry smoking is "Does water filtration remove a significant amount of harmful gases produced by cannabis combustion relative to psychoactive cannabinoids?" Even if it were true that some THC is lost during water filtration, I wouldn't mind this trade off given that my lungs and overall health would receive less damage with water filtration than without. Unless the amount of THC absorbed relative to toxins absorbed is high (which I doubt), then water filtration is the healthier method (monetary efficiency aside).

In conjunction with this issue, it would also be important (original question) to ascertain how the temperature of the water would manipulate the ratio of toxin-absorption to cannabinoid-absorption, which would also impact the answer to the question above.

 

[slimvictor]

There is one more question that everyone here has missed:
Does the temperature of the smoke have any relation to the damage done to the oral tract/lungs?
The answer, I have read, is "yes" - the heat of the smoke is the single most damaging factor when smoking weed. (Can't find the reference, though.)
Therefore, by filtering smoke through (cool) water, and thereby lowering the temperature, the smoke does less damage, and one cannabis experience "costs" less physically.

Also, the actual personal experience of smoking equivalent amounts through a pipe and through a bong is extremely relevant here, I would argue. As with 2 people above, I feel higher when I smoke through a bong. (Usually! After several bonghits in a single day, a hit from a pipe may work better.)

 

[Vader]

Well if you know what you're talking about then you must know that the only information that is relative is the PPM of THC in a set volume of smoke in say a joint or blunt compared to a bong. Any other information is useless and unnecessary.

I roll two identical joints. I attach one to a straight pipe, and one to a water-containing pipe. I then draw an equal volume of smoked through both. As the water filters out THC, the smoke from the latter part is less concentrated in THC. So, yes, Jibult is right

sekio is more right though. It's the ratio of THC to nasties we should be concerned about, not absolute THC concentration.

And some of the THC is burned away by all other methods (but vaping), so what I said still stands strong. I like the opposition. It's like you guys are actually trying to prove me wrong.

If THC is decomposed when smoked in a joint, how is it not when smoked in a bong? And yeah, that's kind of how an argument works.

I would view this study with criticism. If this were true, then drinking bong water would create a noticeable high with relatively minimal nausea. Most idiots I've seen drink bong water became nauseous and did not get high, and since THC is not known to create nausea (it's actually anti-nausea), it's reasonable to assume therefore that the water contains a relatively high amount of toxins and a relatively low amount of THC.

You view a scientific study with scepticism because it conflicts with the conclusions you've drawn from obseving the ingestion of bong-water? Emesis is not necessarily the result of toxicity (eat a load of mustard and see what happens). I would guess that the proprtion of both tar and THC that is removed is fairly negligible, and that this study should be seen purely as a warning that bongs do not make the smoke massively healthier.

The fact that bongs get you more stoned is due to the reduced wastage, deeper inhalation and tendency to hold the smoke in longer.

This is now just a discussion of the pros and cons of different ways of smoking, so to the megathread it goes.

 

[kammado]

Bong healthier than joint?

I use a bong when I smoke becuase it cools of the smoke in a nice way.

But is it also healthier than smoking joints? I am thinking that the water maybe filtrates some of the smoke so you don't have to inhale as much sh*t and it would be easier on the lugs, could that be true?

 

[eXeC]

I've discussed this with a friend of mine also, and we've come to the conclusion that yes, a bong is probably better for you. After smoking for a while you'll notice the water turn black; so if you think about it, that would've been in your lungs.

If I'm wrong here someone please let me know, but that is my general understanding of it. The water cools the smoke and also filters out any particles that may be passing through your stem. So I'd go with yes, it helps, or is at least better than smoking through a bowl.

As far as a joint goes, you wouldn't be inhaling too many particles through that, but the smoke would be hotter than through a bong.

 

[Wise420]

We go through these threads faster then Roadrunner on speed.

 

[eXeC]

Yeah I'm sure this has been covered like 10 billion times.

 

[HeavilySedated]

Doesn't matter. Even if you smoke everyday, the health effects are very subtle compared to tobacco or other forms of smoking. Weed is not cryogenic, therefore the worst effect it gives would probably be added strain on the heart and blood pressure.

 

[awkwardapple]

Bongs better for heart but impede on the soul

 

[TearItDown]

I roll two identical joints. I attach one to a straight pipe, and one to a water-containing pipe. I then draw an equal volume of smoked through both. As the water filters out THC, the smoke from the latter part is less concentrated in THC. So, yes, Jibult is right

sekio is more right though. It's the ratio of THC to nasties we should be concerned about, not absolute THC concentration.


If THC is decomposed when smoked in a joint, how is it not when smoked in a bong? And yeah, that's kind of how an argument works.

There is no actual data to support your first claim (that I am aware of). And I was only talking about (in layman's terms) how high you get. More THC is decomposed in a joint because more THC crystals are burnt up completely in a joint (because it is always burning, no one puts out a joint after every hit).