Specified
Ex-Bluelighter
Would meth lung damage be worse than say cigarette damage?
-
BDD Moderators: Keif’ Richards | negrogesic
Meth lung damage?
- Thread starter Specified
- Start date
Steady Scootin
Bluelight Crew
That could vary based on so many unknown factors that I'm honestly not sure it's possible to answer that question with any degree of accuracy.
Mental Man
Greenlighter
I can answer with a degree of certainty that the damage caused to the lungs from smoking meth would not be as severe as smoking cigarettes. This is assuming that one is smoking pure methamphetamine though.
Cigarettes and cigarette smoke contain many additives and byproducts such as acetophenone, carbon monoxide, polonium-210, tar, free radicals, benzene, etc.
Cigarettes and cigarette smoke contain many additives and byproducts such as acetophenone, carbon monoxide, polonium-210, tar, free radicals, benzene, etc.
MDPV_Psychosis
Bluelighter
Yea, that's what Mr Scootin was referring to and is why we can't answer this with any certainty.
Pure methamphetamine that is vaporized perfectly probably isn't all that bad for your lungs when compared to cigarettes.
But in reality, people are vaporizing methamphetamine with various cuts and left over products from manufacturer. It's impossible to account for all those variables especially considering some pyrolysis is likely occuring during vaporization.
Pure methamphetamine that is vaporized perfectly probably isn't all that bad for your lungs when compared to cigarettes.
But in reality, people are vaporizing methamphetamine with various cuts and left over products from manufacturer. It's impossible to account for all those variables especially considering some pyrolysis is likely occuring during vaporization.
Steady Scootin
Bluelight Crew
I don't really like to think too deeply on what might be in my food from a clean store, much less my illicitly obtained, illicit drugs. Mice feces, probably. Baby mice, you know.
Mental Man
Greenlighter
It is true that there are a lot of variables and in reality you cannot actually be certain. My assumption that one is smoking pure methamphetamine is rare since we don't live in a perfect world.
Tubbs
Bluelight Crew
Pure methamphetamine doesn't even exist in a laboratory setting, there will always be impurities no matter how skilled the chemist, or the conditions it's synthesized in.
Tobacco is most likely considerably worse. There are studies about inhaling meth vapour (and its various other pyrolytic products), but obviously not in the same way as there are for tobacco. But still, tar isn't settling in your lungs for one thing, and the quantities involved aren't even vaguely comparable...
Truth. Seconded. There are too many variables at play to give you information that you could actually take to the bank. Even the nature of what truly is and isn't unhealthy about cigarettes is coming to light (is Nicotine itself a carcinogen, for instance) and a large portion of the population has smoked cigarettes and tobacco much earlier, for about a century now. Even though (Meth)amphetamine use was at one time rife in various facets of society, vaporization isn't and has never been a medically sanctioned route of administration.
Too hard to tell man, although I'm gonna leave this one open in the hopes that someone with a little more knowledge might be able to more completely answer the question. We'll see what happens, but we can also move to Neuroscience, but I don't think that that will be of significant difference.