clamjuice said:
If you are using a half o for a few people you most definitely might be using it wrong.
But thats really quite subjective isn't it? Its like saying that if a few people manage to drink a keg between them then they are using it wrong because someone else can get their desired effects from just one or two drinks. Me and my friends have always had a habit of pushing the limits of how much pot we can handle, and a vape allows us to consume vastly more at once than a bong. I should point out that I have an astronomically high tolerance.
clamjuice said:
And vaporized weed is not harsh at all. You must have the temperature too high.
I don't recall claiming that vapor was harsh.
clamjuice said:
Maybe you are getting bad weed man, not trying to insult you, but everything you have claimed about the vaporizer i have had the complete opposite experience.
I'll admit that the pot I generally smoke isn't what you'd consider "one hit shit", but its still of a respectable potency, and I can never feel satisfied off a single cone anyway, because I enjoy the act of smoking a few bongs. Given this, whenever I do have access to very high potency stuff I always end up smoking more than necessary , just because I need to have had a fair amount of smoke pass through my lungs before I can feel satisfied. This might be a contributing factor as to why I consider the vapor to be weaker.
Vapor just doesn't produce the same effects for me as compared to smoke. This
study has a few interesting points that I'd like to quote:
page6 said:
There was a large variance in the percentage
of THC recovered in the three different vaporizer test runs, ranging
from 36% to 61%. This suggests that the efficiency of vaporization is
highly sensitive to variations in the sample and micro-conditions in its
environment.
These results compare favorably to the delivery efficiencies of marijuana
cigarettes as measured in other studies. THC efficiencies of 34%
to 61% were reported in studies of marijuana cigarettes smoked via a
smoking machine under varying conditions of puff duration and air
speed (Fehr and Kalant 1971).
page8 said:
Theoretically, the vaporizer might have been expected to realize a
higher THC delivery efficiency than combustion, since it should have
avoided loss of THC by pyrolysis. That this was not observed indicates
that there were other inefficiencies in the vaporization process. The
most likely explanation would seem to be incomplete vaporization, due
to lack of uniform thorough heating and ventilation of the sample.
Assuming this information is correct, it pretty much affirms what I already thought. That vapor isn't stronger than smoke. And for those curious, this was done using the "Volcano" vaporizer.
page9 said:
For CBN, there was no significant change under vaporization. In
contrast, the level of CBN was twice as high in all three combusted samples,
with little variance.
This suggests to me that those smoking it may receive different effects because of the greater amount of CBN. In addition to this, the study states (on page 11) that there are 111 identified compounds for the smoke, compared with 3 for the vapor. While not all of the compounds in smoke would effect the high, some of these surely would.
page17 said:
a few refractory
individuals say they prefer the savor of smoke or claim not to feel the
same impact from vapor.
And thats pretty much how I feel too.
This has really gone offtopic, so I pray no one else baits me into another lengthy post

(In all honestly though I do appreciate it as it makes me question my own argument).