Smoking Marijuana vs. Using a Cannabis Vaporizer

Smoking Marijuana vs. Using a Cannabis Vaporizer
4.44 (88.73%) 55 votes

Cannabis vapor has less tar, but may contain more ammonia. What happens to respiratory symptoms when regular users of joints, blunts, pipes, and bongs switch to a vaporizer?

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

There are many ways people inhale marijuana. Most people either smoke it in a bowl, pipe, joint, or bong. This is concerning, since in some ways smoke is smoke, and using a bong doesn’t help in terms of the tar exposure. Where there’s fire, there’s smoke, and where there’s smoke, there’s inflammatory irritants. In fact, the “regular smoking” of cannabis is “associated with [the kind of] airway inflammation [you see] in the lungs of [cigarette] smokers,” which can result in prolonged respiratory symptoms, such as chronic coughing, excess sputum production, wheezing, and shortness of breath, as well as an “increased incidence of” bronchitis and other respiratory infections.

In many ways, smoke is smoke, whether it’s from burning plants in a forest fire, or burning plants in a joint or cigarette. There are harmful byproducts of combustion—any combustion—like carbon monoxide. In fact, you get five times more carbon monoxide per puff in cannabis than tobacco, since pot smokers inhale more deeply and then hold the smoke in.  Now, you can avoid that completely by eating cannabis instead, but the “slow, erratic [drug] absorption” doesn’t give the same kind of immediate high. Inhaling cannabis vapor, however, could potentially offer the best of both worlds, giving the same kind of high in terms of subjective ratings compared to smoking it, but with significantly less carbon monoxide exposure. So, “similar effects” with fewer “toxic by-products,” though not necessarily all “toxic by-products.”

Both cannabis smoke and just vapor can evidently “contain high concentrations of ammonia,” and sometimes vapor can be even worse. So, yeah, vapor has less tar, but may have more ammonia. This was with a direct heat vaporizer, the so-called “Blue Meanie.” Using a hot-air vaporizer, like the Volcano brand, results in ammonia levels in your bloodstream more comparable to smoking it. But, the only reason we care about contaminants is that we’re trying to cut down on the inflammation. Does cannabis vapor produce fewer respiratory symptoms than smoke?

According to this study, the first of its kind, yes. Now, vaporizing doesn’t help with dependence issues, or impaired driving, or brain damage among heavy adolescent users, but may improve cannabis drug safety by minimizing lung troubles. They conclude that “[r]egular users of joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes might decrease respiratory symptoms by switching to a vaporizer.” But, this was just based on a snapshot-in-time internet survey asking people about their symptoms. You don’t know for sure until you…put it to the test.

In a study funded by a pro-legalization group, they recognized that respiratory symptoms are a stumbling block in their efforts, so suggest inhaling cannabis vapor rather than smoke might minimize respiratory complaints. So, they had “twenty frequent cannabis smokers” with respiratory symptoms switch over to using a vaporizer instead for a month. And, those that didn’t happen to fall ill with a respiratory illness during that period experienced a significant improvement in their respiratory symptoms.

But, wait a second, eight out of 20—40%—got a respiratory illness within just a single month? That doesn’t sound good. And, indeed, it’s something they noted. Additionally, the “self-reported” improvements may have been tinged with bias, as smokers might think such results might be good for the cause. This may have backfired though, as there are calls in the medical literature to just legalize smokeless forms, or at least set it up so that “smoked marijuana” is more heavily taxed or something.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: shisha via Pixabay. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

There are many ways people inhale marijuana. Most people either smoke it in a bowl, pipe, joint, or bong. This is concerning, since in some ways smoke is smoke, and using a bong doesn’t help in terms of the tar exposure. Where there’s fire, there’s smoke, and where there’s smoke, there’s inflammatory irritants. In fact, the “regular smoking” of cannabis is “associated with [the kind of] airway inflammation [you see] in the lungs of [cigarette] smokers,” which can result in prolonged respiratory symptoms, such as chronic coughing, excess sputum production, wheezing, and shortness of breath, as well as an “increased incidence of” bronchitis and other respiratory infections.

In many ways, smoke is smoke, whether it’s from burning plants in a forest fire, or burning plants in a joint or cigarette. There are harmful byproducts of combustion—any combustion—like carbon monoxide. In fact, you get five times more carbon monoxide per puff in cannabis than tobacco, since pot smokers inhale more deeply and then hold the smoke in.  Now, you can avoid that completely by eating cannabis instead, but the “slow, erratic [drug] absorption” doesn’t give the same kind of immediate high. Inhaling cannabis vapor, however, could potentially offer the best of both worlds, giving the same kind of high in terms of subjective ratings compared to smoking it, but with significantly less carbon monoxide exposure. So, “similar effects” with fewer “toxic by-products,” though not necessarily all “toxic by-products.”

Both cannabis smoke and just vapor can evidently “contain high concentrations of ammonia,” and sometimes vapor can be even worse. So, yeah, vapor has less tar, but may have more ammonia. This was with a direct heat vaporizer, the so-called “Blue Meanie.” Using a hot-air vaporizer, like the Volcano brand, results in ammonia levels in your bloodstream more comparable to smoking it. But, the only reason we care about contaminants is that we’re trying to cut down on the inflammation. Does cannabis vapor produce fewer respiratory symptoms than smoke?

According to this study, the first of its kind, yes. Now, vaporizing doesn’t help with dependence issues, or impaired driving, or brain damage among heavy adolescent users, but may improve cannabis drug safety by minimizing lung troubles. They conclude that “[r]egular users of joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes might decrease respiratory symptoms by switching to a vaporizer.” But, this was just based on a snapshot-in-time internet survey asking people about their symptoms. You don’t know for sure until you…put it to the test.

In a study funded by a pro-legalization group, they recognized that respiratory symptoms are a stumbling block in their efforts, so suggest inhaling cannabis vapor rather than smoke might minimize respiratory complaints. So, they had “twenty frequent cannabis smokers” with respiratory symptoms switch over to using a vaporizer instead for a month. And, those that didn’t happen to fall ill with a respiratory illness during that period experienced a significant improvement in their respiratory symptoms.

But, wait a second, eight out of 20—40%—got a respiratory illness within just a single month? That doesn’t sound good. And, indeed, it’s something they noted. Additionally, the “self-reported” improvements may have been tinged with bias, as smokers might think such results might be good for the cause. This may have backfired though, as there are calls in the medical literature to just legalize smokeless forms, or at least set it up so that “smoked marijuana” is more heavily taxed or something.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: shisha via Pixabay. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

In case you missed the previous video, check out Effects of Smoking Marijuana on the Lungs.

Here’s my other cannabis videos that are up so far:

All my future upcoming cannabis videos can be streamed right now for a donation to the 501c3 nonprofit that runs NutritionFacts.org.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

62 responses to “Smoking Marijuana vs. Using a Cannabis Vaporizer

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

      1. Nice one! Being from Oregon we have been talking about this for sometime with both pro-pot and pro-cigarette smokers sharing their ideas. One consideration to think about is that smoking pot may have some of the same toxic constituents as cigarettes but pot smokers only have one to two or three hits and then they are done for some period of time. Given the increasing strength of cannabis as compared to when I was growing up it is 3-4x stronger. So one and done for me most of the time. This compares to a cigarette smoker who will take 15-20 “drags” from a cigarette before putting it out. If you are a big smoker 2 packs + per day then the comparison of tobacco vs. cannabis is not very equivalent. Maybe if you look at heavy daily cannabis smokers who light up multiple times a day then those comparisons to cigarettes may be more meaningful. My one and done or two hits and done has some impact but it is – I don’t feel – a significant source of pollution for my body. Oh, I don’t hold it in like in the “old days” when it was hard to find weed and you wanted to make every “drop” count. Now I can walk down the street and for $3 I can get a pre-rolled joint and I don’t hold it in anymore since I don’t need to save it.

      2. Thanks for another great video and specifically for addressing this topic.

        I am curious about a seemingly overlooked aspect of vaping which is the smoking of the carbon remains. Let me explain. If you are using a vaping device, ie pax or similar, which uses a convectional heating oven, the cannabis is heated from the outside in. A common practice when vaping is to reheat the cannibis several times as there are multiple heat settings. Starting on the lowest setting obviously doesn’t ‘cook’ as mush as the highest, so users start with the lowest and progressively reheat until the maximum temperature is used, and all of the cannibis has been burned. My question is, since the outer parts have been burned and now essentially carbon, when reheating on maximum heat to heat the inner part of the bowl, you’d be subjected to resmoking the previously burned cannibis. Is there any adverse health effects that should be considered?

  1. Thanks for mentioning our work! I should add that uses switched to an old-school vaporizer and vaped flower cannabis. We didn’t get a feel for these new vape pens that use oils.

  2. UCSF did research on vaporization of cannabis and how it lowers harmful toxins in human ingestion. Their research was not ‘based on a snapshot in time’ as implied above. Typing in the first sentence of my post in Google brings up what I am referring to. Why this doctor can not find research easily found by others has me smelling an agenda regarding cannabis more than offering fully informed advice.

    1. Under the study protocol, the participants received on different days three different strengths of cannabis by two delivery methods-smoking or vaporization-three times a day.
      Plasma concentrations of THC were measured along with the exhaled levels of carbon monoxide, or CO. A toxic gas, CO served as a marker for the many other combustion-generated toxins inhaled when smoking. The plasma concentrations of THC were comparable at all strengths of cannabis between smoking and vaporization. Smoking increased CO levels as expected, but there was little or no increase in CO levels after inhaling from the vaporizer, according to Abrams.

      “Using CO as an indicator, there was virtually no exposure to harmful combustion products using the vaporizing device. Since it replicates smoking’s efficiency at producing the desired THC effect using smaller amounts of the active ingredient as opposed to pill forms, this device has great potential for improving the therapeutic utility of THC,” said study co-author Neal L. Benowitz, MD, UCSF professor of medicine, psychiatry and biopharmaceutical sciences. He added that pills tend to provide patients with more THC than they need for optimal therapeutic effect and increase side effects.

      1. THE DR ALSO INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY HE EVEN USED IN THIS VIDEO: Posted to show obvious intentional bias on this topic…..can easily be googled.

        As marijuana laws change, questions about the plant’s impact on respiratory function will undoubtedly increase. The human lung did not evolve to inhale the byproducts of combustion efficiently. Smoking marijuana does not harm lung function as dramatically as smoking tobacco does. Links between smoking marijuana and actual lung cancer are weak and difficult to replicate. Nevertheless, the habit clearly increases symptoms of respiratory irritation such as tightness in the chest, wheezing and coughing. It also has the potential to alter lung function when dose and frequency of use are high. Using stronger cannabis extracts has the potential to limit exposure to irritants, but data regarding this phenomenon are lacking. Many medical marijuana users prefer to use the entire plant. It appears to alter subjective state less dramatically as well as show lower potential for creating tolerance. Edible preparations are an obvious choice that would certainly not add byproducts of combustion to the lung, but these lack the rapid onset and easy titration of dosage available with inhaled products. Thus, the cannabis vapourizer appears to be an ideal harm-reduction approach to safer use.

        The vapourizer runs heated air across the plant without igniting it, releasing the cannabinoids in a vapour free from the byproducts of combustion. Some types rely on the user’s own inhalation to draw the hot air past the plant material, potentially exposing the lungs to more heat. Other devices blow air into an isolated bag, separating the heating element from the user and avoiding heat exposure. Laboratory work shows that cannabis vapour is composed almost exclusively of cannabinoids with virtually no pyrolitic compounds. The vapourizer raises cannabinoid levels in humans but does not raise exhaled CO levels. One pre-post design clinical trial showed that users with respiratory irritation improved symptoms and lung function after switching to a vapourizer. In short, vapourizers show promise for cannabis users who want to avoid pulmonary problems and prefer a more rapid onset than edibles provide.

  3. As a avid smoker i can theorize what Dr.Greger and such fail to realize. Those cannabis smokers who were suitable for the study had to have respiratory problems beforehand to see the marked improvement of those who switched to vaporizing. It takes the lungs about a month to recover from smoking. I have recently quit and can attest to this. During that month i experienced issues with coughing up black/brown stuff as well as general lung problems. The further and further through the month i got the better i felt. You can look up how long it takes to recover from smoking and the lungs takes about a month or so to replace certain cells. Obviously still damage there that will take longer, but a lot of the respiratory systems should go away after a month.

    The 40% of participants who were getting sick probably was a result of still recovering from smoking. Dr. Greger is potentially putting people off from buying a vaporizer. Don’t hesitate. At the very least this video says that it is better then smoking, but for the reasons i state above the doubt he has will most likely be found invalid.

    1. For what it’s worth, we also lost participants because winter in Albany is hard. I like your point about lung recovery, though. You can imagine experiencing those symptoms and then catching cold on top of it! And I certainly agree that the vaporizer is markedly better than burning flower and worth the investment.

      1. Thank you. I was experiencing a plethora of health problems as the result of smoking. Those issues have for the most part disappeared. I imagine that vaporizing isn’t pushed because big tobacco wants to continue making money. Yes they could make money from vaporizing, but a lot is already invested in tobacco and so they will not want to take that loss. Also, the establishment intentionally keeps the masses as unhealthy as possible. Most people say this is a result of profit/greed. This is definitely apart of it, but I think the main reason is that our (((alien elites))) find it easier to dominate a sick population. Good reading material apart from books like How Not To Die is Culture Of Critique. As a gen z i don’t feel the same towards these controversial issues, especially since i am a true Australian.

  4. constructive criticism:
    I would advise working on solidfying your conclusions as to not leave your audience in the dark.

    Even if it’s something like:
    “to be continued”,
    “more studies are needed”,
    “I’ll cover more research on this topic in following videos”.

    Or add something like “Cannabis series: part 5/10” as an introduction or conclusion. It could be vocalized or printed on a blank page in the video.

    I believe people don’t usually look at the description in the videos in which you clarify your aim and conclusion.

    1. It was merely CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. I was giving him and his team advice after reading the comment section on his YouTube video. Many people were confused by the end of the video. I have no problem with how he organizes his research. I think his and his team’s work is prestigious and very thorough. I do know he generally concludes with some sort of cliffhanger and I suggest he does it more often. Thank you.

      1. Casper
        I didn’t get the memo that you had been designated the Supreme Arbiter of this web page.
        I always thought that Casper was the “friendly” one; your gratuitous rancor suggests otherwise.

  5. Judging mostly by comments in response to the previous video, this subject certainly brings out the fervent marijuana proponents. Even hints that marijuana use is not a good idea seem to be viewed by some as a conspiracy. I don’t follow it enough to have a feel for whether there are conspiracies, but I think it is safe to assume that Dr. Greger isn’t part of one.

    1. I feel the same. If the video disappoints someone in the slightest, Dr. Greger must have an agenda. In reality the poor guy runs a nonprofit website with no ads, and puts all his time into labourous and detailed research to improve public health.

    1. A vast improvement over smoking in general. I know this is just anecdotal, (but I personally find the experience of millions to be at least equally significant to vaping rodents in a lab), I had tried unsuccessfully for years to quit smoking cigarettes until vaping came along, and when I switched over completely, all my nasty symptoms improved dramatically over a short period of time. I’m not saying vaping is without any harm, but the harm reduction is obvious and dramatic. You don’t need a study or a lab to confirm your cessation of coughing, wheezing, and the renewed ability to breathe freely! I agree with someone else here who brought up the fact that there is an active healing crisis in the beginning, but over time the constant colds, bronchitis and other issues became history, even while I was still vaping. I would highly recommend vaping for anyone who cannot quit smoking. Finally being able to reduce nicotine consumption to zero and achieve freedom from cigarettes was beyond liberating and led to a quest for further health improvements!

    1. YR,

      I watched a show where parents whose kids died after getting hooked on Kratom.

      One set of parents say that their son got addicted after the first use and he went through the same “life spiraling out of control until he was dead” process, which is found with other addictions. They had never heard of Kratom until he was already an addict.

      I can’t remember which program it was on, but people who are prone to addiction probably shouldn’t mess with any of these things.

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fda-raises-death-count-from-kratom-a-natural-opioid/

      https://www.businessinsider.com/kratom-herb-drug-officially-opioid-2018-2

  6. Great post as always Dr G! Any info on the vaping of oil? This appears to be the new wave of cannabis use from what I have seen.

  7. What about the potentially harmful effects of vaping itself. Most vape cartridges contain a carrier which creates the huge volumes of smoke. This carrier is propylene glycol (PG), a brother to antifreeze in your car. Unfortunately, there are not enough long-term studies to show the harmful effects of PG to lung parenchyma let alone to the marijuana concentrate.

  8. I think we need another wording, different from “placebo effect” when people want a particular outcome so much that they are so highly motivated to have those results.

    Autism had a placebo effect, maybe because parents are so desperate for anything to work, but that is different than this type of study.

    When something is already “pleasure trap” and is in the center of a political debate about legalization, there has to be a highly turbo-charged placebo effect.

    That makes the results not good enough.

    This series brought to mind a friend who was into smoking pot. She died from sepsis around age 40. Suddenly wondering if it was related to her pot smoking. I had another young man who was a pot smoker Grateful Deadhead who also died at age 40 exactly. Does vaping get rid of the risk of things like sepsis?

    I get that we can’t keep people from these things. Never could. Even when it was illegal everywhere.

    1. Looked it up and there is a study for it protecting against sepsis.

      Fascinating that my most serious about daily pot smoking friend died of sepsis.

      It obviously wasn’t protective in her case.

      I am using the CBD oil for my dog’s lungs.

      Obviously, he isn’t vaping or smoking. He gets a few drops of CBD oil in a pill pocket.

      The symptoms of lung infection had already gone away with the things like Oregabiotic and Olive Leaf Extract, but I decided to add it in because my goal is to change his WBC by the end of this month and I had to deal with the theory of antibiotic resistance.

    2. Interesting.

      Potheads and others argue that cannabis can be helpful in sepsis. There are studies supporting this view

      However ‘increasing evidence now suggests that release of endocannabinoids and activation of cannabinoid receptors occurs during sepsis’.
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260562726_The_endocannabinoid_system_in_sepsis_-_a_Potential_target_to_improve_microcirculation

      It may be that the amount consumed and how, and the stage of sepsis, may determine whether the effects are positive or negative.

      I alwys keep thinking of heroin addiction where, in the UK when I was growing up, doctors routinely prescribed small amounts of heroin for addicts to counter the worst effects of withdrawal. It certainly provided a real benefit in those cases but, clearly, long term consumption caused the problems in th first place. I wonder if the same might be true of pot?

  9. Does smoking pot have the health benefits of CBD oil?

    Or would my friend dying from sepsis be because the smoking it doesn’t convey the same protection?

    I ask, because smoking is a risk factor and pot is what she smoked. She didn’t smoke cigarettes.

  10. I was diagnised with “dercums” about 7 years ago, and I am a chronic pain sufferer. The ONLY thing which gives me relief is a decent joint. Unfortunately, vaping doesn’t satisfy like a good old-fashioned “blunt”. Aware there are inherent dangers, but, think that cannabis has HUGE medical potential……if used with caution.

  11. Off topic, but I HOPE the doc reacts to this:

    https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246

    Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)

    “Conclusions Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.”

    1. This is a misleading interpretation of the evidence although it is promoted widely by saturated fat advocates.

      Why did they have to go back 50+ years, and rewrite the concusions of old studies to get results to support their beliefs about saturated fat?.

      The first reason is that modern studies show that replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats reduces mortallity.

      The second reason is that 50-odd years ago, the dangers of transfats weren’t known and vegetable oils and vegetable fat spreads were usually hydrogented. . The one used for this study contained some articularly unhealthy transfats apparently. Therefore what such study results show is the relative effects of transfats versus saturated fats. Everybody now knows and accepts that transfats are worse than saturated fats.

      However, the authors of this study argue that the revised results they have published show that saturated fat is healthier than (unhydrogenated) polyunsaturated and monunsaturated oils. This is false. Back in the ’60s and ’70s, they didn’t know about transfats – the authors of this study have no such exuse.

      Here are some kinder comments about that paper from Harvard which still nevertheless concludes that Ramsden et al’s opinions on this subject should be ignored.
      https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/04/13/diet-heart-ramsden-mce-bmj-comments/

      1. TG, do you know who funded the Ramsden et al paper? Although given the recent revelations about the alcohol industry being courted by the lead Harvard researcher to donate money to the NINH to fund his study to prove that moderate drinking is heart healthy, I am becoming skeptical of all funding sources. Thanks.

    2. Bring Back Disqus: There are several comments in BMJ in response to the paper you cited; here’s the start of the first, as an example:

      “While the results of the RCTs clearly show that reducing serum cholesterol does not affect mortality, it is noteworthy that all of the RCTs cited by Ramsden et al. [1] were relatively short term, and many were conducted on middle-aged people, in whom we would expect to see significant atherosclerosis anyway.”

      https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246/peer-review

  12. My take on this: whenever Dr. Gregor cites studies agreeable to the Cannabis Crowd, he is applauded. Whenever any cited study isn’t 100% favorable to the CC, he has a diabolical agenda.
    After working at a shelter, my husband and I always say not to get between a man and his addiction, whatever it may be. Food, alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, dope-the reaction is all the same.
    ********Help please! I have a totally unrelated question: can varicose veins or the damage from having them be reversed with diet?

    1. Very true. Potheads only want to hear good news about their habit, it seems.

      Here’s a link re varicose veins
      https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/varicose-veins/

      Since varicose veins seem to be linked to genetic problems associated with poorly functioning valves in the veins, and possibly physical factors arising frm obesity and prolonged standing, it’s perhaps not surprising that there ar no studies showing reversal of vericose veins with diet.(none that I am aware of anyway).
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217733/

      1. Skeptical Granny, Just anecdotally: My husband has varicose veins; no change since he switched to a vegetarian diet 10 years ago, and a whole foods plant based one more than a year ago. Lots of other benefits (weight loss, no meds, very fit, etc) but reversing varicose veins doesn’t seem to be one of them. He does say they don’t bother him, but I think they never did.

  13. After thirty years of psychiatric practice I have come to the following conclusions: 99% of marijuana users don’t give a SHIT about long term effects. Public acceptance/normalization of pot use results in earlier (chronological) use which results in an increase in the onset of early age psychosis and schizophrenia. While this used to bother me, my partner put it into perspective. Do I get paid for treating them as I would any other acute psychosis? The answer is yes. Can “education” as to the potential harm change anything? Not as long as there are infinite “treatment programs”, SSI, SSDI and numerous other productivity-avoidance schemes (aka secondary gain) to deal with the “disorder.” ? Hell no. Conclusion: Smoke up!

    1. I love the phrase “productivity-avoidance schemes” It is so TRUE! I have experience with those folks and oh the stories!

    1. Hello Skeptical Granny, many thanks for your comments.

      I’ve been reading a little about vaping oil and a possible link with lipoid pneumonia, and in fact, there have been reports about 2-3 cases in USA and Spain of patients who caught pneumonia from smoking an electronic cigarette.

      However, interviewed experts don’t think this is statistically significant, (I mean, 2 cases among the millions of people who uses e-cigarettes)

      https://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2015/08/e-cigarettes-lipoid-pneumonia.html

      I just could find one study about the subject, they conclude that: “The assertion that vaping could put people at risk of lipoid pneumonia is illogical, simply because commercially available e-liquids do not contain nor generate fatlike material” You can read it here:

      https://pneumonia.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41479-016-0001-2

      Hope it helps!

  14. A relevant topic and well covered. Vaporizers are getting very popular and there’s an idea that they’re inherently safer but it’s good to have all the facts before making choices about how you consume cannabis products. Thanks for putting this together

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This