why should people keep doing what we know to be worse?
This could apply to a lot of vices and it would be because it helps them cope with life (in a ver optimistic view).
Still I never said they should stick to smoking cigarettes since I’ve not denied once that vaping seems to actually help those who want to quit, but I guess shifting the conversation to that side sounds better for you.
And what do you call mid, long-term? Because vaping has been around long enough to have people that have been doing it for almost 20 years.
Which is worrying, if it’s been around that long but it’s still unregulated and with no standard about which chemicals can be used and why, what material for the coil and temperature or what kind of filter to use… but hey, it’s better than smoking because we exchange smoke for aerosols… right?
I’m not against vaping to quit smoking, I think that’s great, I’m against singing praises for a product that’s mostly clouded by bro-sayings and marketing and low information sources (since all the comments that defend it are usually trust me, bro), BUT as we all know, if something is too good to be true it most likely isn’t.
Because, hey, I’m not without vices, I use a bong for cannabis from time to time (very rarely, as a copping mechanism), I looked into the dry-herb vapes but I didn’t like the part about the battery waste (yes, even if they can be replaced that’s one more battery to the trash when it fails to recharge) and the induction heaters are… stupidly expensive in my country (around $9,000MXN and more) and hard to find but… I couldn’t trust that people claimed it was vapor/steam because… well… you are heating dry-herb to the point it creates some sort of mist but… wtf is that mist? where the fuck is the water to make steam and call it vapor? Specially since we are talking about a herb that is consumed dried and curated/preserved on low/controlled humidity.
To date I have no idea, so I can’t really trust that vaping cannabis is less damaging ONLY because there’s no smoke… or they claim it isn’t smoke.
I also don’t understand why you speak about water related to vapor. Vapor, or gas, is a state of matter, if you heat something, anything, it’ll vaporise (or boil as we say for water) into a gas. Different elements have different melting points, that’s why cannabis vaporisers have an adjustable temperature. Set it low and only the THC will vaporise, higher and you’ll get the CBD too. That’s why combustion is so bad, because the temperature is so high that almost everything vaporise, there is no point in having a temperature this high, it’ll vaporise so many toxic elements. We can discuss nicotine vaporisation because there can issues with elements coming from the flavouring, but for cannabis it’s very straightforward, using a lower temperature than what you get with combustion gets you all the interesting substances (maybe not some terpenes that gives some flavours) without a lot of the toxic ones. Also the herbs are never going to be 100% dry so they’ll have some water, creating a little bit of steam, but that’s only one of the many vaporised elements.
I’m not trying to shift the conversation, vaping is better as a replacement. Whether it’s to quit altogether or not afterwards is irrelevant.
Something being less harmful should not be taken immediatly as better… but if that’s enough for you then yes, everything else is irrelevant and it explains why you are happy with just that information, I’ll just leave my reply to this comment and stop wasting your time since it’s irrelevant.
Irrelevant reply ahead, do not read:
spoiler
I don’t get why you say it’s not regulated because it is, at least in my country and in a lot of others.
Depends on what we call regulated, if you mean legal to sell and consume, then yes it is (well… in my country the expresident wanted to ban it to return the control to the narcos but that’s besides the point).
I meant regulated as having a standard, which materials are safe to use, which chemicals are safe to use to create the aerosols, which materials are safe to use for the coil that will heat the product, if it needs to use a filter and which kind of filter and so on, and penalize brands that create harmful products.
There are a lot of research, the sources for the video you posted has some, here is another well known one.
The research you linked says further research is needed, due to many important differences in manufacture and content of every brand it’s not possible to give a gold standard, recommendation or to be certain about the negative effects of the heated tobacco aerosols.
I also don’t understand why you speak about water related to vapor
Because it matters, aerosols are also a gas but they cause a different effect on the body than steam and it reeks of marketing calling it vapor because addressing it as an aerosol has a negative perception.
Also the herbs are never going to be 100% dry so they’ll have some water, creating a little bit of steam, but that’s only one of the many vaporised elements
I REALLY doubt the ammount of water the dried nugs keep inside them is enough to generate enough steam for the ammount of gas one can inhale from a dry-herb vape… as someone who one time forgot to add water to a lemongrass infusion (made the old way, adding the grass directly to the water and then boil it), I don’t think what came out of that grass could have been steam past the first seconds.
This is what’s called “risk reduction”, less harmful is better.
I meant regulated as having standards, of course.
Of course it says further research is needed, most papers say that. Again I’ve yet to see a paper that puts vape as more harmful that smoke.
I’ve never seen vape marketing using the word steam, vapor is the scientifically correct word, it’s not an aerosol. An aerosol is a solid or liquid element in suspension inside a gas, this is not the case, the elements you are inhaling are gaseous, it’s a vapor.
And how would you know the amount of water in the myst you see? How can you visually differentiate between the elements? The vapor is composed of all the elements with lower boiling point (I made a mistake using the word melting point in my previous message) than what you set on the vaporiser. Smoke has water in it too.
It’s really simple, burn the thing and you get a very night temperature, almost everything gets vaporised, a lot of elements react to create more harmful ones and you get a lot of smoke (with a little bit of water in it too). Now use a vaporiser, heat it a lot less, to a lower temperature and less elements get vaporised, there are way less reactions (no CO) and you get way less visible gas.
Also the study you linked also calls the vaper’s gas an aerosol, but I guess that would require actually reading and understanding instead of blindingly defending a product and ignoring my point over and over, just let it die
You accuse me of shifting the conversation and you end up being the one doing it. I never said the conversation was irrelevant, I said that whether or not the end goal was to stop or not was irrelevant in deciding about switching to a less toxic mode of consumption.
You complain that it’s mostly bro-saying, marketing and low quality source but when the conversation becomes serious you drop it and never bring any research to your argument.
And you don’t even know the definition of words central to the subject, like vaporisation or aerosol, and yet you act like you know, saying so many approximate to downright false things. It’s OK not to know a subject, no one can know everything, but don’t act like you, misleading people along the way.
I’m OK continuing this conversation if you bring some substance to it. Other please edit your initial message to avoid misleading people.
This could apply to a lot of vices and it would be because it helps them cope with life (in a ver optimistic view).
Still I never said they should stick to smoking cigarettes since I’ve not denied once that vaping seems to actually help those who want to quit, but I guess shifting the conversation to that side sounds better for you.
Which is worrying, if it’s been around that long but it’s still unregulated and with no standard about which chemicals can be used and why, what material for the coil and temperature or what kind of filter to use… but hey, it’s better than smoking because we exchange smoke for aerosols… right?
I’m not against vaping to quit smoking, I think that’s great, I’m against singing praises for a product that’s mostly clouded by bro-sayings and marketing and low information sources (since all the comments that defend it are usually trust me, bro), BUT as we all know, if something is too good to be true it most likely isn’t.
Because, hey, I’m not without vices, I use a bong for cannabis from time to time (very rarely, as a copping mechanism), I looked into the dry-herb vapes but I didn’t like the part about the battery waste (yes, even if they can be replaced that’s one more battery to the trash when it fails to recharge) and the induction heaters are… stupidly expensive in my country (around $9,000MXN and more) and hard to find but… I couldn’t trust that people claimed it was vapor/steam because… well… you are heating dry-herb to the point it creates some sort of mist but… wtf is that mist? where the fuck is the water to make steam and call it vapor? Specially since we are talking about a herb that is consumed dried and curated/preserved on low/controlled humidity.
To date I have no idea, so I can’t really trust that vaping cannabis is less damaging ONLY because there’s no smoke… or they claim it isn’t smoke.
I’m not trying to shift the conversation, vaping is better as a replacement. Whether it’s to quit altogether or not afterwards is irrelevant.
I don’t get why you say it’s not regulated because it is, at least in my country and in a lot of others.
There are a lot of research, the sources for the video you posted has some, here is another well known one.
I also don’t understand why you speak about water related to vapor. Vapor, or gas, is a state of matter, if you heat something, anything, it’ll vaporise (or boil as we say for water) into a gas. Different elements have different melting points, that’s why cannabis vaporisers have an adjustable temperature. Set it low and only the THC will vaporise, higher and you’ll get the CBD too. That’s why combustion is so bad, because the temperature is so high that almost everything vaporise, there is no point in having a temperature this high, it’ll vaporise so many toxic elements. We can discuss nicotine vaporisation because there can issues with elements coming from the flavouring, but for cannabis it’s very straightforward, using a lower temperature than what you get with combustion gets you all the interesting substances (maybe not some terpenes that gives some flavours) without a lot of the toxic ones. Also the herbs are never going to be 100% dry so they’ll have some water, creating a little bit of steam, but that’s only one of the many vaporised elements.
Something being less harmful should not be taken immediatly as better… but if that’s enough for you then yes, everything else is irrelevant and it explains why you are happy with just that information, I’ll just leave my reply to this comment and stop wasting your time since it’s irrelevant.
Irrelevant reply ahead, do not read:
spoiler
Depends on what we call regulated, if you mean legal to sell and consume, then yes it is (well… in my country the expresident wanted to ban it to return the control to the narcos but that’s besides the point).
I meant regulated as having a standard, which materials are safe to use, which chemicals are safe to use to create the aerosols, which materials are safe to use for the coil that will heat the product, if it needs to use a filter and which kind of filter and so on, and penalize brands that create harmful products.
The research you linked says further research is needed, due to many important differences in manufacture and content of every brand it’s not possible to give a gold standard, recommendation or to be certain about the negative effects of the heated tobacco aerosols.
Because it matters, aerosols are also a gas but they cause a different effect on the body than steam and it reeks of marketing calling it vapor because addressing it as an aerosol has a negative perception.
I REALLY doubt the ammount of water the dried nugs keep inside them is enough to generate enough steam for the ammount of gas one can inhale from a dry-herb vape… as someone who one time forgot to add water to a lemongrass infusion (made the old way, adding the grass directly to the water and then boil it), I don’t think what came out of that grass could have been steam past the first seconds.
This is what’s called “risk reduction”, less harmful is better.
I meant regulated as having standards, of course.
Of course it says further research is needed, most papers say that. Again I’ve yet to see a paper that puts vape as more harmful that smoke.
I’ve never seen vape marketing using the word steam, vapor is the scientifically correct word, it’s not an aerosol. An aerosol is a solid or liquid element in suspension inside a gas, this is not the case, the elements you are inhaling are gaseous, it’s a vapor.
And how would you know the amount of water in the myst you see? How can you visually differentiate between the elements? The vapor is composed of all the elements with lower boiling point (I made a mistake using the word melting point in my previous message) than what you set on the vaporiser. Smoke has water in it too.
It’s really simple, burn the thing and you get a very night temperature, almost everything gets vaporised, a lot of elements react to create more harmful ones and you get a lot of smoke (with a little bit of water in it too). Now use a vaporiser, heat it a lot less, to a lower temperature and less elements get vaporised, there are way less reactions (no CO) and you get way less visible gas.
Nah, it’s irrelevant, let it die
Spoiler
Also the study you linked also calls the vaper’s gas an aerosol, but I guess that would require actually reading and understanding instead of blindingly defending a product and ignoring my point over and over, just let it die
Yeah, I expected this.
You accuse me of shifting the conversation and you end up being the one doing it. I never said the conversation was irrelevant, I said that whether or not the end goal was to stop or not was irrelevant in deciding about switching to a less toxic mode of consumption.
You complain that it’s mostly bro-saying, marketing and low quality source but when the conversation becomes serious you drop it and never bring any research to your argument.
And you don’t even know the definition of words central to the subject, like vaporisation or aerosol, and yet you act like you know, saying so many approximate to downright false things. It’s OK not to know a subject, no one can know everything, but don’t act like you, misleading people along the way.
I’m OK continuing this conversation if you bring some substance to it. Other please edit your initial message to avoid misleading people.