Ive heard about this, every time your smoke is filtered you do loose some of the thc, but guys obviously its not a great amount because lets face it, we can get pretty ripped from a bong
How so? Results are dependant upon a study. I don't know about you guys, but I know for a fact I smoke more weed from a bong than a blunt or joint, and I don't get higher. I will admit I feel a bit of an extra high; it's the light headedness from taking a huge rip, not from more efficient absorbtion. Just saying.
Yeah people tend to judge their "high" on how fucked up they feel. I did the same, until I realised that being high is just an altered state of mind, not a feeling of being fucked up from a huge brain scrambler because thats not even enjoyable
I agree with it. But if you smoke a joint or blunt you lose more cause of its constant burning, a pipe you lose probably equal or a little more than bong unless you put something over the pipe when it is not being hit then it would be more efficient
Bottemline is, people smoke more in in one bong hit so it creates the illusion of being high. More quantities of smoother smoke are being took in at once. Bongs jobs aren't to filter out tar, and anyone who thinks bongs filter out tar/carcinogens is mistaken. Bongs are meant to cool the smoke passing the the water chamber reducing it surface area temps and make it easier to intake, not cleaner. In order to filter out tar the smoke would have to pass by a carbon filter of some sort..
Great point. Has anyone actually measured burn rates when not inhaling a blunt/joint? Very little combustion/vaporization is occuring with so little oxygen present. That's why the cherry brightens when you hit it; it's combusting at an acceptable rate for inhalation. The minimal amount of smoke lost during a blunt/joint session is comparable to the amount lost when smoking a pipe or bong. You would need to compare the amount of THC lost due to constant burning and compare it to the amount of THC lost in a bong due to filtration, as well as the constant burning of a bowl. Unless, of course, you extinguish the cherry after each hit, in which case you can simply light a joint/blunt for a single hit, and extinguish it, also. Blunts and joints lose THC in the form of resin on the paper, but a majority of the paper is continually burned, thus reaching the resins eventually. Unless you drink your bong water, I don't think you'll be getting any higher. Actually, it was used historically as a filter. Currently, certain people may use it to cool smoke, but that comes down to preference. I didn't buy my bong to cool my smoke; that's why I put ice in it. I use my bong to smoke ground up weed that is too small for a pipe. I don't like sucking in tiny crumbs of weed. I would argue that the bong is for filtration, and perculators were later additions to aid in filtration as well as heat dispersion. This may be true, but the study claims it removes enough THC to warrant a comment. It may be relatively insoluble, but if a bong hit contains less THC than a joint hit, you're losing THC and not getting higher. Based on this study, it's impossible to get higher from THC using a bong, and it's impossible to reach the high you would reach using unfiltered combustion. Relatively insoluble and insoluble are 2 different things.
so would using a vape thru a bong still be a effective method? since your getting more of the thc out, but its more 'pure' so the water soluabilty might effect it more? jw
Unless you actually see the experimental design and figures of their results you really can't comment on claims like this. It's just the one labs result. Without the actual numbers and stats on them (like p-values at least), a news clipping contains no real information, just someones interpretation. Cigarette companies still manage to pump out scientific research defending cigarettes and their safety, that doesn't mean their results are representative of what is actually occuring in the general population. News articles and clippings aren't proof of anything. You still have to read and interpret the actual results and decide for yourself as to whether it is convincing. Its certainly interesting but I wouldn't get too excited before you find and read the actual paper instead of a writers interpretation of it.
Is that the only refutation you have? If so, I'll take the side of the study, for now. What I read makes sense. THC is trapped by the water and you don't get as high as you think; you're being tricked by your own beliefs into thinking deep breathing=getting high. All you're doing is breathing deeply. Do you have any valid information supported by scientific research to even begin to refute the claim? Or are you saying, "don't believe everything you read on the interwebz?"
Kind of like the neutrinos being faster than the speed of light in that one recent study...it's one study and one group doing one experiment. Something could have happened to alter the study's results.
The amount of THC lost in the water is negligible. Meaning it's not going to rob you of an amount that would even matter... I'd rather lose a fraction of a % of THC and cool the smoke than use a non water filtered piece
MAPS - Volume 6 Number 3 Summer 1996 - Made me lol here; I have iron lungs so lukewarm smoke doesn't bother me that much.
Lol, that's not true, just saying. Absorbtion is directly correlated with THC present. You can't get higher if you have less THC. Smoke-tar=better absorbtion.
I agree with this. A bong might filter out some THC, but it also filters out a LOT of other garbage that I'd rather have sticking to the walls of the bong than I would having it sticking to my lungs. If you smoke joints or pipes, then maybe you get a bit more of the THC, but you also get ALL the bad stuff. As much as I love it, I really don't want to be constantly smoking weed all the time. I like to have my smoking time be more of a formal ritual where I can use my vaporizer or my glass and my Hakko and really savor the experience of smoking something nice, tasty and effective. It's not always about smoking yourself under the table.