Printable View
I've searched for this and have yet to find a straightforward answer and evidence to back it up.
Is THC absorbed in the first 5-7 seconds of inhaling or is this a myth? If it is true, why would shotgunning and hotboxing work?
In my experience, I feel it is a myth, however, since so many believe it, I feel as though you know something that I don't. Please Explain. :)
its true the thc is absorbed almost instantly, if you want me to find the daily factoid i will
the reason you feel a slight extra buzz from shot gunning and hot boxing is, not entirely, but mostly oxygen deprivation
Daily Factoid: Donā??t hold your breath. The fat-soluble THC-9 is absorbed by the lungs almost instantly. Exhaling immediately after inhalation expels most of the carcinogenic compounds.
taken directly from this sites main page.....
Couldnt be more right.Quote:
Originally Posted by 420purplehaze420
A natrual breath is around 3 seconds, and as THC is abosrbed almost instantly, a normal breath in and out will get you as high as holding a hit for an hour. The reason people shouldnt hold hits is because the tar will be in the lung so long itll fuse with the lining, and thats what smokers get.
I dont really think about holding it in i just inhale and exhale normally like breathing or the same as i would smoke a cig
but some people say you get more stoned the longer you hold it in...
which is bullshit
I disagree, my experience is that if you hold in your hits, you do in fact get higher. I've smoked by breathing normally, and i've smoked by holding my hits in for about 15 seconds. I got much higher on the Latter, and surely I know the differents between oxygen deprivation and being high. I have been smoking for over 10 years.
Also, that theory does not explain why the age old activity of hotboxing in your car gets somebody who isn't smoking high. Or how shotgunning a hit to somebody who isn't smoking gets them high aswell. Surely oxygen deprivation doesn't last 3 hours and gives you the munchies.
Daily factoid isn't going to do it for me, there are plenty of myths about smoking marijuana that many believe is true.
Yes, but as its already been explained, its not through your lungs absorbing more THC, its the fact your depriving yourself of oxygen, nothing else.
But hey, 15 seconds? I wonder how much tar you have on your lungs... to be perfectly honest i wonder how much longer your lungs will work buddy...
your life... your death
Enjoy it
Oh well we're all going to get lung cancer anyway lol
Ahhhha. No, were not. It's been proven that the smoke from cannabis doesnt cause cancer. It actually help to prevent it by controlling cell division.
Then again, i smoke cigs, as do alot of other people, so yeah, i guess we will all die eventually, but i'd rather not die from a lung full of tar ;)
Lmao yeah i put tobacco into my joints anyway i have to
So your saying if i just smoke weed i wont get lung cancer Lip?
beleive what you want mr suspicious but sitting in a hot boxed car does not get you high alone, could sitting in the car with someone who is smoking get a non smoker addicted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain Man
Well, if its just pure weed, then yes, BUT, then again, some people get cancer and never smoke at all in their life, so its no sure fire way.Quote:
Originally Posted by cannabis campbell
But i smoke it all day every day and im putting my faith into it.
From the research ive done on cannabinoid receptors, THC, cannabinoids and free radicals i do belive that cannabis DOES prevent cancer.
1 thing i can say that is definat though i that if you smoke cannabis you will never get a brain tumour.
THC and certain cannabinoids kill the glioma cell in the brain, which is the onl cell cannabis kills. It's also the only cell in the brain to turn cancerous and its not used by the brain for anything which makes me pissed when people say "If you smoke weed you'll become stupid" because that proves they dont know what they're talking about.
I don't know where you get your information, Lip, but i've actually tried many of these things and came up with my own judgements, i've also talked to many people who have been smoking for over 50 years. Science always changes, and not much is actually known about marijuana compared to tobacco or alcohol. People used to think Bongs filter out tars in the smoke when a study done by norml shows that it actually filters out the THC as well, so you have to smoke more herb to get the same level of high. Anyway, nobody has yet to show me anything past the daily factoid that tells me I am wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by LIP
With that said, I have noticed very little difference in my lungs from 10 years of smoking and I've been swimming all my life. I've never heard of anybody dying from smoking marijuana, I also wonder about the amount of tar in my lungs, but I doubt holding your breath for a few seconds significantly damages them. Don't agree? show me a medical study.
How do you smoke weed then Lip? from a bong?
Nah, i smoke it in pure joints.
Rain man, i now have to break your world of happiness, and tell you that you are SO wrong, its unbelivable.
Cannabis is the most investigated thing in the world, nothing else has had so many studies.
Now, you said up there that bong;s also filter out THC? THC DOES NOT BREAK DOWN IN WATER. It's only dissolves in alcohol, or fat.
Why post your opinions? We dont want opinion, this is for FACT.
Please, whatever you say, think about it first.
Have a nice funeral... Maybe they can use the tar from your lungs and re- serface a road.
Right, Im not gunna post anymore in this thread or it'll turn into a flame war, i can just see it happening now.
Point is THC is abosrbed almost insantly no matter what anyone thinks...
The studies are right, you are wrong
Peace and fucking :thumbsup:
Ditto!
Getting a little hostile are we? :)
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html
Also try reading this.Quote:
Contrary to popular impression, waterpipes don't necessarily protect smokers from harmful tars in marijuana smoke, according to a new study sponsored by MAPS and California NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). The reason is that waterpipes filter out more psychoactive THC than they do other tars, thereby requiring users to smoke more to reach their desired effect. The study does not rule out the possibility that waterpipes could have other benefits, such as filtering out gases, but it suggests that other methods, such as the use of high potency marijuana, vaporizers, or oral ingestion are needed to avoid harmful toxins in marijuana smoke.
http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/T...lth/norml.html
Edit: I am not looking to start a flame war, I am simply after the truth. If you think I am wrong, fine, but explain to me why and show me some actual evidence that I am. Don't just make something up because you think it's right. :) I am trying to dispel myths here, not argue with folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIP
http://www.ukcia.org/research/Effect...uanaSmoke.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by It's A Fact
heres a question, if u stopped smoking and worked out alot then would ur body clean tar out from ur lungs?
Cigarettes takes seven years.
Quote:
The longer breath-holding time significantly increased both percent retention of tar in the lung and the pre- to postsmoking rise in blood COHb, serum THC and heart rate, independent of puff volume and number. In contrast, the larger PV (tobacco) had no significant influence on these variables for the same amount of cigarette consumed.
May I ask where you got the piece of information? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs
And can you explain it in layman's terms?
Without meaning to argue with anyone or start a flame war, I've found that I also get higher when I hold the smoke in for 10 seconds or so versus instantly exhaling (any longer than 10 seconds for me doesn't really increase it though). I've tried on several occasions to prove myself wrong, as I have seen the studies, but I never get as high when I don't hold it in. If I'm still wrong about it, at least I'm high :stoned:
you dont get more high holding it in, you most likely just get a slight headrush from the lack of oxygen.
and I think I know the answer to the hotbox question, the only people who dont smoke when hotboxing a car is non-smokers....they dont actually get high but everyone else gets high so they feel like they are too almost.....when you sober and hanging out with a bunch of people on mush you will act differently and stuff just cause the people that are high get you so excited and stuff...they dont smoke weed so they mistake this new "hyperness" for a high...... hotboxing doesnt get you high man try it out get someone to blow all their smoke in your face and you wont get high lol
Sorry, I must've missed the reference. I'm really not sure exactly, right now, but it's from Entrez PubMed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgiQuote:
Originally Posted by Rain Man
I searched Cannabis Lung.
I think it was an older study.
Also, I shouldn't have thrown that Tobacco comment in there.
It doesn't mean anything if you consider this study (below)
Effects of varying marijuana potency on deposition of tar and d9-THC in the lung during smoking.
To determine whether smoking more, compared to less, potent marijuana (MJ) cigarettes to a desired level of intoxication ("high") reduces pulmonary exposure to noxious smoke components, in 10 habitual smokers of MJ, we measured respiratory delivery and deposition of tar and delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) boost, smoking topography, including cumulative puff volume (CPV) and breathholding time, change in heart rate (deltaHR) and "high" during ad lib smoking of 0, 1.77, and 3.95% MJ cigarettes on 3 separate days. At each session, subjects had access to only a single MJ cigarette. On average, smoking topography and COHb boost did not differ across the different strengths of MJ, while THC delivery, as well as HR, were significantly greater (p < 0.01) and tar deposition significantly less (p < 0.03) for 3.95% than 1.77% MJ. Although individual adaptations in smoking topography for 3.95% compared to 1.77% MJ were highly variable, three subjects with the lowest 3.95% MJ:1.77% MJ ratios for CPV also displayed the lowest 3.95% MJ:1.77% MJ ratios for tar deposition. In vitro studies using a standardized smoking technique revealed a mean 25% lower tar yield from 3.95% than 1.77% MJ (p < 0.05), but no difference between 1.77% and 0% marijuana. Under the conditions of this study, we conclude that tar delivery is reduced relative to THC content in a minority of subjects, and this reduction appears to be due to a reduced intake of smoke (decreased CPV) and/or a reduced tar yield from the stronger MJ preparation.
Imagine if they had used 30% THC MJ for this study, as opposed to 3.95%.
In layman's term, let me smoke a bowl. ;)
Hot-boxing and Tuberculosis:Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rdEyeVision
Tuberculosis outbreak in marijuana users, Seattle, washington, 2004.
Matching Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates were noted among 11 young tuberculosis patients socially linked through illicit drug-related activities. A large proportion of their friends, 14 (64%) of 22, had positive tuberculin skin-test results. The behavior of "hotboxing" (smoking marijuana inside a closed car with friends to repeatedly inhale exhaled smoke) fueled transmission.
Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Jul;12(7):1156-9.
Oeltmann JE.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
PMID: 16836841 [PubMed - in process]
back to that other question, how fast does your body get ride of weed tars?
i just chill on it...
sometimes ill hold it in for 3, sometimes like 10
but like damn man... it does get me more stoned
even on dank sativa it gives some couchlock... i think cuz CBD and shit are less soluble with the lungs...
It's prob not a 100% sativa, which is why you get some couchlock.Quote:
Originally Posted by da haze meister
Anyway, guys, let's not dwell on these studies and what not. Everyone has their own way of smoking, as long as we all get high who fucking cares?
I usually hold my hits for 5 seconds because i've read that 95% of the thc is absorbed within that time. I don't have a link, i'm not going to search for a link, I'm just gonna keep on toking and keep on getting high. :)
From my experiences, holding it in has added effect.
Well, here's that study that I referenced on the last page.
Effects of varying marijuana smoking profile on deposition of tar and absorption of CO and delta-9-THC.
We investigated the effects of previously observed differences in smoking technique for marijuana (M) versus tobacco (T) on the amount of inhaled tar, the percentage retention of inhaled tar in the lung, the pre- to postcigarette boost in blood carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) and in serum delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC concentrations), and psychophysiologic responses to THC (increased heart rate and subjective "high"). Ten healthy, habitual smokers of M were studied on 6 separate days. On each day, subjects smoked a single M cigarette (approximately 900 mg, 1.24% delta-9-THC) using one of 6 different smoking profiles typical for marijuana [puff volume (PV) approximately 70 ml; breathholding time, (BHT) 14-16 s] or tobacco (PV approximately 45 ml; BHT 4-5 s) or a combination of the two techniques (PV approximately 70 ml and BHT 4-5 s; or PV approximately 45 ml and BHT 14-16 s). Inhaled volume (1.5 liters), interpuff interval (30 s) and number of puffs (6) were all fixed, except that for the approximately 45-ml PV condition, the number of puffs was increased to 10 in 2 additional sessions to standardize the total amount of cigarette consumed to that of the approximately 70-ml PV condition. The longer BHT significantly increased both percent retention of tar in the lung and the pre- to postsmoking rise in blood COHb, serum THC and heart rate, independent of puff volume and number. In contrast, the larger PV had no significant influence on these variables for the same amount of cigarette consumed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
[align=center]* Tashkin DP,
* Gliederer F,
* Rose J,
* Change P,
* Hui KK,
* Yu JL,
* Wu TC.
Department of Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine.[/align]
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1991 Nov;40(3):651-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
That's an interesting study, I wish I knew what the hell it meant. :D