The holding hits debate, regarding VAPOR

[dziendobry4]

brain damage from lack of oxygen will not happen from holding your hits in, unless you hold them in for 5 minutes, which you won't be doing. that's about how long it takes for brain cells to start dying from hypoxia

[poplars]

I take small rips and hold them in for 5-7 seconds . . . . gets me stoned as fuck.

huge hits are something people do with smoke, it's redundant to do it with vapor . . . your lungs can only absorb a small portion of it, so why force more in?

I believe it's much more effective to take 10 smaller hits only holding in 5 seconds than taking HUGE hits holding them in 30 seconds and still blowing out vapor, you coulda taken 3 hits in that time and got higher . . . .

[slunkypetedog]

Excellent topic and revolutionary for those who care about their health as vaporization is aimed at suppressing respiratory toxins. This is done by heating cannabis to a temperature where cannabinoid vapors form (typically around 180-190°C), but below the point of combustion where smoke and associated toxins are produced (near 230°C). Of particular concern are the carcinogenic polynuclear (or â??polycyclicâ?�) aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), known byproducts of combustion that are thought to be a major culprit in smoking-related cancers. One study showed vapors were found to consist overwhelmingly of cannabinoids (good stuff), while the combusted control contained over one hundred additional chemicals, including several known PAHs (really bad stuff). Another study, upon analysis, found the vaporizer delivered THC while completely eliminating three specific toxins (naphthalene, benzene and toluene) in the solid phase of the vapor. What amazes me the most, is how many compounds are present in an gaseous analysis of combusted cannabis. These are reduced to a handful of trace amounts when vaporized. While more research is needed, as of know it appears there is no reason why holding your breath filled with vapor would cause any perceivable harm.


Fehr, K.O. and Kalant, H. 1972. Analysis of cannabis smoke obtained under different combustion conditions. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 50: 761-7.

Perez-Reyes, M. 1990. Marijuana smoking: factors that influence the bioavailability of tetrahydrocannabinol. In C.N. Chiang and R.L. Hawks, eds. Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances. NIDA Research Monograph 99:42-62.

[smokin dope]

:rastasmoke::rastasmoke::rastasmoke:

[t3chyo]

This website (cannabis.com for all you stoned peeps) use to have a daily fact and one day it said that THC enters you lungs instantly and there's no need to hold in smoke for more than 3 seconds or something like that. Any truth in that? That quote from this websites daily fact was from years back.

[Lobo00]

The debate is quickly answer once you experiment on yourself and forget what this article said or did not said.
If you vap and don't hold it in you just wont get as much effect, simple.
That is my experience at least.
Stoners have know this simple fact from way back.

[SmokeNRun]

This website (cannabis.com for all you stoned peeps) use to have a daily fact and one day it said that THC enters you lungs instantly and there's no need to hold in smoke for more than 3 seconds or something like that. Any truth in that? That quote from this websites daily fact was from years back.

from my understanding that refers to smoke not vapor. Oh and I was told that vapor has a higher THC content so therefore I hold it in till I can't anymore. sometimes I still blow out some vapor but I take big hits:vap_smiley:

[CoolRide]

My thought is if ya can't tell the difference......then it probably doesnt make any difference. :thumbsup:

[Contrabandit]

Vaporizers are nice, you get all the good flavor of the weed, and for me it does seem to get me there in fewer hits then a bong or joint.. But blunts are still my favorite, just something about rolling a blunt with some sticky icky, gets me everytime.

:stoned: