Smoking pure cannabis resin (hash) vs. vaporizing

[purplekush989]

you cant get cancer from cannabis but smoking too many rolling papers or leaves from blunts is not as good for you.

purplekush989 Reviewed by purplekush989 on 02-08-2008. Smoking pure cannabis resin (hash) vs. vaporizing Ok, if vaporizing is simply smoking evaporated cannabis resin, is smoking pure cold water extracted hash the same thing? Assuming the hash is 100% pure (hypothetically since this would be next to impossible but lets assume for the sake of argument) you are evaporating a bloc of pure resin when you smoke it. The same process goes on in your vaporizer when you heat your bud, evaporating the resin found on the plant material no? I just though I would get your opinion on this. Rating: 5

[otottoto]

What do you burn when you bubble your hash? I fail to see the combustion here, water doesn't burn when you boil it, why does hash burn if its pure resin and you heat it at around 380 degrees, the point where it evaporates

You read me wrong, I said burning hash, not vaporizing it, causes obvious combustion and therefore is quite different than vaporizing, which was your initial question (you asked BURNING hash vs VAPING). REGARDLESS of how pure the hash is, you are still setting it on fire and breathing in the results, which is less healthy than only breathing in the vapors generated without ignition

And for those of you who honestly believe there are no carcinogens created when you burn a carbon-based plant, you very clearly don't know enough about the chemical formula of plant combustion to continue offering your opinion. Yes cannabis has cancer-fighting properties, but if you think that means there aren't carcinogens that come with it, you need to do a little more reading (btw, if i sound rude i dont mean to be, just havent smoked in way too fucking long)

[melodious fellow]

just havent smoked in way too fucking long)

Lite dat sheeeeit up fool :rastasmoke:

Great Edwards' quote in your signature by the way. Such a same nice guys like that can't compete with all the corrupt (but VERY wealthy) politicians that always seem to get so much attention...

peace

[donsolo]

I'm not sure either Obama or Clinton are corrupt.

They're definitely less populist than Edwards which leads to all sorts of issues involving potential special interest groups but I'm kinda glad this goaround, everyone seems to be on the up and up (at least on the left side)