Quote Originally Posted by Rain Man
May I ask where you got the piece of information?

And can you explain it in layman's terms?
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.fcgi
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.
beachguy in thongs Reviewed by beachguy in thongs on . THC Absorption? 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. :) Rating: 5