+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Does holding in pot smoke actually increase absorption?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Does holding in pot smoke actually increase absorption?

    Pot smokers normally attempt to avoid breathing out the smoke as long as possible in order to enhance absorption of the active compounds. This makes sense given that pot is fairly pricey (and its supply is undependable. It always sucks when you call all your pothead friends and no one knows where you can get some.) But does it actually work? Are you breathing out a lot of important cannabinoids if you exhale right away? What about the health implications of smoking -- does retaining the smoke for longer cause more damage to your lungs? If so, is the additional damage outweighed by the need to take fewer hits to take in a given amount of THC?

  2. #2
    Living la vida broke-a Revs's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    the pimple on america's wang
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Through years of trail & error research,I have concluded that it does indeed have more effect if you hold in a hit rather than blowing it out right away like you would do a cigarette.

    I find that 10-20 seconds of holding it in does nicely.
    Give me whiskey when I'm thirsty,Give me a cold beer when I'm dry, Give me root beer when I'm sickly, Give me a headstone when I die.

  3. #3
    MOON GIRL FIGHTS CRIME Myrnalene's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,597

    Default

    I have certainly heard that smoking pot is more harmful to your lungs than smoking cigarettes, specifically because the smoke is held in the lungs longer. But I don't have a cite and I'm not going to find one hahahha o the freedom of Mellophant.

  4. #4
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Myrnalene View post
    I have certainly heard that smoking pot is more harmful to your lungs than smoking cigarettes, specifically because the smoke is held in the lungs longer. But I don't have a cite and I'm not going to find one hahahha o the freedom of Mellophant.
    I have seen those studies, what the pundits always gloss over when using them though, is even the worst pot heads do not smoke anywhere near as much pot as the average smoker. The cancer risk from pot smoking is actually much lower do to the far lesser intake.

    As to Exy's question, I have never seen a study on it but my friends that are potheads all insist holding in the smoke gives a stronger high and some of them have 30+ years of experience now. That is a little more than casual anecdotal evidence I believe.

  5. #5
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default

    Those who mix their pot with tobacco will generally get at least 5 joints for every 2 kingsize cigs, so that would probably compensate for inhaling it a little longer, and it does seem to get you higher quicker.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  6. #6
    Stegodon Jaglavak's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    360

    Default Does holding in pot smoke actually increase absorption?

    Yes, but it also increases absorption of tars, waxes, and other baddies. At some point you get into diminishing returns. Basically if you're doubled over trying not to cough, frikkin cough already.

    As noted above, usage might amount to the equivalent of one to two cigarettes a day. It's undoubtedly not real good for you, but not anywhere near as damaging as those studies where they immerse some poor rodent in solid smoke for 12 hours a day.

    Even assuming equal quantities, I've been told that pot smoke is less damaging than tobacco because it makes you cough more. So theoretically you hack up the baddies rather than letting them soak in your lungs. Don't know how much stock I put in that one though.

    And now you know everything I know about greenery.
    Last edited by Jaglavak; 11 Feb 2010 at 08:18 PM.

  7. #7
    Jesus F'ing Christ Glazer's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga. U.S.A. (Male)
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    I can't find a cite on their site. But I read in High Times that most of the THC is absorbed in the first few seconds. It's the lack of oxygen that makes you feel higher. They say you can get the same results by holding your breath after a hit as during. And it's a lot healthier. I have always liked to take several deep breaths before I light up so that I get high and not stoned.
    Welcome to Mellophant.

    We started with nothing and we still have most of it left.

  8. #8
    Free Exy Cluricaun's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elgin IL
    Posts
    3,641

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Glazer View post
    I can't find a cite on their site. But I read in High Times that most of the THC is absorbed in the first few seconds. It's the lack of oxygen that makes you feel higher. They say you can get the same results by holding your breath after a hit as during. And it's a lot healthier. I have always liked to take several deep breaths before I light up so that I get high and not stoned.
    Yup, holding it in doesn't do anything more than make you lightheaded. There are lots of drugs where you're not supposed to hold the smoke in any longer than you have to (meth for one) and you still get plenty high just from those short inhales. I just inhale long enough to finish the hit and then I exhale, just like smoking a cigarette. I have no complaints.
    Hell, if I didn't do things just because they made me feel a bit ridiculous, I wouldn't have much of a social life. - Santo Rugger.

  9. #9
    Why so serious? Tinker's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    233

    Default

    I think if you take a full breath you're probably fine to exhale. For the most part we breathe shallowly. Take a deep breath and you'll take in more. Definitely diminishing returns.
    "And I hope I don't get born again, 'cuz one time was enough!" -- Mark Sandman

  10. #10
    Resident Troublemaker beebs's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    786

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    I have seen those studies, what the pundits always gloss over when using them though, is even the worst pot heads do not smoke anywhere near as much pot as the average smoker. The cancer risk from pot smoking is actually much lower do to the far lesser intake.
    Quote Originally posted by Jaglavak View post
    Yes, but it also increases absorption of tars, waxes, and other baddies. At some point you get into diminishing returns. Basically if you're doubled over trying not to cough, frikkin cough already.
    I have heard doctors say the same thing, only I have heard them go so far as to say there really isn't any link to marijuana causing lung cancer. Marijuana smoke doesn't have the same properties as the carcinogens in cigarette smoke. The frequent inhalation of smoke itself though isn't healthy either, whether you're smoking cigarettes, pot, and meth (? I am only presuming the last one because it was brought up as an example earlier in the thread). So things like emphysema, a higher risk of COPD, and other smoking diseases are still bad for the lungs.

  11. #11
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Foxbase Alpha
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Which is why vaporizers and becoming more and more popular these days.

  12. #12
    Why so serious? Tinker's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    233

    Default

    The answer to this question is really about surface volume. How much of your cilia comes into contact with the THC. By holding it in, you make sure more of it settles on your cilia.
    "And I hope I don't get born again, 'cuz one time was enough!" -- Mark Sandman

  13. #13
    Resident Troublemaker beebs's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    786

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Tinker View post
    The answer to this question is really about surface volume. How much of your cilia comes into contact with the THC. By holding it in, you make sure more of it settles on your cilia.
    But we're speaking about absorption while in the lungs. Sure deeper and longer breaths would increase the entire surface area for that to occur. But does holding every breath you take for 5-4-3-2-1 give you more O2? That's silly, because there will always still be the same dead space between breaths and actual surface area of lungs. Plus, the thermodynamics dictates that molecules will diffuse freely into an area of lesser concentration. So holding your breath doesn't ever mean you'll absorb every molecule of O2. I would suppose that the same would be for THC. Once you take a hit, you lung surface area will soon absorb most of those immediately, but soon the lesser concentration will be back in the dead air.

  14. #14
    Why so serious? Tinker's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    233

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by beebs View post
    But we're speaking about absorption while in the lungs. Sure deeper and longer breaths would increase the entire surface area for that to occur. But does holding every breath you take for 5-4-3-2-1 give you more O2? That's silly, because there will always still be the same dead space between breaths and actual surface area of lungs. Plus, the thermodynamics dictates that molecules will diffuse freely into an area of lesser concentration. So holding your breath doesn't ever mean you'll absorb every molecule of O2. I would suppose that the same would be for THC. Once you take a hit, you lung surface area will soon absorb most of those immediately, but soon the lesser concentration will be back in the dead air.
    Your lungs are never empty of air. So imagine your lungs as being a very windy space. If you inhale and exhale very quickly it's likely that the smoke didn't permeate the air that's already in there. There's a lot of air that settles in the bottom of your lungs that if you don't inhale and exhale properly stays pretty stagnant. Most people breathe from the top of their lungs rather than their diaphragm. So I am not sure that holding your breath for very long is necessary, but it does take time for things to travel the concentration gradient.

    Generally what I do is take a hit, take a deep breath hold it for a moment and then exhale. A moment being like five seconds roughly. I don't think there is much point beyond that.

    Doing some cursory research around the net the answer seems to be that THC absorbs very quickly so there isn't much point in holding your breath. Pretty much the same as the consensus we have here.
    Last edited by Tinker; 16 Feb 2010 at 01:29 AM.
    "And I hope I don't get born again, 'cuz one time was enough!" -- Mark Sandman

  15. #15
    Resident Troublemaker beebs's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    786

    Default

    I was going to quote your whole post and go on. But I think it's simpler to say that I pretty much agree.

  16. #16
    Jesus F'ing Christ Glazer's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga. U.S.A. (Male)
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Puff puff pass, puff puff pass your holding up the rota.
    Welcome to Mellophant.

    We started with nothing and we still have most of it left.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts