Doesn't matter what you're making, none of it is good for you.* Some substances are much worse than others, but at the end of the day, whether that substance is crack, cannabis, or nicotine, you're still inhaling a foreign substance.
* unless part of a medical treatment regimen prescribed by a medical professional
If your doctor prescribes you something for smoking, get a new doctor. That said, crack is the worst for your teeth due to clenching, and tobacco is the worst for pretty much everything else imaginable. Smoking generally is the unhealthiest habit people have, but it's specifically due to inhaling the free radicals produced by combustion, not "a foreign substance" (we are all continuously breathing foreign substances). If you were just able to take out the combustion part somehow, you could- ah shit they're already marketing it to kids
Smokeless tobacco has been around for centuries. Snuff (and I don't mean Snus) the snorting route is actually relatively safe. One or two instances of cancer in centuries.
Sorry, I only meant to talk about smoking as a delivery method for various substances. Of any popularly smoked substance tobacco is by far the worst.
I mean to say that for some medical ailments, the treatment is smoking. The treatment for smoking addiction can involve vapes. The treatment for many mental disorders can involve cannabis. edit: I'm wrong about this
You're right that it's not the foreignness of the substances that is the cause of harm, but rather the nature of the substance and the amount consumed (which is usually a substantially large dose compared to others)
Canna industry vet here. Usually weed is not prescribed for smoking. Where it is, that's unhealthy to the point that it casts doubt on the validity of the treatment plan. However this was not the case 20 years ago, as even during that short time knowledge about the urgency of smoking-related health outcomes has propagated much more widely. At that time it was judged by many doctors that on balance the smoking delivery method was agreeable in lieu of a better option - but now we have multiple. Thus, smoking as a prescribed delivery method would cast significant doubt over the validity of any treatment plan designed today. Most people just smoke what they're given of their own accord.
Okay, I guess I'm wrong. Thanks for educating me!
Hey no problem. Thinking more about it, I suppose in like a palliative care context, anything goes really. At least in recreational states, a graded supply of things like pre-rolled doobies would be there for compounders to access.
Doesn't matter what you're making, none of it is good for you.* Some substances are much worse than others, but at the end of the day, whether that substance is crack, cannabis, or nicotine, you're still inhaling a foreign substance.
* unless part of a medical treatment regimen prescribed by a medical professional
If your doctor prescribes you something for smoking, get a new doctor. That said, crack is the worst for your teeth due to clenching, and tobacco is the worst for pretty much everything else imaginable. Smoking generally is the unhealthiest habit people have, but it's specifically due to inhaling the free radicals produced by combustion, not "a foreign substance" (we are all continuously breathing foreign substances). If you were just able to take out the combustion part somehow, you could- ah shit they're already marketing it to kids
Smokeless tobacco has been around for centuries. Snuff (and I don't mean Snus) the snorting route is actually relatively safe. One or two instances of cancer in centuries.
Sorry, I only meant to talk about smoking as a delivery method for various substances. Of any popularly smoked substance tobacco is by far the worst.
I mean to say that for some medical ailments, the treatment is smoking. The treatment for smoking addiction can involve vapes. The treatment for many mental disorders can involve cannabis.edit: I'm wrong about thisYou're right that it's not the foreignness of the substances that is the cause of harm, but rather the nature of the substance and the amount consumed (which is usually a substantially large dose compared to others)
Canna industry vet here. Usually weed is not prescribed for smoking. Where it is, that's unhealthy to the point that it casts doubt on the validity of the treatment plan. However this was not the case 20 years ago, as even during that short time knowledge about the urgency of smoking-related health outcomes has propagated much more widely. At that time it was judged by many doctors that on balance the smoking delivery method was agreeable in lieu of a better option - but now we have multiple. Thus, smoking as a prescribed delivery method would cast significant doubt over the validity of any treatment plan designed today. Most people just smoke what they're given of their own accord.
Okay, I guess I'm wrong. Thanks for educating me!
Hey no problem. Thinking more about it, I suppose in like a palliative care context, anything goes really. At least in recreational states, a graded supply of things like pre-rolled doobies would be there for compounders to access.