Talk:Vaporizer (inhalation device)

Cannabis Mid‑importance

	Cannabis portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles

Current archives

1

Archives from previous page name
(Vaporizer (cannabis))
1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Logical inconsistency?

First it says "Vaporizing is more efficient than smoking, because approximately 30% of THC in marijuana or hashish cigarettes is destroyed by pyrolysis during smoking.[33]" then it says later: "The study stated that the amount of THC delivered by vaporizers were equivalent to the amount delivered by smoking.[37] Because of those studies and other studies, vaporizers are considered medically sound devices for delivering THC.[40]".

Doesn't the second quote contradict the first, because if 'equivalent' means 'same' then that means you need to take the same dose of cannabis for each method to deliver the same amount of THC? I can't access the studies, but I also can't think of another meaning of 'equivalent' in this context. 84.119.3.225 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that mean that you need less stuff but will get an equivalent dose? Presumably in both cases the "amount delivered" is up to the user, & how long he keeps going. E-cig studies have tried to establish a "standard puff" for machine smoking but it doesn't work very well imo. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up one of the studies that were linked to by the source that Wikipedia links to. It says there in "Some smoking characteristics of marijuana cigarettes": "Under constant draft conditions in which the whole cigarette is consumed in a single puff, and under which virtually no smoke is lost as sidestream smoke, 69% translation of THC to mainstream smoke is obtained. This represents the maximum proportion of THC which could be obtained in the smoke from a marijuana cigarette. Some 31% of THC is not found upon analysis of the smoke condensate, and is presumed destroyed by pyrolysis."84.119.3.225 (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification edit

@QuackGuru:, in this edit, were you verifying against Jacob or the footnoted sources? -- Beland (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a source written in January 2019 by Jacob in the journal, the Proceedings of the Physiological Society.[1] The footnoted sources verifies the current claim. The text I deleted is not a good summary of electronic cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. -- Beland (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]