Dabbing Results in Less THC and CBD Loss than Smoking Say Swiss Researchers

3 months ago

A newly published study by Swiss researchers from the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University of Bern found that dabbing resulted in less THC and CBD getting lost than when smoking a spliff.

Of course, any dabber — and we don’t mean Paul Pogba when we refer to dabbing — has long known this and can probably but shrug “Yeah, thanks Captain Obvious”, at this news.

0BF71F7E-2C81-4A4F-9405-6258BB9D70B3.jpeg
Photo via healthline.com

But science requires evidence and where possible even a published paper. We, of course, are more than happy to then regurgitate the news of the study, especially when it are studies favorable to our beliefs. Right? Right.

Now every naysayer can rest peacefully because science has shown preliminary evidence that dabbing is indeed more efficient at containing — and delivering — THC and CBD to your lungs than smoking. Snopes and other fact checkers can put their smoking guns to rest because science. Science from the country of the cheese with the many holes and the awesome watches, mechanical high complication watches.

The researchers, who had received confiscated flowers and BHO (butane hash oil), build rigs simulating the smoking and dabbing experiences.

dabs-recover-three-times-more-thc-than-joints-according-to-new-study-1.jpg
How researchers think smoking a joint works

The researchers opted to emulate the “titanium nail” method of dabbing, while recognizing that method isn’t the most common one anymore nowadays and dabbers enjoy their concentrates at lower temperatures, with probably even less losses due to combustion taking place at the higher temperature in the titanium nail method.

dabs-recover-three-times-more-thc-than-joints-according-to-new-study-2.jpg
Typical dabbing rig for a scientist

In their optimal setup, without any lost smoke due to not inhaling it, smoking resulted in a recovery of 26.7% of THC in ideal circumstances, while the outdated dabbing rig recovered 75.5% or almost three times as much.

Because the setups didn’t reflect any normal use case, both due to the optimal non-stop and no smoke-loss smoking and outdated dabbing method, maybe that myth that dabbing is 5 times more efficient than smoking is true nevertheless?

Not according to our Swiss researchers who estimate that both dabbing and smoking deliver “a similar amount of psychoactive THC”.

So, basically, despite research we aren’t much wiser yet? I’ll dab on that.

C70EC76C-6D4B-48EF-9C10-0EBB923CD3F0.jpeg
Paul Pogba dabs - photo by Reuters via Mirror.co.uk


If you love reading abstract intros, and potentially paying for access to research publications, but missed the link, here it is once again.

Tags: #research, #dabs, #smoking, #science



Get 4.2 Free Smoke Power On Sign Up To Start Your Journey On Smoke! The First Cannabis Community That Pays You To Post And Curate Content You Love..
Sort Order:  Trending

Wait I'm confused. So does dabbing deliver more thc then smoking or does it not? The first part of the post makes it look like it does and the second like it does not.

·

Yeah, they didn’t really make it easy.

Yes, you get high “more efficiently” when dabbing. Less THC gets lost. But seems they conclude that dabbers don’t use more concentrate, even less actually than joint smokers get over a whole joint.

The main difference is dabbing: 2-3 seconds (around 20% lost THC), a joint several minutes (+80% lost THC because of less optimal smoking than in their setup).

Basically, all that academic genius wasted on a “No shit, Sherlock’ revelation.

·
·

I see. That does make some sense. I thought the same thing when the scientists started saying that cannabis is not dangerous.

·
·
·

Just makes me wonder how much THC we actually get smoking a spliff. Given that their ~25% was non-stop smoking of the joint, and didn’t exhale either, we may end up with only 12-15% from a regular joint.

Let’s just use the one-hitter pipes then. Don’t want to have to clean that bong too often.