I've read from varied sources that regarding cannabis smoke, holding the smoke in your lungs for more than 5 seconds only increases THC absorption marginally, if at all, and causes more harmful chemicals to be deposited in the lungs...
if this is true for cannabis smoke, why is salvia smoke different? I would imagine that the absorption of chemicals through the membranes of the lungs would be pretty universal to all materials, but I'm no doctor...
could this possibly be a myth? if it is, then holding the smoke for 30 seconds would actually negatively affect rapid absorption of salvinorin, since the additional 25 seconds could be used for rapid successive hits and would allow less time for metabolization
any thoughts to explain the 30 second rule?
Great thoughts sunsebb: Anybody gonna step up to the plate on this one with a somewhat definitive reply..... ? senorsal
I personally can't hold Salvia smoke in my luings for 30 seconds.
I can hold it for 15-20 and I generaly take around 4-5 hits.
That does the trick.
Must be the influence of our other green friend. :lol:
Yes Sunsebb, very good question!! I acan only speak from personal experience. If I want to feel the effects, I hold my breath. I f I don't don't, I just kinda puff on the pipe,and blow out the smoke......time to get those research grants filed!!!
when i first started I did the hold in method for about 20 seconds (i smoked way to many cigarettes to hold my breath for longer!)...
Now I only hold it in for maybe 4-5 seconds... And I only need 1-2 good hits.
I do believe though that it may be better to hold in the regular dried leaf (no extract) for longer... I suppose to make sure you get all you can out of it lol
But overall I don't hold it in and I haven't noticed a change in effect, though that can always be contributed to the reverse tolerance or to some other reason.
I've hurd that Salvonirin (if correct?) can cause mayor heart aritmija - death.
Read some articles on some german page and it writes about death toll from Salvonirin... Can anybody tell more abouth danger of salvonirin and any other warning reports about Sally?
I have never read about a death being attributed to salvia.
Even rumoring about such is a means to accelerate scheduling of this plant.
Erowid had conducted a survey about salvia use about 1.5 years ago.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/sal ... vey1.shtml (http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia_survey1.shtml)
Many people report feeling like they are having a near death experience.
If there were deaths from salvia, surely either the folks at Erowid or Daniel Siebert at sagewisodom.org would have been alerted to it by now, and they in turn would likely alert others at their sites. That's my speculation.
There is an experience report at erowid of a combination of mirtazapine (remeron) with salvia:
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=32885 (http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=32885)
Quote from: "sunsebb"I've read from varied sources that regarding cannabis smoke, holding the smoke in your lungs for more than 5 seconds only increases THC absorption marginally, if at all, and causes more harmful chemicals to be deposited in the lungs...
if this is true for cannabis smoke, why is salvia smoke different? I would imagine that the absorption of chemicals through the membranes of the lungs would be pretty universal to all materials, but I'm no doctor...
could this possibly be a myth? if it is, then holding the smoke for 30 seconds would actually negatively affect rapid absorption of salvinorin, since the additional 25 seconds could be used for rapid successive hits and would allow less time for metabolization
any thoughts to explain the 30 second rule?
Sounds like a myth, because you have quite a lot of THC in the smoke you blow out. Also the lung are able to absorb at a longer time. Compare when you take a large amount of air before diving under water.
oh... gossips allways do the mess... thanx for explanation;)
I believe it was a MAPS study that concluded holding marijuana smoke in the lungs does more harm than good. I believe the same study concluded that bongs filter more THC (relatively) than harmful elements, so using a bong makes the smoke less safe than using a pipe.
-TM
I believe that study also said that a rolled joint filters more harmfuls and provides an abdunance of thc. Swim prefers a half charcoal filter on his jays.
Use a bong and add good stuff to water to remove toxic stuff but not THC.
Hey sunsebb ! Perhaps redgreenvines has the answer to this . He deposits pre-measured pure salvinorin on pieces of rolling paper and cuts them into small squares . These individual doses have a little wisp of smoke, and are easy on the lungs .
Next to that you could always do quids or other oral methods. :)
Quote from: Green2HermanUse a bong and add good stuff to water to remove toxic stuff but not THC.
Some OH(-) should do the trick. Binding less THC and more dangerous stuff to the water.
Quote from: "Green2Herman"Quote from: "Green2Herman"Use a bong and add good stuff to water to remove toxic stuff but not THC.
Some OH(-) should do the trick. Binding less THC and more dangerous stuff to the water.
stupid questions, but what were you referring to when you mentioned 'good stuff' and suggested adding it to bong water(where legal) so that the water filters out more tar/carnigens and less thc?
and OH is just hydrogen peroxide, right? are you suggesting to just add a little of that to the bong water?
thanks
i could accually agree with that i smokedd a few months ago and i believe i was getting pretty high when all i wanted to do was keep the pipe lit for someone else whil he smoked cause he couldn't keep it lit. ( i barely inhaled the smoke)