Full length articleOnline survey characterizing vaporizer use among cannabis users
Introduction
The prevalence of using electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) to vaporize nicotine is rapidly growing and generating debate and research on its potential benefit and harm (Arrazola et al., 2015, Gostin and Glasner, 2014, Hajek et al., 2014). Similarly, devices now use similar electronic technologies to vaporize cannabis, and this practice is gaining popularity as an alternative to smoking cannabis products. Vaporizing, or ‘vaping’ cannabis refers to the process of heating cannabis concentrates, liquid, or plant material to a temperature that releases an aerosolized mixture of water vapor and active cannabinoids, which is then consumed by inhalation. Vaping devices for cannabis vary widely, from large tabletop units to small pen-style devices that are similar to e-cigs, and depending on the device, additional substances such as flavoring agents can be added to enhance the vaping experience (Giroud et al., 2015). Few studies have examined the practice of vaping cannabis, and little is known about its prevalence, patterns, or consequences.
Two small survey studies suggest that cannabis users believe vaping to be less harmful to their health than typical combustible smoking methods (Etter, 2015, Malouff et al., 2014), which is similar to tobacco users perceptions of e-cigs (Zhu et al., 2013). This theoretical benefit relates to reduction in the ingestion of potentially harmful cannabis smoke, which contains tar (phenols and carcinogens such as benzopyrene and benzanthracene), ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and nitrosamines in comparable amounts to tobacco smoke (Tashkin, 2013), a benefit that may extend to concerns about second-hand cannabis smoke. A laboratory study evaluating contents of cannabis smoke and vapor found that the vaporizer extracted more active cannabinoids with fewer carcinogenic byproducts than smoking at 230 °C, but lower temperatures extracted minimal amounts of cannabinoids, suggesting that temperature control is important (Pomahacova et al., 2009). A study directly comparing the impact of smoking vs. vaping cannabis reported fewer respiratory problems associated with vaping (Earleywine and Barnwell, 2007), supporting the contention that vaping affords a harm reduction effect on respiratory disorders caused by cannabis smoking.
Aside from this potential health advantage of vaping over smoking, initial surveys have identified a number of other appealing aspects of vaping (Etter, 2015, Malouff et al., 2014). First, some believe that vaping provides a more efficient way to use cannabis (more positive effect for less cost or effort). Objective evidence for differences in psychoactive effects between vaping and smoking is lacking, however; a laboratory study of three cannabis cigarette concentrations (1.7%, 3.4%, and 6.8% THC) did not show clear differences in ratings of “high” between vaping and smoking, but 14 of 18 participants reported preference for vaping and expired carbon monoxide levels were lower after vaping (Abrams et al., 2007). Survey respondents identified two other positive features of vaping: better taste and the ability to use it more discreetly with little or no smell (Etter, 2015, Malouff et al., 2014).
As with use of e-cigs, public health concerns related to vaping cannabis warrant attention (Budney et al., 2015). First, little is known about the potential negative effects of acute and long-term inhalation of aerosols emitted by vaping devices. While vaping eliminates many of the potentially harmful byproducts of cannabis smoke (Pomahacova et al., 2009), more information is needed to determine the overall safety profile of vaporization. Second, the perceived positive attributes of vaping cannabis mentioned above could result in increased prevalence or frequency of cannabis use. Perceptions that vaping is a safer, better tasting experience that provides a more efficient high and can be used discreetly in locations where smoking cannot occur could contribute to earlier initiation of use, more rapid escalation of use, more frequent use, and therefore more problematic use of cannabis. Last is the contribution of vaping cannabis to an emerging “vaping culture” (Gostin and Glasner, 2014), which includes marketing of vaping devices not just for nicotine or cannabis, but for inhaling non-psychoactive flavors, which could increase the prevalence and decrease age of onset of cannabis (or nicotine) use via vaping devices.
The primary goal of the present online survey was to characterize age of onset, prevalence, and current patterns of vaping among cannabis users. Facebook was utilized to facilitate rapid data collection in a large, national sample of cannabis users and to obtain initial benchmarks for vaping. Previous studies have begun to assess trends in vaporizer use (Etter, 2015, Malouff et al., 2014), however, sample sizes were small and only included individuals that reported vaping cannabis and/or nicotine, so prevalence among cannabis users, and differences between cannabis users that vaped vs. never vaped were not assessed. To address these gaps, this survey assessed: (1) lifetime and current prevalence of vaping, (2) demographic differences between those who vape and those who do not, (3) reasons for vaping, (4) comparisons between smoking and vaping, (5) within-person vaping and smoking patterns, and (6) the relationship between vaping and other substance use (e.g., tobacco use, vaping flavors).
Section snippets
Participants and recruitment
Participants were adult (≥18 years of age) cannabis users from the United States who responded to advertisements on Facebook seeking volunteers to complete an online survey about cannabis use. Advertisements for the survey were shown to a targeted audience of cannabis users through proprietary marketing algorithms that utilized Facebook users' self-reported interests. Examples of the self-reported interests that were used to target cannabis users included organizations with pro-cannabis
Participant characteristics
Advertisements for the survey were shown to 168,894 people, out of whom 3708 (2.2%) clicked the advertisement link, and of which 2910 (1.7%) were included in the final sample. Respondents were excluded if they: did not consent (N = 60), did not report ever using cannabis (N = 103), responded incorrectly to a data check question asking them to choose the number 4 from a 5-choice categorical response (N = 47), were not from the United States (N = 13), or if they failed to respond any of these items (N =
Discussion
The majority of cannabis users in this sample had tried vaping cannabis, but frequent vaping was less common, and only a small subset of cannabis users preferred vaping to smoking, or indicated that vaping had substantially changed their frequency of smoking cannabis. These findings are similar to a previous report indicating that only a minority of individuals report vaping as primary method for cannabis use (Earleywine and Barnwell, 2007). Although detailed data on the marketing of vaping
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Role of funding source
Funding for this study was provided by NIH-NIDA grants R01-DA032243, P30-DA029926, and T32-DA037202; the NIH had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Contributors
D.C.L., B.S.C., J.D.S. and A.J.B. designed the survey. B.S.C. managed online recruitment efforts. D.C.L., B.S.C. and J.T.B. conducted the analyses of the data. D.C.L. and A.J.B. wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the writing and have approved the final manuscript.
References (22)
- et al.
Vaporization as a smokeless cannabis delivery system: a pilot study
Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.
(2007) - et al.
The co-occurring use and misuse of cannabis and tobacco: a review
Addiction
(2012) - et al.
Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011–2014
MMWR
(2015) - Borodovsky, J.T., Crosier, B.S., Lee, D.C., Sargent, J.D., Budney, A.J., 2015. Smoking, Vaping, Eating: Is Legalization...
- et al.
Vaping cannabis (marijuana): parallel concerns to e-cigs?
Addiction
(2015) 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables
(2015)- et al.
Time for dabs: analyzing Twitter data on marijuana concentrates across the US
Drug Alcohol Depend.
(2015) - et al.
Decreased respiratory symptoms in cannabis users who vaporize
Harm Reduct. J.
(2007) Electronic cigarettes and cannabis: an exploratory study
Eur. Addict. Res.
(2015)- et al.
E-cigarettes: a review of new trends in cannabis use
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
(2015)
The Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS): psychometric properties of the SDS in English and Australian samples of heroin, cocaine and amphetamine users
Addiction
Cited by (117)
Flavored Cannabis Use and Cannabis-Tobacco Co-use: Patterns In U.S. States With Legalized Nonmedical Adult Use
2023, American Journal of Preventive MedicineMarijuana use behaviors on Texas college campuses
2023, Addictive BehaviorsVaping preferences of individuals who vaporise dry herb cannabis, cannabis liquids and cannabis concentrates
2022, Drug and Alcohol DependenceSociodemographic differences in patterns of nicotine and cannabis vaping among US adults
2022, Preventive Medicine Reports