This article is very misleading and inaccurate. The overall arch of the article implies that it is the substances THC and nicotine that are responsible for the different outcomes, even though, buried within and given no prominence, the article states that it is the difference in the aerosol delivery compounds that re likely t the heart of the difference. This is the same kind of deceptive reporting, even down to the specific aspect being muddled, that was so prevalent last time there was national controversy about vaped products. In addition, the inaccuracies and misconceptions are furthered by conflating two different technologies when setting up the story. The large, old cannabis vaporizers, and indeed, the smaller cannabis flower vaporizers discussed early in the article do not use an aerosol delivery method like the ones represented in the story. The cannabis and nicotine vaporizers studied are a completely separate tech, with very different health impacts. Treating these two very different techs as if they are one form of technology is not scientific, honest, or informed journalism. Iwould hope that future coverage of such topics will be more thoroughly researched and reported on.
Thanks
Blaine Mitchel, founder CHC (Cannabis Homegrowers Coalition)