Skip to main content
Skip to main content

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search »

User menu

  • Login
  • Current Policy
  • Topic/Program Collections
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Alerts
  • Subscribe
  • aap.org

Menu

  • AAP Grand Rounds
  • AAP News
  • Hospital Pediatrics
  • NeoReviews
  • Pediatrics
  • Pediatrics in Review
  • Current AAP Policy
  • Journal CME
  • AAP Career Center
  • Pediatric Collections
  • AAP Journals Catalog

Sections

    • Login
    • Current Policy
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Alerts
    • Subscribe
    • aap.org

    Sign up for Insight Alerts highlighting editor-chosen studies with the greatest impact on clinical care.

    New! Video Abstracts -- brief videos summarizing key findings of new articles

    Know what's next when you read AAP Journals, view the new 2018 Catalog.
    Trainees,
    enter the SOPT Essay Contest for a chance to be published in Pediatrics!

    Advertising Disclaimer »

    Tools and Links

    Pediatrics
    July 2015, VOLUME 136 / ISSUE 1
    From the American Academy of Pediatrics
    Pediatrics Perspective

    Assessing the Dangers of “Dabbing”: Mere Marijuana or Harmful New Trend?

    John M. Stogner, Bryan Lee Miller
    • Article
    • Figures & Data
    • Info & Metrics
    • Comments
    Loading
    Download PDF
  • Abbreviations:
    BHO —
    butane hash oil
    THC —
    tetrahydrocannabinol
  • The practice now known as “dabbing” appears to be quickly proliferating as a fashionable way to use marijuana in the United States.1 Dabbing is the inhalation of a concentrated tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) product created through butane extraction. The use of butane hash oil (BHO) products and the modification of cannabis more generally are not new phenomena, but dabbing has recently moved from relative obscurity to the headlines, leaving cannabis aficionados, adolescents, and parents curious about its effects. Physicians and other health care professionals need to be prepared for discussions about the effects of dabbing to minimize potential harms, particularly because recent marijuana policy changes likely has facilitated youth access to “dabs.”

    BHO is made from cannabis and in many instances may be used to salvage less potent portions of the plant.2 Because BHO production is uncomplicated, requires few resources, and is the subject of countless instructional videos on social media Web sites, recreational users have created BHO at home in a process colloquially called “blasting.” Blasting involves passing butane through a steel or glass tube packed with dried cannabis trimmings. THC and other hydrophobic compounds in the vegetation’s trichomes dissolve within the butane; the butane–THC solution leaves the tube through a filter and is collected in a dish or tray. Because butane is very volatile, it evaporates (or is purged within a vacuum oven), leaving crystalized resins that can have a THC concentration approaching 80%. This product can take many forms depending on heat, pressure, humidity, and other factors. The form most challenging to produce is a clear amber solid referred to as “shatter.” Terms such as “honeycomb,” “budder,” and “earwax” also refer to BHO (a list of colloquial terms that patients may use for dabbing products and devices is presented in Table 1). The process of creating these products is extremely dangerous because butane is flammable and volatile, and a number of fires, explosions, and severe burns have been attributed to home blasting. Fear of incrimination often leads amateur producers to be reticent in seeking medical care and to attribute the damage to some other cause.3,4 Although blasting may be an appealing project for a young cannabis user, the safety risks have been described as comparable to those of manufacturing methamphetamine.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Definitions of Dabbing Terminology Used by Users and Patients

    Compared with flower cannabis use, dabbing is more complex and carries the risk of accidental injury. Young people may use the term “oil rig” to refer to their dabbing paraphernalia, which typically consists of a glass water pipe and a 4- to 6-inch hollow titanium rod called the “nail.” Nails have a concave surface area for dabs that extends beyond the pipe; nails are sometimes covered with a dome.2 The oil rig is prepared by heating the nail with a blowtorch. Once the nail is sufficiently heated, users place a dab onto the nail’s exposed surface. The user inhales as the dab is vaporized by the heat in the nail, pulling its vapors through the nail and water. An underappreciated risk associated with this technique is the open flame. Unlike the lighters used when smoking flower cannabis, which typically pose no more of a threat than a first-degree burn, a blow torch is often used to heat the nail to temperatures >400°C. In addition to the risks inherent in using these types of heating devices while cognitively impaired, there are long-term health risks associated with inhaling offgassing solder, rust from oxidized metal parts, and benzene,5 some of which are increasingly released at higher temperatures. Extracts can also be consumed in other ways, such as the use of a modified electronic cigarette. These techniques avoid some of the indirect risks (eg, fire), but are likely to be associated with similar health consequences.

    The potential health outcomes of BHO as compared with flower cannabis are largely unknown because research on dabbing is clearly lacking. Those promoting the practice have suggested that it is safer in that nonpsychoactive compounds that may cause lung damage are no longer smoked and that the preparation process eliminates bacteria, mold, and fungi.2 Others stress that there are greater acute risks in inhaling all of a more potent form of marijuana in a single breath.6 Loss of consciousness, accidents, and falls have been hypothesized to be more common after dabbing than after traditional cannabis use. Similarly, some have suggested that dabbing is more likely to lead to dependence and withdrawal symptoms,6 but research has yet to substantiate these claims. In the only peer-reviewed manuscript that assesses user reports of dabbing, Loflin and Earleywine6 failed to find dabbing to carry increased risk of accident or injury. However, their sample was limited to experienced cannabis users (n = 357) and may have been unable to detect long-term problems or problems specific to novice users. Legislation and policy changes may be warranted to ameliorate harms associated with dabbing, but without adequate research such action may be premature.

    Some of the potential harms associated with dabbing are potentially moderated in states with regulated production of marijuana for medicinal and recreational purposes because there is less incentive for amateur production, and efficient closed-loop systems are mandated. These closed-loop systems properly ventilate flammable compounds and more efficiently purge butane. Similarly, most potential home cooks and users would likely be dissuaded from engaging in a process that allows flammable gases to accumulate around their homes if they could legally and affordably purchase the product. States that allow commercial production consider “blasting” to be the operation of a drug laboratory; the associated prison sentence probably deters home production of a product that is commercially available. Commercial materials may contain a greater concentration of THC,2 but it is also reasonable to assume that they more effectively purge the product of harmful solvents by using a vacuum oven rather than open-air purging. The closed-loop systems used in the commercial process are also likely to be more environmentally friendly, resource efficient, and fire safe. Of course, the retail availability of dabs and dabbing equipment may make it more accessible and facilitate an increase in experimentation and continued use.

    BHO production and dabbing seem to be on the rise across the United States and necessitates a new message to young people, a message physicians need to help deliver. Health care professionals have the responsibility to remind their patients, particularly those who have used marijuana, of the dangers that may be associated with a stronger product. They serve a key role in educating young people that BHO extract use potentially carries risks beyond that of flower cannabis smoking. Patients’ assumptions that products originating from the same plant are equivalent must be refuted proactively in the clinical setting. Primary care physicians should avoid hyperbolic arguments like those of the media that describe dabbing as “the crack of pot,” and instead urge caution. Patients should be advised that research is lacking, information is still largely anecdotal, and the safest option is to refrain from use when definitive answers are absent. Conversations that lead patients to the conclusion that dabbing may not be as safe as flower cannabis should be a goal and should result in fewer young people engaging in this practice.

    Footnotes

      • Accepted April 1, 2015.
    • Address correspondence to John M. Stogner, PhD, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28223. E-mail: johnstogner{at}uncc.edu
    • Dr Stogner wrote approximately half of the initial manuscript and revised the portions written by Dr Miller; Dr Miller wrote approximately half of the initial manuscript and revised the portions written by Dr Stogner; and both authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

    • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

    • FUNDING: No external funding.

    • POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      1. Kilmer B,
      2. Caulkins JP,
      3. Midgette G,
      4. Dahlkemper L,
      5. MacCoun RJ,
      6. Liccardo PR
      . Before the Grand Opening: Measuring Washington State’s Marijuana Market in the Last Year Before Legalized Commercial Sales. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 2013
    2. 2.↵
      1. Rosenthal E
      . Beyond Buds: Marijuana Extracts—Hash, Vaping, Dabbing, Edibles, and Medicines. Piedmont, CA: Quick American Archives; 2014
    3. 3.↵
      1. Jensen G,
      2. Bertelotti R,
      3. Greenhalgh D,
      4. Palmieri T,
      5. Maguina P
      . Honey oil burns: a growing problem. J Burn Care Res. 2015;36(2):e34–e37
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. 4.↵
      1. Porter CJ,
      2. Armstrong JR
      . Burns from illegal drug manufacture: case series and management. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2004;25(3):314–318
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. 5.↵
      1. Wester RC,
      2. Maibach HI,
      3. Gruenke LD,
      4. Craig JC
      . Benzene levels in ambient air and breath of smokers and nonsmokers in urban and pristine environments. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1986;18(4):567–573
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. 6.↵
      1. Loflin M,
      2. Earleywine M
      . A new method of cannabis ingestion: the dangers of dabs? Addict Behav. 2014;39(10):1430–1433
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. 7.
      1. Black B
      . The official dab dictionary. High Times Magazine. 2013. Available at: www.hightimes.com/read/official-dab-dictionary
    • Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext

     

    Advertising Disclaimer »

    View this article with LENS
    PreviousNext
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Pediatrics.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Assessing the Dangers of “Dabbing”: Mere Marijuana or Harmful New Trend?
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from Pediatrics
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the Pediatrics web site.

    Alerts
    Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Citation Tools
    Assessing the Dangers of “Dabbing”: Mere Marijuana or Harmful New Trend?
    John M. Stogner, Bryan Lee Miller
    Pediatrics Jul 2015, 136 (1) 1-3; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-0454

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Share
    Assessing the Dangers of “Dabbing”: Mere Marijuana or Harmful New Trend?
    John M. Stogner, Bryan Lee Miller
    Pediatrics Jul 2015, 136 (1) 1-3; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-0454
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Print
    PDF
    Insight Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Current Policy
    • Early Release
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Policies
    • Overview
    • Open Access
    • Pediatric Collections
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Submit My Manuscript

    Subjects

    • Substance Use
      • Substance Use
    • Adolescent Health/Medicine
      • Adolescent Health/Medicine
    Back to top

                

    Copyright (c) 2018 by American Academy of Pediatrics

    International Access »           

    Terms of Use
    Privacy Statement
    FAQ

    AAP Pediatrics