Comparing combustion and vaporization requires specifying the product, the device and the outcome studied. The available research does not make it possible to name an unqualified “winner”, nor to describe inhaling cannabis as risk-free.
what respiratory observations say
A survey published in 2007 by Earleywine and Barnwell observed an association between using a vaporizer and reporting fewer respiratory symptoms. Participants answered an online questionnaire. This type of study does not, on its own, demonstrate a causal effect or long-term lung safety.
acute effects that are sometimes stronger
A crossover trial published in 2018 compared the effects of smoked and vaporized cannabis in 17 adults who used it infrequently. Under the conditions of this trial, vaporization produced stronger effects and more impairment of certain performance measures. This result calls for caution; it is not evidence of a health benefit.
not confusing products
The results of a protocol using a specific product and device do not automatically apply to cartridges, liquids, concentrates or other devices. The presence of THC also matters: this research does not consist of trials on hi lab's CBD products.
what remains to be established
Comparisons of yield or environmental impact require measurements suited to the product and device. The studies cited do not establish them. A useful comparison must distinguish exposure, immediate effects and long-term consequences, without promising the absence of risk.
