Talk:Bong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] The user should been known as the smoker
For example the user of a plane is known as a pilot. Same thing here, should be known as the smoker.
[edit] Picture Needs Re-Numbering
When re-writing the "General" section into the "Basic Structure" section, I wrote about number 2 on the picture first because it made the explanation more linear and short. If you want to keep my re-write could someone please update the picture and my numbering. Thank you.
[edit] description
bottom two paragraphs of this seem contradictory. Joints are better, but bongs are better.. hmm
[edit] Sources
Has anyone ever lived that smoked tobacco out of a bong? Not a hookah, a bong?
Large portions of this article are without sources. Are there any unsourced sections that are worth looking for citations for?
brenneman {L} 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Can aluminum (tin) foil be toxic?
The article seems unsure of this; one section says that aluminum foil is toxic when used as a bowl and should not be used, another section says that the vaporization temperature of aluminum is above that of a bic lighter flame, hence it is not toxic.
I think a definitive answer on this is important. Is foil, or an aluminum can safe, or is it not?
- I highly recommend not to use foil. It tastes gross. ReverendG 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] bamboo
i would just like to point out that it is possible to make a type of bong/pipe called a steamroller (ive heard it lovingly named a bamboozie before) out of bamboo by taking a length of bamboo, making it a hollow cylinder, and placing a bowl in the side of one end. you simple place your mouth over the end farthest from the bowl and your hand over the other, you light the bowl, draw smoke into the bamboo cylinder, and then remove your hand from the end and inhale. Exactly like a shotgun, but for one person. --Mad Gouki 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bong, water pipe, Hookah - what are the differences?
I've been dealing a with the terms Bong, water pipe and Hookah in recent edits, but I can't really understand what the difference is. Are bongs and hookah's both waterpipes, if so, what are the differences? Please can someone try to clear this up for me (and please do so in the lead intro of each article!) Jens Nielsen 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Their mechanism is slightly different, although they are both water pipes. I'm sure there's a diagram somewhere showing, idk though. In a hookah, the bowl is at the top and the smoke travels down an inner pipe, bubbles out of the water into the chamber, and then out of the chamber through a hose into the user's mouth. In a bong, the bowl is near the bottom so that it is close to the water, and the smoke doesn't have to travel though a long pipe to get to it. It bubbles directly into the chamber, which is often directly connected to where the user places their mouth. Also the bowls are typically different shapes, and a bong has a carb, and a hookah either doesn't, or it isn't intended to be covered. Also a hookah can have more than one hose, although it doesn't have to. (Don't take my word 100% though, this is just what I've gathered from the articles and my experience.) --Anaraug 04:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Solar Bong?
The solar bong has to be a joke. There are no sources on the internet about solar bongs, and after constructing one I have found it does not work.
never heard of a solar bong, however, solar hits can be taken by replacing a lighter or traditional heat source with a sizeable magnifying glass and the sun. this is rarely done outside of california
[edit] Pics
there are too many pictures. ReverendG 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Restructuring plan
I'm the original writer of the principles and motivations sections some years ago (especially proud that my principles section got illustrated) and I think I know how to improve this article's structure greatly. Some of the restructuring's drastic, which is why I'm explaining it in advance. It is not my stated intention to remove anything at this point, but I do intend to isolate a number of things that aren't actually bong-related in a section that will ultimately be splintered into a new article (named "Other drug smoking methodologies" or whatever). Below is my proposal, with my signature interspersed to facilitate chaotic expansion.rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction and categorization of article: paraphernalia=POV?
The introduction needs a lot of work. I think it's POV to call this drug paraphernalia, but not hookahs or cigarettes or tea kettles. Am I wrong, people? The legality of cannibus is clearly a peripheral issue. This is a technology: when it's used to combust a legal substance a bong is a legal object.rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First major structural change: section 2 leads with the technologies
The overall structure should be changed so that 1.1, parts of 2,2.1,3,4.1, are grouped into a major section (2') named Description of bong technologies. This will also contain a history section; all of those should be more cross-referenced to hookah.
proposed structure of revised section 2:
- General physical layout of a bong
- Physical principles of bong action
- Other bong technologies
- Enhancement of cooling effect (ice tricks, flavorings, special solvents)
- Enhancement of combustion methodology ("vaporiser bong" would get gutted and go here)
- Enhanced control of smoke delivery (slides, carbs, large vs. small chambers, etc)
- Embellishments on the basic bong design
- Improvised (homemade-MacGyvah-soldiah)
- Bubbler
- "Zong" (think this should be merged into enhancements of cooling)rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- The "Motivations" section should be focused on health (or, perceived health) benefits, with a subsection on research into this area.rmbh 07:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Second major change, section 3: care and use, also, a place to isolate anecdotal claims.
I'm going to place the relatively peripheral stuff in some sort of slush category. This will contain the sections 2.2, 2.3, as well as parts of 2.1, and whatever is excised from the material comprising the revised section 2 (above).rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Finally, place the gravity bong and other "pseudo-bong technologies" in some sort of collector section
rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gallery
Make a bong gallery that showcases some different styles of bongs. Acrylic, glass, fat bases, skinny bases, zongs etc... --Arm 03:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. ReverendG 03:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tobacco or Cannabis?
Someone keeps changing Bong to indicate that bongs are used primarily to smoke tobacco. It seems to me that while it might be possible to smoke tobacco in a bong, and this is a reason one might give for owning a bong, it is far more common for bongs to be used in the process of smoking cannabis. I have heard of tobacco pipes, but never tobacco bongs. What do y'all say? BobbyLee 03:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- The user who keeps changing it claims that shops that sell bongs must claim that they are tobacco. I can imagine this being true, but unless he/she finds a verifiable source, then we can't include that information because of WP:NOR. In any case, we already have sources that refer to bongs being primarily used for cannabis, so there is no basis for changing that at all. I would be ok, with "A bong is used for smoking cannabis or ..list of other things.., but they must be sold as if they will be used for tobacco according to the laws in many jurisdictions (cite source)." Or something. We should discuss it further here before adding that though. --Anaraug 03:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok... I tried to strike a compromise, but now that user is blatantly ignoring policy which I have intentionally made him/her aware of, so we're no longer able to assume good faith... We might need to get an admin or someone to do something about it. Until then just keep reverting I guess. --Anaraug 04:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not all English-speaking countries have such laws; the reality is that the majority of bongs sold worldwide are intended for Cannabis use. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know they are. I just meant that it still might be notable enough to mention that some jurisdictions have such a law, but I don't think it's important enough to actively go look for a source, etc. --Anaraug 05:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've always thought of the term waterpipe referring to a bong used for tobacco, but when bong is used it's always weed (or crack). ReverendG 06:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know they are. I just meant that it still might be notable enough to mention that some jurisdictions have such a law, but I don't think it's important enough to actively go look for a source, etc. --Anaraug 05:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not all English-speaking countries have such laws; the reality is that the majority of bongs sold worldwide are intended for Cannabis use. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
He seems to be at it again. ReverendG 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I also see a lot of jargon: "can allow a user on a tight budget to conserve bud and still get toasted." Suggest "smoker to use substance very efficiently." Was whoever wrote the original smoking dope at the time?;-)209.43.10.224 05:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Mike Williamson
- agree with suggestion and, to answer your question, probably. ReverendG 15:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tom & Greg
Vandalism. They're irrelevant to the article.