Talk:Cannabis smoking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Objection to overdose equipment pictures

  • Wouldnt displaying the brand name "Bugler" associated with rolling and smoking Cannabis be considered libelous?

I think it can be considered biased-- toward the tobacco company which markets Bugler, and toward tobacco companies in general which benefit from (especially young) cannabis users being miseducated to think cigarets and rolling papers, rather than a low-burning-temperature utensil, to be the "normal" way to smoke cannabis. It is a step along the way to recruiting them into tobacco cigaret addiction. A further step is to glamorize the idea of rolling cannabis in a cigar skin which contains nicotine. (Thankfully the brandname picture was removed.)


As of April 2008 children consulting this article in search of true information about cannabis smoking options are being shown a "glass piece" (wide-bowl pipe) so large that easily a gram ($10?) will fit inside. For balance could there be at least one picture of a non-carbon-monoxide-overdose alternative, i.e. a vaporizer or a single toke utensil permitting 25-mg. servings (see below)? The Japanese Kiseru and middle-eastern Midwakh are established traditional narrow-crater utensils and could be pictured here instead of only the Big Bowl.

Although I agree that the smaller dosage methods may be nice for newer users a .5 joint or a gram bowl is NOT OVERDOSE EQUIPMENT I have personally participated in a hotbox where four people smoked two 3.5gram blunts and a gram joint, that works out to two grams of cronic whiteman weed, not asian shake, and none of us O.D. by any stretch of the imagination.
In fact it is virtually impossible to O.D. on cannabis because you would go unconscious before you could and to even reach that state you would need to smoke copious amounts of weed. Besides there is no point in smoking that much because before you reach that stage you will invariably green out and what a waste of weed that would be. Potheadpoet (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
With US$280/oz. herb that 3.5-g. "blunt" costs $35-- where do you get the money? Most readers can't afford that.

Dude life must harsh living where prices are that high i can get that 3.5 grams for $25 and with the canadian $ on par thats the same in US$ life rocks in canada after all we burned washignton. The Great White North all the way Potheadpoet (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The case for the non-overdose approach is that when you hot-burn a lot of herb you destroy much THC, and overdose not on the THC but on the carbon monoxide etc.! The wider the bowl, the harder you have to suck to get all the smoke, increasing oxygen flow and burning the herb hotter. (But let us agree on borrowing pictures from the kiseru and midwakh articles to replace the big bowl shown?)Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to borrowing photos, but i think it would be wrong to replace the current photo. perhaps it would be more appropriate to acquire a photo which displays the great range of devices for consuming marijauna from the diminutive kiseru to the larger pipes Potheadpoet (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vaporizers should be at top of article

Because of the known hazards of smoking, the first order of business should be for everyone interested in cannabis to know of this recently introduced alternative to smoking. In fact, the vaporizer is the most important thing in the history of smoking even if, with the progress of technology, it means the end of smoking as we have known it (good riddance).

[edit] More info about vaporizers needed

The Volcano vaporizer, endorsed in April 2007 by NORML Director Allen F. St. Pierre, costs US$600-- steep, but think again, it sounds like a bargain compared to a $2000/year pack-a-day cigaret habit, or the "blunt" method mentioned above for cannabis. Other models range down as far as $24.99, but are they reliable or worth the money? Can very small servings, such as 25 mg., be used effectively in all vaporizers? More reporting on this would benefit the public-- both tobacco and cannabis users.

[edit] "Marshall Plan" for smokers?

The Clinton-Gore settlement (1998) provides $US200 billion tobacco money to the U. S. government, which is supposed to be used for stop-smoking programs. (Instead, states and municipalities have hijacked most of the money for the usual budget culprits-- roads, schools, etc.)

What if the U.S. taxpayer bought every cigaret smoker (45 million) a $600 Volcano (27 billion dollars)? This one-time expense could eventually eliminate a national cost of over $50 bil. every year treating cigaret-related expenses. (Every country on the planet today has a similar problem with cigarets and it is getting worse in China and India. World cigaret mortality 5.4 million per year -- WHO Feb. 2008.)

[edit] Semi-vaporizer

As long as a durable, guaranteed vaporizer is unaffordable for large populations, a major part of this article should feature low-temperature burning, narrow-crater one-hitters, mini-toke, kiseru, midwakh, etc. which may be considered "semi-vaporizers" because the slow rate of burning permits THC to vaporize out of herb particles before they start burning, heated as they are by the burning of adjacent particles.

[edit] Burning temperature comparisons also incomplete

A vaporizer can be set to heat the herb at 410° F or less, whereas a typical 700-mg.-overdose nicotine cigaret burns at 1500° F/860° C when the user is sucking on it. Somewhere in between are

(a) the narrower hand-rolled cigaret or "joint", probably less hot than the "regular" 1500° F., and

(b), far less hot, the narrow enclosed-screened-crater utensil (for those who think they can't afford a vaporizer).

(For decades cigaret companies have fought against the idea of a slower-burning, narrower cigaret by providing it, but only combined with huge advertising campaigns to stigmatize it as "for women only", so men and boys would be ashamed to smoke a slender, less hot-burning cigaret.)

So far there is a shortage of published research on how much lower a temperature is achieved by rolling a narrower cigaret, or by means of a quarter-inch-diameter utensil using 25-mg. servings, probably because researchers fear the clout of the tobacco industry (lose funding, tenure, etc.). What if the difference turns out to be hundreds of degrees? Such figures, once published, could affect public attitudes about smoking and "change the world" (Wikimedia slogan at fund-raising time). If cannabis users figure out a way to prevent 5.4 million tobacco deaths a year, a $$Nobel Prize might be available with which some organization like NORML could fund more research to benefit cannabis users.)Tokerdesigner (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

man you need to realise what verifibility is. you constantly rant on how large bowls joints blunts etc burn hot and destroy the THC however according to yourself you have no proof your pulling this out of your ass. if you do have proof reference it. otherwise stop scaring people away from the many options for smoking weed and recklesly promoting your PREFERENCE. Potheadpoet (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One-hitter or mini-toke utensil

1. Requires herb that has been sifted through a 1/16"/1.6 mm gauze or wire screen strainer.

2. permits lowest burning temperature, and least destruction of herb nutrient, by having a narrow-diameter (screened) crater-- optimally 1/4 inch (6 or 6.5mm.)i.d.

3. One can draw air very slowly and obtain all effluent-- no "side stream smoke".

4. A long flexible drawtube-- 23 inches recommended-- permits hot gases plenty of distance (and time) to travel before they reach your trachea.

The easiest way to make your conservation utensil is with a 1/4" or 6 mm. (inner diameter) socket wrench. Position a 1/40" mesh screen about 3/16" down into the hex end. Into the square (driver) end thrust a 1/4" o.d. flexible tube. Wrap with duct tape to eliminate leakage. Wire on a 2" safety pin for clearing screen passageways before each 25 mg. serving. Have q-tips, prickly pipecleaners and a small bottle of rubbing alcohol handy for cleanouts.

I argue the above life-saving information belongs in a popular encyclopedia article even if an encyclopedia is not "normally" a how-to guide. See Wikipedia:Ignore all rules-- i.e. where needed to make a better encyclopedia. Or at least include a reference to [1] which does describe ways to make a single toke utensil.

[edit] Difficulties facing legalization of safe smoking equipment

In reverse order the two biggest nightmares of the tobacco industry are:

2. Legalization of marijuana will help some smokers eliminate a tobacco habit;

1. Legalization of marijuana will mean de facto legalization of "paraphernalia" i.e. miniature-dosage utensils. If this conservative approach to smoking is adopted by the mass of cigaret addicts, and "a smoke" means one 25-mg. toke instead of ten puffs on a 700-mg. cigaret, the cigaret industry profit margin is doomed. (And the yearly tobacco death toll from cigarets, 5.4 million according to February 2008 WHO estimate, might also disappear.)

In the USA, which dominates anti-cannabis law-enforcement worldwide and bullies other countries into staying in line, immense tobacco industry campaign contribution money has gone to the "anti-drug" Republican Party and especially to elect candidates who pass "head shop laws" (against any smoking equipment that doesn't promote big profit overdose) under pretext of suppressing illegal cannabis.

Thus today young persons who attempt to be responsible about their health by obtaining a vaporizer or a single toke utensil risk being "caught", accused, prosecuted, banned from college loans etc., and many therefore turn to the hot-burning "joint" because it is easier to hide or cheaper to dispose of (imagine having your $600 Volcano Vaporizer confiscated).

[edit] Suggested legal and political measures

Under the circumstances anyone interested in possessing and using a conservative utensil might consider demanding a letter from his/her congressman or prescribing physician authorizing use of same for reducing a tobacco habit-- or for basil, marjoram, oregano, sage, savory, thyme or other legal herb of choice.

Cannabis legalization organizations such as NORML should press for a legal framework which rewards responsible users for adopting smoking harm reduction procedures.Tokerdesigner (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording and Simplifying

Can someone Tackle this sentance for me

"Users have reported a more euphoric hallucinogen type high, because the vapor contains more pure THC"

[edit] Double

  • This article is good, but it needs to mention the use of double wrapped joints.--EZ 07:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds very papery. To what exactly do you refer? El Rojo 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I smoke marijuana, me and my friends like to double wrap our joints so it burns slowly--EZ 21:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This sounds like original research. Can you cite another source? 24.213.197.5 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. No question some people like smoking paper, SqueakBox 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

--Sounds like someone enjoys inhaling excess amounts of harmful chemicals. Good luck with that. For the rest of us who have enough money to not sweat a joint burning to quickly, this blunt's for you. --Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 14:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

yes but a "blunt" ruins the taste of the cannabis.--69.117.126.77 03:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    • I prefer smoking average weeed out of blunts to mask the taste. Good weed that has that fruity taste goes straight to the glass pieces for me.
  • Watch out, "blunt" cigar wrapper leaf contains addictive nicotine-- sneaky way to get youngsters hooked.

yep this is very dumb, your just smoking more paper not more herb, we only ever do this if we tear or mess up the roach end of a joint and cant be bothered to re-roll, it is not a good practice (82.47.164.103 06:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Nonsensicality

Hey, could someone reword this sentence because it makes absolutely no sense and I have no idea what it means anyway:

Bongs are one of the most inefficient methods of smoking, because while very little smoke is wasted due to burning while not being inhaled, more active ingredient is lost than tars, due to the presence of a chamber and carburetor, although large-chambered bongs can ignite cannabis at a very fast pace. 128.138.177.28 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Origin of bongs

I have removed the idea that the bong was invented in Vietnam and brought to the States by soldiers as pure fantasy, bongs were clearly very common in Jamaica, Africa, etc. before the Vietnam war, the idea that the US brought the bong to the greater world outside vietnam is laughable, lol, SqueakBox 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different types

This sounds like it's describing a gravity bong rather than a dry-smoking pipe and should be placed appropriately in the article:

"A bucket (so named in Scotland, other variations exist for England, USA etc) is a variation on the chillum device which uses gravity alone to pull the cannabis into a chamber. A bottle with its bottom removed (glass recommended, plastic in emergencies) is used as the chamber - in the case of glass, a technique of placing stones or heavy crews into the bottle, re-capping it then placing it into a bag before shaking until the bottom falls off is pleasantly effecttive. The body (neck etc removed) of a larger bottle used for the container. The larger bottle is filled with water, and the chamber bottle is placed into the water. A 'gauze' (not a true gauze but more commonly perforated tin-foil shaped to fit, or sometimes the bottle's lid - in good practice, scraping off the coloured paint, removing the inner plastic seal and shaping and perforating) is then securely placed on the bottle before the cannabis (normally raw, but can be supplemented with tobacco) is burnt on. To extract the smoke, the bottle is pulled from the water slowly whilst the cannabis is being burned, with the gravity caused by the enclosed nature of the air trppaed by the water sucking the smoke into the vacuum. To smoke the device, the lid is removed and the (raw) smoke is enhaled. Due to the quantity and the unfiltered nature of the cannabis, in addition to an undetectable small amount of butane gas from the lighter, the high from this method can be powerful and long-lasting. However, the unavoidable short-term side-effects, namely sore throat, choking and coughing, also combine with longer-term damage of the throat, brain and lungs due to the heat from the smoke, the oils from the cannabis, the volume of smoke, the Effects on mental health psychologial issues and the antisocial nuture of the method as compared to joint joints, for example. This means that the bucket is most often used by young experimental smokers looking for a quick hit often, before eventuallly being disregarded in favour of more healthy and socially-acceptable methods of smoking cannabis."

Not forgetting the prohibitive price of cannabis in the developed world. It is much more likely to be used by adults in the developing world where cannabis is considerably cheaper. Please source any alleged damage cannabis causes to the brain, SqueakBox 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

^^^He speaks the truth. Let this dude rewrite the article.--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?

""Also known as "Power-hit" it's a really intimate way for a couple to share a marijuana cigarette, since the lips nearly kiss. This particular method also works well on a low supply, because you both get the effects out of only one hit.""

One hit? Nah...you are actually just recycling a hit along with giving them another hit (common sense, you are BLOWING the end of the joint, which actually makes it burn faster than if the other person was just hitting it normally.) This is a small moot point, but I feel should be corrected.--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us not forget that the lungs absorb nearly all the THC, so sharing a hit would be worthless. 67.102.78.214 07:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I have a friend who doesn't smoke cigarettes, and has mild asthma. Her partner smokes from a bowl, and after each hit - held for about 15 seconds - they "kiss" and he exhales into her mouth. She gets just as high, if not higher, than her partner. This method allows my friend to smoke without causing as much damage to her lungs, and there is no harshness. And the bonus is, they save $$ with only having to buy 1/2 as much. So, there's plenty of THC in a hit for at least two people! JBAccountant (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] gravity bong/bucket

it says that a bucket is pulled slowly from the water while it is not neccasary to pull slow the speed doesnt matter at all if you pull slowly or quickly the same amount of "product" is burnt. [New person] You're welcome for fixing the spelling errors. This has been Anomynous. BTW SMOKING POT IS BAD FOR YOU!!! DON'T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT! IT MAKES ME SICK! Ecripps (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)ecripps

Some of the gravity bong section should be taken a look at. Obviously there is the problem of citing research for longer term damage on the lungs and brain by gravity bongs. (Of course that is a big problem here at Wikipedia). Secondly, in my opinion, using a gravity bong for cannabis intake is not antisocial in nature. I won't delve further into the subject but I would like some input please.

I agree, I removed a duplicate section on the gravity bong as well as removing the ridiculous statements about damage to lungs/brain and antisocial nature but it was reverted

[edit] rewrite

i'm nominating this article for a rewrite; some sections are dreadfully unencyclopaedic/POV, and read more like something from the anarchist's cookbook than an encyclopaedia. --Kaini 01:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed there is terrible bias. This article has been edited by people who do not know what they are talking about. Where did the knife hits section disappear to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.233.190 (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. The article needs a rewrite because it is horribly unencyclopedic. For example, it rambled on for a paragraph or two about a regional practice using knives that is actually pretty rare in the rest of the world. That section got whacked while I was working on cleaning this article. I'll grant maybe a sentence on the knives thing would be worthwhile, but not more than that.
And don't assume people don't know what they are talking about just because they make an edit you disagree with. Wikipedia is not a discriminate collection of information, nor is it a how-to guide. Just because something is true doesn't mean it makes sense to ramble on about it in an encyclopedia. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natives of what?

"Smoking the pipe is historically the oldest method of smoking anything, even tobacco. It was the original way to smoke cannabis (except when natives would burn large quantities of plants in a bonfire and inhale the smoke), and has been the de facto standard for thousands of years."

[edit] This seems ridiculous.

"The "joint" is smoked down until it begins to burn the users fingers."

umm its actually true--69.117.126.77 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

yep this is true (82.47.164.103 05:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

at least by anyone sensible (Wcbradley (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

roach clips are for wussiesMjpresson (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

well it could be to written "too hot to hold comfortably" or something along those lines, also its a different story if your trying to avoid singeing your moustache. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.218.63 (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link

I think it should be removed and replaced with something that doesn't paramount to a website that is trying to sell a book about marijuana using half naked "models". It is more advertisement then information, which it really doesn't contain any of. 67.102.78.214 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shotgun Method

just like to make a note on this, the writer of the page refers to this act as a shotgun however in yorkshire england this method is known as a blowback, the shotgun is another method of smoking whereby the user takes the inner cardboard of a toilet roll and pokes a small hole in one end of it, the user then places the roach end of a joint into this hole, then the user places his hand over one end of the toilet roll tube and places the other end against his mouth, you then suck to fill the tube with smoke, then release you hand from allowing the smoke to fly into your lungs. this method can also be used with a plastic bottle by placing a two small holes in it, one at the bottom to hold the roach end of the joint and another to act as a rush-hole which is coverd by a finger. Also during the war in vietnam american solders used their shotgun barrels as a pipe, this method was also refered to as a shotgun. in my history of cannabis use i have never heard the term shotgun refer to the bloback method as is written in the article (82.47.164.103 05:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Just curious

It failed to mention about blunts that are dipped into some kind of lubricant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.3.109 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of information about slow combustion

I have removed the following part of the introduction as I can't find any literature to back it up. I will keep an eye out though.

Slow combustion breaks down certain cellulose products found in the cell walls of the cells of the cannabis plant[citation needed].
This allows access to some of the psychoactive elements inside while attempting to preserve as much of the chemical as possible.

I think it's probably more to do with lower heat not destroying the psychoactive chemicals than the story about cellulose and cell walls 121.72.129.13 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joints

I changed the word 'America' to 'the United States' to avoid confusion. Also, I mentioned that cannabis smokers in Eastern Canada generally follow the described European practice of putting a rolled piece of heavy paper in the end of a joint, noting that here it is called a 'filter'. I have no reference to cite other than the fact that I'm Canadian and I have markedly noticed that that's how it's done with little exception (at least in Eastern Canada). Jmmcdonald (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Spliff filters", as mentioned above, are becoming the norm at least among the California medical smokers. The cannabis dispensaries here sell the roll-up filters and the pre-rolled spliffs they sell there are always made with these filters now. "Dude, you need to roll a filter for that j"Mjpresson (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking filters or roaches? The latter are very common in Europe (especially amongst tobacco smokers as tobacco is often put in the joint, certainyl using cigarettes rather than rolling tobacco the reason is doubtless to avoid a mouth full of loose tobacco) but a filter is quite different. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] blunts and hotboxing

I added a more extensive section on blunts since they seem woefully underrepresented here as a pothead who often goes through a quarter ounce a week I find the are simply the best method for smoking large amounts I also added a section on hotboxing since i could find almost no info on this procedure even though in my area, southern Ontario Canada, i find this practice to be very common I don't have enogh citations so I would be gratefull to anyone who could add some to my work thnx Potheadpoet (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you need to reliably source any editions or they seem like original research. While I found your piece on hotboxing highly amusing without being able to verify it we cannot include it. Please read the links I have just given you. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reordering

As it looks now the headlines looks as follows:

   * 1 Vaporization
   * 2 Smoking
         o 2.1 Smoking Pipe
         o 2.2 One-hitters
         o 2.3 Other designs
               + 2.3.1 Glass blunt
               + 2.3.2 Chillum
               + 2.3.3 Steamroller
    * 3 Rolled
         o 3.1 Joint
         o 3.2 Blunt
               + 3.2.1 Description
               + 3.2.2 Production
               + 3.2.3 Benefits
               + 3.2.4 Etymology
   * 4 Bong
         o 4.1 Gravity bongs
   * 5 Shotgun
   * 6 Double toke
   * 7 Gravity Bubbler
   * 8 Hotboxing
         o 8.1 Procedure
         o 8.2 Benefits
         o 8.3 Cons
   * 9 Mixing with tobacco or other herbs
         o 9.1 Spinning
         o 9.2 The Mix
         o 9.3 Alternative herbs
         o 9.4 Khoi
   * 10 External links
   * 11 References

Its split up between how to consume the cannabis. Therfore I suggest smoking

* 1 Consumption (is normally done by inhaling vapor but can also be digested etc.)
         o Vaporizers
         o Pipes
             +Bongs
                 +Gravitybongs
                 +Double toke
             +Chillums
             +Steamrollers
             +Double toke
         o Rolled
             +Joint
                  +Shotgun
             +Blunt
                  +Description
                  +Production
                  +Benefits
                  +Etymology
        o Hotboxing
        o Mixing with tobacco or other herbs
             + Spinning
             + The Mix
             + Alternative herbs
             + Khoi
   * 10 External links
   * 11 References

I will start to rewrite/ reaarange the article according to this table of content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikhansson1 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One-hitters

Since your new schedule doesn't mention these, I am concerned that they remain included for most urgent reason of public health. Probably at the behest of tobacco interests, which have had their way for over a century glamorizing the heaviest overdose methods of smoking, most references on riefer have emphasized the 500-mg. "joint", 1-gram "blunt" and big-bowl pipes.

These smoking methods result in a burning temperature near that of the conventional commercial cigaret (reported as 1500° F/860° C) which destroys a high percentage of the THC before it has a chance to vaporize, whereas the narrow-crater one-hitter or minitoke (or kiseru or midwakh), used by someone who knows how to suck slow enough, can achieve a much lower burning temperature and thus much more THC vaporizes while the herb particle it is in is heated by an adjacent particle which has started burning.

[edit] "Semivaporizer"

The user gets much more THC, versus less heat shock, tar and carbon monoxide, thus the one-hitter is better than any of the "traditional" (i.e. glamorized by tobacco culture) hot-burning-overdose smoking methods, even if less good than a more expensive vaporizer. I think the one-hitter can be thought of as a semi-vaporizer and worth recommending to anyone who thinks they can't afford a Volcano ($600) or less recommended vaporizer ($100 and up).Tokerdesigner (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed part of the one-hitter article

I took the liberty of cutting this part out: "Don't smoke any material that does not grind through a 1/16th-inch screen strainer-- it can be used in tea instead." As much fun as it is, try to balance the article. It's an encyclopedia, not a handbook (also, use of the word "Don't" is informal). If this can be rephrased from a more neutral POV, I'm all for reincluding this. --George The Man (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too positive

This article almost promotes it's use. Can we see some "effects of smoking" please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.240.25 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is why we have an edit button. Please contribute. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, if he's got anything that hasn't been disproven by now, I'd love to hear it. --George The Man (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm tired of all the bickering, exaggeration, and false information that comes with the politics of cannabis. This is not the place for this debate, and the authors have done a pretty good job of avoiding it. We need fewer fear-mongering "effects of smoking" bulletins. I'd like to request that someone a little more knowledgeable than I start an encyclopedia entry similar to the one on "the short term effects of alcohol" for pot to actually give people some warning. -Outskut 09:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I can't tell whose comments are whose

The top of this page confuses the hell out of me. Could people please not interleave their comments with other people's comments? Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please read WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS before continuing

A number of recent edits to this article, while probably well-intentioned, are clearly pushing a particular pov regarding the "best" method of smoking marijuana. Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of these claims, they must be well-sourced, verifiable, and cannot constitute original research on the part of the person adding them. Reiterating how many people die from tobacco each year does nothing to change this; if your claims aren't verifiable, then there is absolutely no reason for me to believe that bending the rules of Wikipedia will save any lives. I cannot know if it's the truth or not if it's not verifiable, and Wikipedia is not the place to make your case.

For starters, I moved the Vaporization section waaay down in the article. This is an article about cannabis smoking, so the fact that smoking is unhealthy is irrelevant when deciding what to put in the article. That's what the article is about to begin with. Putting vaporization at the top, when it is an uncommon method of smoking (and may not even constitute smoking at all, depending on your definition), is a clear violation of the policy WP:UNDUE, which prohibits giving undue weight to fringe opinions.

Also, all of this stuff about the size of the "crater"... This is all original research and opinion. I see very little backing this up. You cannot just add it to the article and assert that it is true.

This entire article needs to be sourced and fixed up. Injecting one's own opinion is not the place to start. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with all of what J said. Vaporization should not be given a disproportionate representation and this whole article is sadly lacking sources. I plan to go through this article and all {{fact}} tags to any claim that I think needs referencing. .Much that is OR needs to be removed (1 == 2)Until 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is almost a case for speedy and start again, or reduce to a stub and start again, I certainly agree it has multiple and chronic problems. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The 420 article used to be as bad as this, but with a bit a clear cutting and careful monitoring we can bring it up to quality. (1 == 2)Until 22:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've gotta go, and I don't think I can do much to help this article in the next five mintues ;) But I'll check back tomorrow. "Clear cutting" is the right phrase, I think. It's a shame to see so much good faith work be flushed down the toilet, but we'll need to cut deep on this article to get it into shape.
Also, a trimmed, cleaner, well-sourced article will be easier to protect against pov, unsourced claims, and soapboxing -- because the substandard edits will jump right out at ya. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, when an article is a mess it is hard to tell a POV pusher that his POV must meet standards that are not being otherwise applied. We can get rid of all of it as we go and we will have a firmly defensible position without picking on anyone specifically. (1 == 2)Until 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Our only goal is to create a good encyclopedia, even in Europe many young people do not start smoking tobacco just because they smoke cannabis.

That 5.4 million a year die from tobacco (World Health Organization (2008, February 11). Tobacco Could Kill One Billion By 2100, WHO Report Warns. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080210092031.htm) is relevant to a Smoking Cannabis article because of the fact, for example, that millions of youngsters have gotten hooked on tobacco by following somebody's advice to mix in tobacco with cannabis (not just because they smoke cannabis). Over the decades since the 60's 5%, say, of the total cigaret smokers may have started this way; 5% of 5.4 million deaths is 270,000 a year, or 3-1/2 hiroshimas.

Wikipedia has a service to perform ("Help Wikimedia change the world!"--recent appeal to fundgivers) which includes supplying needed warnings to those, especially young, who followed Google to this very article in pursuit of directions how to (safely) use cannabis. Even if Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, the title supplied to the masses by Google suggests so, and so maybe the title "Cannabis smoking" is untenable in a Wikipedia article. The urgent duty to warn the unwary transcends following rules, however good they are most of the time. Check WHO press conference of February 7, 2008 [www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2008/080207_Tobacco.doc.htm][www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/en/].

[edit] Bloomberg money

Note that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the WHO $US150,000,000 of his own money for the new anti-tobacco initiative. If Wikipedia, through its Cannabis smoking article, promises to solve the tobacco problem worldwide Mr. Bloomberg is likely to give a little money to Wikipedia too.

Vaporization is "uncommon" because it is a new technology. Check the links to April 19, 2007 study, which was followed by NORML endorsement. There are also at least two ways to make your own home-made vaporizer which belong in this article, even as just a link to wikihow, because the options exist and are potentially life-saving. etc.

Check March 24, 2008 statement by NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre in support of new bill sponsored by Rep. Barney Franks to eliminate arrests and penalties for "responsible users" of cannabis in USA (and if USA moves, others will follow). After his endorsement of vaporizers it is certain St. Pierre will say that use of a vaporizer is the single most obvious example of "responsible use" and that it will pave the way for worldwide legalization of cannabis. A chance for Wikipedia to "change the world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokerdesigner (talk • contribs)

Also, these comments were inappropriately interleaved with my comments, causing the whole conversation to be come unreadable. Don't do that.

You are wrong about warnings. Our only goal is to create a good encyclopedia, even in Europe many young people do not start smoking tobacco just because they smoke cannabis and we are not here to deter people from smoking tobacco, its just completely off topic (and if we were to warn of the hazards of smoking we would surely wasn't to warn of the hazards of smoking anything but that is not our role). Thanks, SqueakBox 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Toker, toker, toker... Did you read any of the policies and guidelines I pointed you towards? You have to understand that Wikipedia's goal is to be a free enyclopedia, not a free Public Service Announcement, or a free clearing house of marijuana research, or whatever. This is no more appropriate than, say, if you advertised that you were putting on a production of Les Miserables, and then when everyone got to the theatre you were like, "Oh, instead of the play tonight, we're going to be telling you about the dangers of tobacco..." This not the place for it! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The real bait-and-switch is letting Google advertise an article about "Cannabis smoking"-- and when the kids get there, offering them a tutorial on how to roll carbon monoxide overdose cigarets and mix in tobacco-- as was the case for months until recently. By the way, credit where due: Jaysweet finally had the cojones to kick the "Bugler" advert out entirely after I had only dared move it down next to the Rolled section. And he substantially cut the toxic "Mixing with Tobacco" material! Thanks Jay.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And now, a word from our sponsor

I figured out those five lines were from you, but you also fixed a bunch of other people's spelling mistakes as well. Anyway, it turns out I am secretly an agent of "Big Tobackgo" and after this last post we were able to triangulate your position. Corrupt federal agents are on their way to your house right now to capture you and subject you to waterboarding until you confess where you learned our horrible secret. MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! --11 March 2008 (UTC)

I confess to tidying up the spellings but that was because of my Non-Neutral Point of View. You may note I only fixed the ones which were pro-cannabis and let the anti-cannabis ones go on looking stupid.TokerdesignerTokerdesigner (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You clearly cannot separate your point of view from your editing here. Perhaps you would do better by contributing to an opinion based publication instead of an encyclopedia. (1 == 2)Until 00:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes that is a terrible thing to say and by doing so all you do is make the article look stupid. Sighs. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The italicized text is a comment I left on TD's user page like three weeks ago, heh... I don't really understand why he suddenly decided to respond to it now, and on this page. Maybe a little bit too much vaporizing? --Jaysweet (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
And that is why you always need to consider what type of plastic your vaporizer is made of. (1 == 2)Until 02:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I included the text to show what I was up against in the "editing war" of that time. You guys have permission to erase it now. Jay redeemed himself by kicking the "Bugler" commercial out of the article.

Since then I just added the article "Cannabis smoking" to "Category:Cannabis smoking" which Wikipedia:Categorization says should always be done in such cases. Thus the article can serve as an "anchorperson" briefly introducing topics which are covered in detail in those other articles listed in the category. This will eliminate pressures to add too much detail to the article.Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay does not need to redeem himself, indeed if anyone here does it is you, which of course you can do with constructive edits. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] don't interleave your comments with other users' comments!!

Seriously, stop doing that Tokerdesigner! I can't freaking understand who is saying what when you do that. If you need to quote something that somebody else said, copy-and-paste their text in italics or a block quote or something. It is just too confusing when you do this. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rework starting March 27th, 2008

I did some major clear-cutting on this article as per the discussion above with Squeakbox and Until 1 == 2... but the article still sucks and is almost completely unreferenced. Heh, the ironic thing about Tokerdesigner's pov-warring is that he has added just about the only reasonable references to this article -- but I think as a result we are giving undue weight to his opinion.

I will work on this when I can, but, heh, for obvious reasons I can't really poke around with it too much when I am at work. Not that I really smoke anymore (As Chef says, there's a time and a place for everything, and it's called "college") but I wouldn't want my co-workers or employers getting the wrong idea, heh.. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

TIMBER! Good start Jay. I will try to pitch in later. (1 == 2)Until 22:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks better though. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I re-arranged the article to put the mixes at the bottom as I felt it was given undue weight. I do realize that at some point the goal was to present the facts in chronological order, but I don't know if that is the best way to present the information. I have also added information with reference to the tobacco section. I will go over it more later. (1 == 2)Until 00:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order

Shouldn't joints come before pipes? Based on popularity. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You got a source to confirm that? Seriously though, something has to come first, and I think we should order first by broad topics then by the amount of verifiable information we have available. Thus we will have the prominence reflects its coverage. This will of course be difficult to determine until the article's contents are in reasonable shape. (1 == 2)Until 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I suggest we wait till the rewrite is finished and then return to the question. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul? What do you think?

Okay, aside from the fact that I don't have any damn sources still, what do the non-crazy people here think of the overhaul? I think I have avoided most of the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues that plagued this article, and while it is not perfectly encyclopedic, I think it is not bad.

There may be some inherent bias, since unfortunately I am not working from sources, so my attempts to balance WP:UNDUE were based largely upon my own time in college (cough!) rather than objective fact. Heh, also, that was a long time ago, so in addition to regional bias, who frikkin' knows what the kids are doing these days? But I did my best.. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legality

Shouldn't we have a section on the legality of smoking cannabis in various parts of the world? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 04:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We already have numeropus articles on the subject. probably a good pl;ace to start is Legality of cannabis. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Duh, me. Didn't even think about that. I might add a section in sometime later. Got a lot on my plate right now. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] health effects

well im the anon user that deleted the info on health effects, for three reasons 1st this is referenced off of the NIDA website which does not represent an international view on these issues (for a start it still refers to recreational drug use as abuse, which is against WHO guidelines i believe) 2nd it confuses the subjective effects (ie confusion, short term memory loss, paranoia (probably the most fun part of smokin it)) with the genuinley harmful ones like lung disease (if you get this you probably smoke to much to even be able to afford food and rent) and psycosis, isnt there a testable genetic link to getting this? which almost makes it an allergy, apperently it is only %0.1 of people that can get this, which is less than have a peanut allergy (around 1%), then again the heath effects section of peanuts is larger, maybe we should ban them! 3rd better info is elsewhere in wikipedia.

i just realised this has been resolved but i thought id post my stream of consciousness style rant anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.218.63 (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for a mishap with my earlier edit causing loss of much of the page which was corrected by JS shortly after. Last minute panic at library computertime running out caused me to push Save button without checking; I do not know why the erasure occurred. Better luck next time?Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)