Talk:Smoking pipe (non-tobacco)

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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

I've never seen anyone use metal pipes for non-tobacco, I know it happens, but the vast majority of such use is glass. If it's going to be about non-tobacco pipes, it should be about more than metal pipes. Highly misleading and inaccurate title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.75.206 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno why this is even necessary, I know people that use metal and glass pipes for pipe tobbaco only.

This page was created because metal and glass pipes were discussed in the Smoking_pipe article with cannabis in mind, whereas the rest of the article deals exclusively with tobacco smoking. Frotz661 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Should a wood pipe section be added? Also, the purpose of a carb should be added to the section. Bassman444 21:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you know those who use wooden pipes for non-tobacco. I haven't really seen it done, from my experiance it doesn't work very well. ReverendG 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

But it does happen, the problem is the pipes are difficult to clean. If you can find a reliable source that this happens go for it. One example is enormous pipes, making the cleaning problem less critical, SqueakBox 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have a friend that uses a wooden one. :D --Pwncak3z 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merge

I oppose a merge, may be we should merge bong, water bong etc here and that would be preferable, SqueakBox 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is there two separate articles? Tobacco is a drug like cannabis or opium. There is no reason to have a separate article for tobacco unless we have a separate article for cannabis pipe smoking, opium pipe smoking, ect. Tobacco being a legal drug doesn't make any difference. Wikipedia isn't meant to show things from a government's perspective but rather through the perspective of what is considered in the general scientific community as correct (whether or not we agree is regardless of the point). Tobacco has no special status in the scientific community.

Therefore, these articles should be merged, it doesn't make much sense to keep them separate. Zachorious 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep this discussion in one section, not create an extra as if trying to suppress my view! There are many cannabis pipe articles that could be merged here but the culture of cannabis smoking in pipes is both notable and distinctly different from smoking tobacco. What is relevant here is neither science nor legality but culture. And you are absoluitely wrong to think that wikipedia is a scientific encyclopedia, it isnt it is a general encyclopedia, SqueakBox 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to suppress your view. Cannabis pipe smoking maybe different than tobacco smoking, but it doesn't make much sense to have a non-tobacco smoking pipe page as to treat tobacco seperate from other drugs. If we have a seperate page for tobacco pipe smoking we need to have a seperate page for cannabis, opium, crack, ect. pipe smoking. Cannabis pipe smoking culture is distinct from opium, crack, and other forms of pipe smoking as well. Zachorious 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose There are two large classes of smoking pipes: ones for smoking tobacco and ones for smoking other things. That's why the break was made in the first place. Trying to cover all kinds of smoking pipes in one article will get very messy. The traditions associated with the two groups are very different. Still very different from these two is hookah smoking, which is why it has its own article. Frotz661 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, it would be too contentious with 2 very different groups of editors trying to vie for space in one article, SqueakBox 02:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Smoking narcotics, cannabis etc and smoking tobacco are two very different things.--Baronjim 21:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Everyone else basically took the words right out of my mouth. I think a pipe for smoking tobacco and a pipe for smoking marijuana are two very different things! jmeeter 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Smoking tobacco may be different than smoking cannabis, opium ect. but it is inaccurate to lump all other pipe smoking into one category. Perhaps we should keep the smoking pipe tobacco article, but then the non-tobacco pipe smoking article should then be broke down into seperate sections for each drug. For example, smoking cannabis is equally different to opium smoking than it is to tobacco smoking. It doesn't make much sense to have all other drugs lumped into one.

I'm going to rename the smoking pipe for tobacco article to Smoking pipe (tobacco) since this is more accurate. The same should be done with other smoking pipe articles. Zachorious 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey! The question was about merging, not moving around smoking_pipe. How about floating the idea before doing something out of the blue like that? Frotz661 05:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very obvious POV fork, especially considering that smoking pipe is a dabpage rather than a proper article. The idea that tobacco pipes and cannabis pipes can't be in the same article is very obvious topic separatism and smacks of an unwillingness to recognize the different uses (inhaling smoke as a way to consume drugs) as being essentially very similar.
Article structure should not be dictated by small groups of editors not being able to put their differences apart when writing encyclopedic articles. Different drugs may use different pipes, but that doesn't mean they're entirely different things, and we're supposed to describe the pipes themselves in these articles, not the drugs used. We already have tobacco smoking and cannabis smoking for those purposes.
Peter Isotalo 11:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The marijuana pipe is already described in a much more efficient and cleaner fashion in cannabis smoking, making this article obsolete anyways. I think the deletion of this article would be the best way to do it, with a small subsection and link in smoking pipe to the cannabis smoking article.

Great magician 09:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Pipe

Metal pipes seem to always have a connotation of crack or other drug use over cannabis I'll probably change the article to reflect this but just wanted to see what others thought. 158.59.25.24 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Merge

These articles seem apt to be merged. 158.59.89.24 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Someplace there may some discussion of European Archaeological finds which have clearly established that smoking pipes were in use long before the introduction of tobacco in bulk after Columbus. Various herbs, plus (more rarely) eastern varieties of tobacco, were smoked. Hopefully at least some sort of cross-reference could be provided to such articles about historical non-tobacco pipes. Baldjim1 12:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blast Hole?

Shouldn't there mention a blast hole somewhere? Its an common feature of pipes(non-tobacco). Trenton194 02:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related to the picture

On the ends of the pipes, where you put your lips, what object did you use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.38.3 (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions how the equipment shown can be made safer and more useful:
1. Long tube = low temperature at user end

Find an airtight way to attach a 23-inch flexible drawtube to each device in the picture.

2. Suck-discipline

Place a tight-fitting stiff plastic mouthpiece, about two inches long, about 1/2-inch into the flexible drawtube. This mouthpiece should have an airpassage of 1/8" or less, helping you learn to suck SLOWER through the drawtube and burn the herb in the crater at a lower temperature, getting more value and less carbon monoxide.

3. Critique of the picture

Four pipes are shown, about 4" long and three of them having a very wide bowl, at least 5/8" i.d., the other too dark to see, maybe smaller. The problem is, if the bowl is too wide it makes it hard to burn small amounts of herb at a low temperature. The ones in the picture could harbor a hot-burning overdose serving of 300 mg. and more, whereas no serving greater than 25 mg. is necessary or advisable with any herb worth inhaling.

4. Big Bowl Baloney

Please don't be fooled by the wide-bowl "tradition"! This is the result of a conspiracy over centuries to maximize customer purchases of tobacco by pushing overdose every possible way. Pandering to this "tradition" (by showing a picture of wide bowl pipes and no alternative) amounts to overdose propaganda and serves only the interest of tobacco companies protecting their profit margin and trying to keep the hot-burning overdose 700-mg. cigaret "normal".

5. MIDWAKH

In the article Smoking pipe (tobacco), a Midwakh of Arabian origin is shown. It has a diameter of 1/2" which is preferable to the three items in the picture by providing for servings under 100 mg.

6. KISERU

Even better, this Japanese product has a crater diameter of 3/8" or less, permitting 25-mg. servings, and is longer-stemmed (though stiff, less portable-- a variant featuring flexible extension tube is warranted. You might cram a small metal tube in the hole at the exit end of the pipe proper and slip the long flexible tube over this intermediary tube). Consider the paradox: over 50% of the male population of Japan (earlier 80%) smokes, yet they have the longest life expectancy on the planet.

7. Socket-wrench

You can make a proper utensil right in your garage out of a quarter-inch (6 mm) socketwrench with a screen wedged in the hex end and a quarter-inch o.d. flexible extension tube jammed in the opposite end.

Wrap tape around to airtight the joint between the socket wrench and the extension tube. Tie 1-mm. colorshielded telephone wire (tokerwire) many times tightly around the tape, then form a 5-inch braid with a 2-inch safety pin at the other end (screen maintenance utensil).

8. Hose-nipple

A brass hose-nipple of appropriate inner diameter serves the same way. Your flexible extension tube fits over the barbed end.

9. Hard wood

A hardwood bead can be used, with quarter-inch crater containing a screen that rests at a depth of 3/16". The wood will not burn because the small size prevents high burning temperatures.

10. Soft wood

A softwood beadhead is permissible if a 3/16" length of quarter-inch i.d. brass tube is sunk in an appropriately drilled opening.

11. Some of the above-described proposed standard smoking utensils, for all herbs, are neither traditional nor nostalgic, but do deliver 25-mg. low-burning-temperature tokes = more vitamin, less monoxide.
12. Perhaps the article could be titled Smoking pipe (cannabis and other herbs). Omit "crystals" and other dubious pharmaceuticals and provide information about dozens of natural smokable herbs available at health food stores-- basil, marjoram, oregano, sage (Salvia), savory, thyme, peppermint, spearmint, pennyroyal, hops, camomile, rosebud etc.-- how to sift them to the even particle size (about 1/16") required for smooth low temperature burning, user nourishment and protection.66.99.0.229 22:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge a Different Way?

Maybe we should just merge all smoking products according to the things being smoked in them? Putting Bongs, Pipes, Bowls, Hookahs, Joints, Vaporizers and such with Marijuana-specific information in with Marijuana smoking and Hookahs, Pipes, Cigarettes, with Tobacco-specific info with Tobacco- etc?

Wouldn't that work? People have a tendency to lump things together and take it as absolute when they get information from only one source.. I know for a solid fact that even though they're used WIDELY for aromatic and flavored tobaccos, hookahs are GREATLY thought to be in the marijuana domain..

Hope I'm offering a helpful viewpoint..

DruggeekShaun--98.18.15.180 (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds good for the marijuana subjects, but not for tobacco. There are already well-established articles for hookahs, pipes, cigarettes and so on for use with tobacco. You'll have a hard time justifying a mega-merge of those. Frotz (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the reader is best served if a way can be found to combine all smoking under one monocular point of view. In any case, a big bowl delivers overdoses, burns too hot, destroys herb vitamin, and probabnly accounts for almost all pathology attributed variously to tobacco, cannabis, etc. The recent association of miniature smoking devices with dangerous chemicals such as methamphetamine is a result of the faulty social policy of demonizing cannabis for the benefit of tobacco marketers, and if cannabis were legalized the market for these substances might collapse overnight, leaving no vestage of excuse to condemn anti-overdose smoking utensils.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.168 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Heres my pov on the merge: All things alike are not the same, unless you guys think we should merge psychedellic mushrooms with the kind you get on pizza? They are seperate- lets keep em that way. List links to each, if you must, but leave em be.--98.18.57.173 (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aluminum

"Although not recommended, an easy metal pipe can be made out of an empty soda can by partially denting the round side and poking holes in it. Smoking material is placed over the holes, ignited, and smoke is drawn through the can's mouthpiece. This kind of pipe is usually used out of desperation, when no other smoking apparatuses are available, as inhaling aluminum particles, aluminum fumes, or fumes from the can's coating can be detrimental to one's health." Not true, you would need a blowtorch for the temperatures needed to produce aluminum fumes 209.184.165.20 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)