Talk:Cannabis smoking/archive 1

maybe there should be mention of avoiding flame contact with pipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.161.48 (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Waterfalls and Gravity Bongs

Its pretty retarded that these methods are not only not listed, but when they are put up there people take them down. Im not going to go through the effort of writing it up again, but some else should. They are legitimate, widely used methods that are easy to explain and most pot smokers know about. And i have a .gif for gods sake ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/A_waterfall_being_milked.gif). Do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.8.206 (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Objection to overdose equipment pictures

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

Corporate profits

Some time ago in 08 I posted on this subject, I want to add corporate profits and health goes hand it hand, from tobacco as well, it's all connected. There needs to be bigger article in this regard so people know more on corporate lies, tricks! I remember before supreme court ordered tobacco industires to pay victims of smoking their ahole executives kept on denying until last moment their tobacco is safe. But they never mentioned fact that there are hunderds of other bad ingredients in their products! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.3.22 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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 single-toke 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 ("blunt") which contains nicotine. (Thankfully the brandname picture was removed in April 2008.)

As of April 2008, children consulting this article in search of true information about cannabis smoking options were being shown a "glass piece" (wide-bowl pipe) so large that easily a gram ($10?) will fit inside. For balance there could 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 such as the Japanese Kiseru and the middle-eastern Midwakh, which 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 lots 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)

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 development 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).

More info about vaporizers needed

The Volcano vaporizer, endorsed in April 2007 by NORML Director Allen F. St. Pierre, costs US$600-- 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.

1. Purchasers should be advised to read the instructions for use and maintenance of their vaporizer very carefully so as not to do anything which would void the guarantee, costing a sizable financial investment.

2. What is needed is to introduce in urban centers, like London and Amsterdam, a new kind of establishment which could be known as a vaporizer clinic, or in line with present practice a vaporizer cafe. There customers could get acquainted with the varying vaporizer technologies, learn how to use the devices safely and effectively, and thus be able to choose intelligently which brand to buy for personal use. Needless to say, should such a shop be opened anywhere, it is worth reporting in the Wikipedia, for the sake of those who have a personal need to know what the true options are in "smoking cannabis".

"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 $180 bil. every year treating cigaret-related illnesses. (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.)

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.

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). A quarter-inch diameter may permit temperatures under 500° F. when sucking slow enough. Pro-tobacco governments dependent on tobacco tax money have used intimidation to block studies which might establish facts on this.

(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)

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. Controlled particle size permits lowest burning temperature, and least destruction of herb nutrient. Large chunks of woody cellulose etc. should be excluded and used for tea.

2. Narrow crater diameter-- optimally 1/4 inch (6 or 6.5mm.)i.d.-- restricts access for oxygen (which drives combustion)-- subject to user's ability to learn to suck slow enough.

3. One can draw air very slowly and still 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, cooling down, before they reach your trachea. (Relevant to studies which cited pulmonary harm from cannabis use, always however using hot-burning overdose joints in the experiments.)

Please consider the following for inclusion in the article:

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).

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 using 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)

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"

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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."

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)

Grow some nails, boyo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.188.211 (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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))

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)

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.
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)

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)

Changed the "roach/filter" section of Joints - I've never heard them referred to as anything but a splint. In addition, the previous section began as if only UK residents used them. Some people mistakenly refer to splints as filters, and i've never heard roach used for anything but the very last smokable part of a joint. Any issues, let me know. Peace --George The Man (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Uhh, I, added a section on "Hot-Boxing" (Section) on 16:39, 8 July 2008 and it is still there though I did not cite any refrences. The information presented in said section came from personal knowledge and experience. Thanks. (Trigahapykila) (talk) 11:41, 9 July, 2008

The edit added to my "Hot-boxing" section entitled "Hot-bonnet (breath-bonnet)", needs have a refrence because the sentence "This increases efficiency because studies show lungs absorb only a part of the THC on any one inhalation." is very likley to be challenged. Trigahapykila (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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/].

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.

(2008) Microsoft mogul Bill Gates has joined Mayor Bloomberg's crusade and now the warchest contains $500 million. Wiklipedians should get serious about demonstrating an ability to earn some of that funding.

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.

February 2009: the e-cigarette(see below) as device for administering cannabinol should meet the "responsible use" criteria of Rep. Franks.

Tobacco warnings

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with SqueakBox (the first post) but for a diffrent reason. The first and most prominent picture in the article is a man smoking a joint, and when most people here 'smoking' the think cigarrets or joints/blunts. so i think they should come first in the article. Trigahapykila (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Home-Made

I recently added the section about "Steamrollers" to the article under "Smoking Implements" but I suggest there be a whole section on home-made items like the steamroller, such as a tinny, or water bottle bong. I will start working on this new section in my page (click here) i will leave the "Steamroller" section there. I will only add the homemade section to the acticle when it is totaly finished, refrenced and proofread. and when i get a few people to agree this is a good decision. Thank you Trigahapykila (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I added the section, it contains information on steamrollers, tinnies, water bottle bongs, and soda can bowls. It also has a picture of a steamroller and one of a tinny. Pictures of the other two would be greatly appreciated and feel free to add them ureslef, as well as other items you know about. Thanks, Trigahapykila (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed photos of homemades of personal reasons (they were taken in my bedroom) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.169.4 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Toxic metal vs. semivaporizer

maybe there should be mention of avoiding flame contact with pipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.161.48 (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1. See answer below about minimizing burning temperature in order to prevent toxic fumes from metal.

2. Holding the flame far enough (usually a centimeter or more) from the crater opening of a small-diameter screened utensil permits heating the herb particles inside to a temperature (about 385° F. for cannabis) at which they do not catch fire (410° F.) but their cannabinoids do vaporize out. When a few herb particles catch fire somewhere, usually near the side ("cornering"), the heat they radiate helps vaporize cannabinoid out from neighboring as yet unkindled particles, with an improved yield provided the user sucks slowly enough to keep the fire from progressing too quickly.Tokerdesigner (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Health Issues with Brass and other metals

This article suggests using tools and brass fittings to smoke out of. There are obvious health risks if there are contaminates. The article should really be a lot more informative, and suggest against using anything toxic, which may include PVC, polurethane, copper, brass, tin, lead, pewter, iron, unannodized aluminum ,metal with any type of coating (galvanized, painted,chromium etc), and probably even wood.

Either way, the article shouldn't be suggesting use of something that most likely reacts to the heat in a way that may release toxic fumes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crache (talk • contribs) 00:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue merits more study, but one answer may be that the high burning temperatures (up to 1500 F/860 C) associated with cigarette papers or a wide-bowl pipe are unnecessary and obsolete, and that with a narrow-crater (6-mm.-i.d. or less)utensil, by drawing air slowly enough, one may achieve temperatures as low as 420 F, minimizing the stated problem with fumes from the metal. Further by using a utensil which avoids high burning temperatures one avoids many smoking-related health problems. Ask your Congressman or Parliamentarian to campaign for research to solve this problem (don't bother asking the tobackgo industry, with its profits based on hot-burning overdose, to sponsor any such research, or be too hopeful about any vested academic researcher daring to undertake it).Tokerdesigner (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pipes

I don't smoke cannabis, but I would just ask what is the difference between a cannabis pipe and the old one for tobacco (i.e. the one I used for Sherlock Holmes costume in Halloween)? Wandering Courier (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• The most important difference would be crater size-- the wider the crater, the harder you will suck trying to get all the smoke, resulting in hot burning which destroys cannabinoids and causes health problems which have been conveniently blamed on the cannabis instead of on the faulty hot-burning overdose smoking technique.
• The most appropriate and practical crater-diameter for pre-sifted cannabis is 1/4-inch=6-mm. with a screen at 3/16"=5-mm. depth, permitting 25-mg. servings (screened single-toke utensil, or long-stemmed one-hitter).
• Wide-bowl tobacco pipes are designed with a kind of "puffing" in mind, whereby the tobacco smoker takes hot material only into the mouth without inhaling it, allowing nicotine to reach the brain through the mucous membrane but not through the bloodstream.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

E(Electronic)cigarette belongs in Cannabis smoking article

An e-cigarette. The left part (white) is the battery, the middle part (white with small hole) is the atomizer and the right part (brown) is the mouthpiece and cartridge.

{{Main article: E-cigarette}}

This product, developed in China, contains a rechargeable battery and a heating element which, when a user draws on the mouthpiece end, vaporizes (in most brands) flavored liquid nicotine from an insertable cartridge. Smokers on websites report success in eliminating a cigarette smoking habit. Liquid THC, if available, would be loaded into the cartridge instead of the present nicotine-laced recipes, providing cannabis users with benefits similar to a vaporizer at lower initial price.

I am concerned that an editor considers the E-cigarette "unrelated" to the issue of cannabis smoking. True, the idea is not widely disseminated so far. However, persons, including juveniles, who consult the "Cannabis smoking" article in order to find out "how to do it", probably the vast majority, may well benefit from knowing about any and every alternative to the hot-burning overdose "joint" and especially the disastrous custom, prevalent in some places including Europe, of mixing cannabis with tobacco resulting in possibly millions of cases of nicotine addiction and a share of the 5.4 million deaths per year attributed to cigarette smoking by the WHO (See Feb. 7, 2008 Press Conference).

By the way, though I have no stake in any companies making either product I am disappointed by the failure of the WHO to endorse the use of either E-cigarette or Snus as a safer alternative to cigarette smoking, and feel that even a mention in the Wikipedia is admissible means of urging them to think the matter through more adequately. My thought is that given the poor results reported for each particular smoking-cessation remedy, including patch, gum, hypnosis etc., the correct strategy is to encourage would-be quitters to try a multi-front approach, trying numerous available methods simultaneously if necessary, even including substituting cannabis, the illegality of which represents a payback from governments whose budgets are heavily dependent on cigarette tax revenues (an example: Pakistan 10%).

Even if there is no company anywhere currently loading THC into cartridges for use in an E-cigarette, mentioning this option in the "Cannabis smoking" article could lead to a demand which would bring about such a practice and eventually save millions of lives. I wish to remind everyone of a Wikipedia rule, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and a slogan used last year at fund-raising time, "Help Wikipedia change the world!" In respect to tobacco cigarettes, business-as-usual as we know it today amounts to the no. 1 genocide in the history of the human race and accordingly the no. 1 challenge facing ambitious Wikipedians.Tokerdesigner (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" to benefit the article as much as possible -- not humanity. A common theme among Wikipedia's guidelines is that decisions of inclusion shouldn't be made based on how well they'll benefit the world. If that were the case, we'd allow instructions (WP:NOT#Guide) and things like unsourced safety precautions. The goal however is verifiability and accuracy. Claiming that electronic cigarettes are used as an alternative to marijuana is the very definition of original research, an unverified and inaccurate claim. If your top concern is public safety and activism, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. We don't aim to change things here. We aim to accurately report the way things already are.

I agree though, that it would be nice if government agencies would make some sort of acknowledgment of the technology and devote some resources to at least researching its safety and effectiveness as a smoke substitute. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:17, 30 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Actually...

Vandalism actually makes this article MORE verifiable. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:35, 19 Jan 2009 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Screened single-toke utensil [1], One-hitter with Dugout, Socket wrench one-hitter, Barbed brass hose-nipple one-hitter, Glass one-hitter, Pebble piece, Hard bamboo (Tonkin), Hard wood bead, Branch or broom segment, Soft wood, Plug-In Articulated Utensil, Semi-vaporizer technique, Double toke and Breath-bonnet

An editor removed the above cited sections from the Cannabis smoking article in a series of eight (8) edits between 07:19, 9 March 2009 and 07:25, 9 March 2009. Lest there be any suspicion that he/she gave those sections a reading before making such a decision, the Contributions log also shows this same editor was making several edits an hour, including Nadya Suleman at 0712, DDT (disambiguation) at 0715, MTS at 0719, Pole dance at 0727, Circuit diagram at 0729 etc.

One hunch is that the editor was checking out-- and chucking out wholesale-- any articles or sections found on a list of cited for lack of references.

Your hunch is almost correct: on "any articles", but the ones which somehow landed on my watchlist. The article was tagged as unreferenced for really long time. Sorry, there are rules. - 7-bubёn >t 03:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Serving the readers

Arguably the reason why the Wikipedia "Cannabis smoking" article is number #1 on the search engines world-wide is that many readers turn to it for true information about cannabis that they can not get from their tobacco-bought government officials. And arguably the information most readers want is precisely: How I can use cannabis safely and receive benefits instead of harm? The recently deleted paragraphs contained primarily just that kind of information.

Sorry, wikipedia rules say that you have to prove what you've just said by citing reliable sources. - 7-bubёn >t 03:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What the problem is

Here we confront the cannabis research dilemma. Any researcher thinks twice before publishing any positive information about cannabis use because, especially in the US and its political dependents, vested interests-- Big Tobackgo, Big Pharma and others-- have a stranglehold and veto-power over funding, tenure, etc. and will stop at nothing to intimidate you. If no reference can be located verifying that there is such a thing as a socket-wrench one-hitter, that may be because (a) the thousands of users who have made one in their garage are not (yet) internet-literate, and (b) because the professor at State U. dares not speak up about any specifics of safer-use, or harm-reduction utensils, for fear of accusations of "promoting" such use. The challenge is to Wikipedia to step in and be the conscience where no other organ exists in society to convey that information. (This is because Wikipedia editors rather than known exposed members of a faculty somewhere, are anonymous geeks working in a huge room full of library computers and have nothing to fear, no reputation or employment to lose.)

Sorry, wikipedia is not a vehicle for publishing new material not published elsewhere. - 7-bubёn >t 03:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

E-cigarette

As you can see a few inches up this page, in February an editor adamantly refused to permit a reference to this important technology in the Cannabis smoking article.

NOTE: in June 2010 a California company, Vapor Rush, announced the introduction of a cannabinoid e-cigarette, "Vapor Rush" Which was said to be available (possibly due to legal intimidation) only through selected local dispensaries. As cannabis legalization approaches, it may be increasingly appropriate to include coverage of such equipment, including on this "smoking" page, because it is offered as a healthier alternative to smoking.Tokerdesigner (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Conference

Perhaps parties interested in this truth-vs-expediency??- issue can offer some suggestions here how an adequate answer to the questions of those consulting the article can be rendered without insisting that all the references be in place right away. Maybe it will just take a little longer for them to emerge, with the encouragement that the said paragraphs are available for study (otherwise check History). As soon as possible, illustrations complementing the descriptions will also be offered, in hopes that a clear understandable photo or diagram is all the reference needed to show that each type of equipment exists and can be made by readers consulting this article out of materials found in their neighborhood.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No amount of conference can supersede the basic rules of wikipedia: wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:CITE. there will be no unpublished material allowed on this page. It sat in an inacceptable state for too long. Time to clean up. - 7-bubёn >t 03:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sorry, there are rules!"

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

WP:IAR WP:IGNORE

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Well, see Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean. In essence, you may break all rules as long as no one objects. Usually this happens in borderline cases or new situations. In the cases of the fundamental policies such as WP:VERIFIABILITY, wikipedia:No original research, WP:NPOV, or WP:LIVING you will hardly ever get slack. - 7-bubёn >t 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Waterfall?

I noticed the section about waterfalls has been removed. It is a very prominent method and i think the fact that i went out of my way to make a graphic for it warrants some consideration about leaving it in. Can we put it back?

this is the image

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/A_waterfall_being_milked.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJLO (talk • contribs) 06:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid vaporizer pipe illustration

Vaporization pipe with flame filter
+ 28. Insert cannabis, other herbs or essential oils here
+ 36. Flame filter made of a stack of metal screens (5+) or other heat-resistant porous material

The adjacent diagram was removed from the article on grounds that it showed "how to use pot"-- but what does the title Cannabis smoking promise to readers anyway?? (This article was indeed nominated for deletion but retained by a majority vote, and it now ranks first among all entries on Google worldwide as first choice most consulted source for readers inquiring about "Cannabis smoking".)

Note that this entry completes the vaporizer section of the article by providing an alternative to the $600 professional utensil (good though that is) which anyone can make for pennies from objects found in their garage, surely an example of the democratic spirit of Wikipedia.

Editing ethics

Note that in haste to remove the informative diagram, the same editor saved time by merely throwing the "revert" button, discarding many proofreading and grammar edits and restoring, among other material of dubious encyclopedic character, this opening:

Cannabis smoking there are many slang words that refer to cannabis smoking including "shopshons" refers to the process of getting high.

While that editor has made many contributions to Wikipedia, a search indicates that most of them concern one narrow genre of cinematic murder dramas starring "Coffin Joe", a character dressed in a costume honoring the design found on a "classic" cigarette brand package. Does that suggest a possible bias against small, dosage-regulatory equipment which offers cannabis users a way to bypass hot burning cigarettes (joints)?