|
 Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
 drunkgoat
addict
Registered: 01/07/01
Posts: 406
Last seen: 19 years, 15 days
|
 bong usefullness in doubt 
#314759 - 05/11/01 12:00 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
i know many people swear by their bong. they wont roll weed if their life depended on it. My question is do you really think a bong is worth it? cause a bong rip is just about the same as a long toke on a spilf is. and the question about water filtration...well who knows, anyways, interested in your opinions
There are 3 types of people in this world: Those who can count, and those who can not.
--------------------
Give a man a match and he will be warm for an hour. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
|
Psycho
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 611
Last seen: 21 years, 6 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: drunkgoat]
#314886 - 05/11/01 02:13 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
its much,much smoother to hit a bong then it is to hit a joint.
maybe its just me but when i take 1 hit out of a bong i get high off that hit,not just a buzz but i actually get high.with a joint if i take only 1 hit i wont feel anything.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic material as everyone else" - Tyler Durden
--------------------
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i feel so good,i feel so numb
|
Intox
journeyman
Registered: 12/24/00
Posts: 59
Last seen: 22 years, 16 days
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Psycho]
#315069 - 05/11/01 05:19 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
A bong delivers less thc than joints,but gets you higher!
It's fucking magic!
|
 Floydian
veteran
Registered: 05/13/00
Posts: 1,022
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: drunkgoat]
#315081 - 05/11/01 05:30 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
some people get really technical and argue as to whether a bong really delivers more THC than other methods of smoking. Or as to whether it actually filters harmful chemicals or not. I say fuck all that. All I know is that when ever i smoke a bong I get much bigger hits and get much higher than I would from smoking a bowl/joint/blunt/etc. And it's much much smoother.
Excessive use of technology will eventually enslave mankind.
--------------------
Don't squeeze the pancake batter
|
drunkgoat
addict
Registered: 01/07/01
Posts: 406
Last seen: 19 years, 15 days
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Floydian]
#315633 - 05/12/01 11:51 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
that settles it. what prices can i expect for a 12" good quality water pipe? or what size do you reccomend for a bong?
There are 3 types of people in this world: Those who can count, and those who can not.
--------------------
Give a man a match and he will be warm for an hour. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
|
Intox
journeyman
Registered: 12/24/00
Posts: 59
Last seen: 22 years, 16 days
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: drunkgoat]
#315780 - 05/12/01 03:02 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
^
Get an 18 inch.You can get one for around $20.
|
Psycho
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 611
Last seen: 21 years, 6 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: drunkgoat]
#315798 - 05/12/01 03:34 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
i got a shitty little 8" red bong. its alright but you cant suck really hard unless you like drinking bong water.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I think. Therefore I am DANGEROUS.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic material as everyone else" - Tyler Durden
--------------------
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i feel so good,i feel so numb
|
Dystopian Harbinger
Cheech Wizard
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 139
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Intox]
#316063 - 05/13/01 02:18 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"A bong delivers less thc than joints..."
Bullshit, misinformation
THC is not water soluable, what the water filters out is the other elements of the smoke, tars, etc... THC is what gets you high, ( Certain CBS's also factor in but no solid research has been done) It would be technically impossible for an equal ammount of mota smoked through a joint to have more THC than that same ammount smoked through a bong.
At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
-Nietzsche
--------------------
At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
-Nietzsche
|
ShroomAngel
newbie
Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 19
Loc: Atlantis
Last seen: 22 years, 5 months
|
|
A bong cools the smoke making it more condense and easier to inhale, that is why when you smoke a j your throught hurts but hitting a bong you could do without anything hurting, until you cough that is. Get one that is atleast 15" so you can get good pulls without bong water.
______________________________________
You're Gonna Do WHAT??
ShroomAngel@BongMail.com
--------------------
_____
The above was a dream. I take no responsibility for the use of the information that a FOAF provides me with.
You're Gonna Do WHAT??
[email]ShroomAngel@BongMail.com[/email]
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
|
read this (I love how I always have to quote this when people say it's bullshit):
Contrary to popular impression, waterpipes don't necessarily protect smokers from harmful tars in marijuana smoke, according to a new study sponsored by MAPS and California NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). The reason is that waterpipes filter out more psychoactive THC than they do other tars, thereby requiring users to smoke more to reach their desired effect. The study does not rule out the possibility that waterpipes could have other benefits, such as filtering out gases, but it suggests that other methods, such as the use of high potency marijuana, vaporizers, or oral ingestion are needed to avoid harmful toxins in marijuana smoke.
cited from:
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html
|
Krendle
veteran
Registered: 11/11/00
Posts: 1,166
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#316125 - 05/13/01 06:35 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
But I still find that I smoke less weed using a bong, so I'm getting less bad stuff anyway, even if there is some THC loss. YMMV I guess, if you are looking for a healthy way to get high then yes of course, vaporizors, eating, good buds/hash, etc.
This space for rent.
--------------------
First person to PM me with a truly witty sig gets to see their words at the bottom of my posts 
|
Floydian
veteran
Registered: 05/13/00
Posts: 1,022
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#316132 - 05/13/01 07:17 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Kid, I've read that too but there really isn't any solid research to back up those statements. Like i said before all this research and technical talk really is just nit-picking. Seriously, who can honestly say that they don't get much bigger hits and get way more stoned off a bong that anything else? One bong rip will take me much higher for much longer than one hit from a joint or bowl or a blunt. Plus the smoke is almost always smoother and cooler in a bong (if you have a good bong at least). Contrary to what Norml and MAPS say in that article, i usually end up using less weed with a bong. Sure it may not be helping me reduce my risk for lung cancer but that doesn't change the fact that bong work much better than most smoking methods. Do you agree?
Excessive use of technology will eventually enslave mankind.
--------------------
Don't squeeze the pancake batter
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Floydian]
#316233 - 05/13/01 11:42 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
What the fuck do you mean there isn't any solid research? Read the fucking link!!!!!! How is it nit-picking if it's scientific fact?
> Seriously, who can honestly say that they don't get much bigger hits and get way more stoned off a bong that anything else?
I attribute this to: 1) Cultural mythology causing a (pseudo)placebo effect. 2) Lighting a bong bowl lights up more weed than would a haul off a little joint. 3) No peripheral smoke is lost from a bong.
> Sure it may not be helping me reduce my risk for lung cancer but that doesn't change the fact that bong work much better than most smoking methods. Do you agree?
No, I don't. Both get me just as fucked up.
|
Dirtmaster
addict
Registered: 11/20/00
Posts: 194
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#316268 - 05/13/01 12:51 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
are you kidding? haven't you ever had just a little piece of hascish, not enough even for a third of a joint, but instead smoked it in a bong and gotten real fucked up? you get higher from a smaller piece of hashish compared to joints or pipes. i've never met anyone who actually has smoked bongs who disagrees on this point.
maybe the study overlooked factors such as that a bong provides a way to take large cool sudden airmixed hits, which aids the absorbation of the thc in the smoke. this might easily overweigh the minor loss of thc in the water. or the study could just be wrong.
"no peripheral smoke is lost from a bong", that is certainly true, and that is also part of why smoking bongs is more effective than smoking joints.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Dirtmaster]
#316295 - 05/13/01 01:14 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
No, I'm not kidding.
I prefer pipes.
> you get higher from a smaller piece of hashish compared to joints or pipes. i've never met anyone who actually has smoked bongs who disagrees on this point.
Well, if you ever were to meet me, I guess I'd be your first.
> or the study could just be wrong.
Who am I going to trust? Scientifically measured amounts or some stoner(s) who smokes and says "d00d I told U, bongs fuk U up more"... hmmmmmm
> maybe the study overlooked factors such as that a bong provides a way to take large cool sudden airmixed hits, which aids the absorbation of the thc in the smoke.
what does that mean "aids the absorbtion of the THC in the smoke"? The THC is already in the smoke, it is part of the smoke, and then it gets filtered out by the water. If the THC weren't in the smoke, then why would you smoke weed?
> .
"no peripheral smoke is lost from a bong", that is certainly true, and that is also part of why smoking bongs is more effective than smoking joints.
Pipes would be even more efficient though.
|
Dirtmaster
addict
Registered: 11/20/00
Posts: 194
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#316443 - 05/13/01 06:24 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
yo dude
first off, there might be other studies that contradict this one. blindly trusting the one study on the subject you have read might not be too smart.
"maybe the study overlooked factors such as that a bong provides a way to take large cool sudden airmixed hits, which aids the absorbation of the thc in the smoke."
this is a pretty straightforward sentence. since you have trouble comprehending it i will spell it out for you. what i mean is that taking a hit from a bong may lead to the thc being more easily absorbed by the lungs than if you had taken a hit from a joint, because the smoke from a bonghit is cooled filtrated airmixed. thus, even if some thc is lost in the water, the bonghit would still fuck you up more cause more thc is absorbed.
and pipes lose some peripheral smoke too.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Dirtmaster]
#316450 - 05/13/01 06:50 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
> first off, there might be other studies that contradict this one. blindly trusting the one study on the subject you have read might not be too smart.
Please cite one, then.
> this is a pretty straightforward sentence. since you have trouble comprehending it i will spell it out for you. what i mean is that taking a hit from a bong may lead to the thc being more easily absorbed by the lungs than if you had taken a hit from a joint, because the smoke from a bonghit is cooled filtrated airmixed.
Please cite a reference other than your own speculation.
> thus, even if some thc is lost in the water, the bonghit would still fuck you up more cause more thc is absorbed.
Incorrect.
> and pipes lose some peripheral smoke too
Just as much as bongs. Plus bongs loose more on the sides and in the water. You are ignorant.
|
Dystopian Harbinger
Cheech Wizard
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 139
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#316488 - 05/13/01 07:51 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, Kid...if you load a one hitter you loose zero peripheral smoke, none drifts out the top of the bowl and none is lost as you pass it. I dont know what you were smoking out of that causes smoke loss 'out the sides' but it may not have been a bong. It would appear that you have unerring blind faith in this one survey, therefore you are the ignorant one.
At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
-Nietzsche
--------------------
At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
-Nietzsche
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
|
> I dont know what you were smoking out of that causes smoke loss 'out the sides' but it may not have been a bong.
Do you know how to read? When the fuck did I say that I smoked something that caused loss of smoke out the sides other than a joint?
Bongs and pipes loose the tiniest amount of peripheral smoke. They do (off the top of the bowl, from the piping that leads into the water chamber, out the carb), but it's tiny.
And BTW, what I meant by "on the sides" of a bong, means on the inside of the bong chamber. The sticky tars contain THC and get stuck on the insides of the bong. The bong has more surface area than a pipe, therefor leaving more room for materials to get stuck on. If you've ever looked on the inside of your bong, you'll notice residue. This residue contains not only hydrocarbons, but also the THC which you desire.
So, I guess you're the ignorant one who incorrectly quoted me. I said "on" the sides, not "out" the sides. Please learn the difference.
> It would appear that you have unerring blind faith in this one survey, therefore you are the ignorant one.
Because I trust science and my own experiences ?Edited by Kid on 05/14/01 02:58 AM.
|
Dystopian Harbinger
Cheech Wizard
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 139
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
|
 Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#316743 - 05/14/01 05:25 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Again like a sheep being led by a survey. Do you have any of your own thoughts on this or did you simply find this survey and decide to come troll about it? Let me guess you own a copy of every single book Stamets or Rosenthal has every written...Sean is that you "kid"?
They assert that this is the first survey of its kind and their data may not be 100% dead on. In fact that they repeatedly assert they are using shwag. Regardless you missed my point, my fault. You are defending this to the point of attacking others with the "you are ignorant" comment. Perhaps you need to go smoke a bowl because you appear to be quite insular "Kid".
At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
-Nietzsche
--------------------
At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
-Nietzsche
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Kratom Powder For Sale 
Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
mjshroomer
ncj
iloveraving
Barnaby
