|
 Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information.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, 4 months
|
 bong usefullness in doubt 
#314759 - 05/11/01 12:00 PM (22 years, 11 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, 11 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: drunkgoat]
#314886 - 05/11/01 02:13 PM (22 years, 11 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, 4 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Psycho]
#315069 - 05/11/01 05:19 PM (22 years, 11 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, 11 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, 4 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Floydian]
#315633 - 05/12/01 11:51 AM (22 years, 11 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, 4 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: drunkgoat]
#315780 - 05/12/01 03:02 PM (22 years, 11 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, 11 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: drunkgoat]
#315798 - 05/12/01 03:34 PM (22 years, 11 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, 10 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Intox]
#316063 - 05/13/01 02:18 AM (22 years, 11 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, 9 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, 9 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#316125 - 05/13/01 06:35 AM (22 years, 11 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, 11 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, 11 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, 11 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, 11 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, 11 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, 11 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, 10 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#316488 - 05/13/01 07:51 PM (22 years, 11 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, 10 months
|
 Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#316743 - 05/14/01 05:25 AM (22 years, 11 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
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
|
> Again like a sheep being led by a survey.
So I should be blindly led by a shroomery poster who I don't know?
> Do you have any of your own thoughts on this or did you simply find this survey and decide to come troll about it?
I was doing research on ways to prevent harm to my lungs with pot and came across this study. It is a study, not a survey.
> Let me guess you own a copy of every single book Stamets or Rosenthal has every written...Sean is that you "kid"?
Wrong on both counts.
> They assert that this is the first survey of its kind and their data may not be 100% dead on.
Really? where?
> In fact that they repeatedly assert they are using shwag.
The word "shwag" isn't anywhere in that document.
> Regardless you missed my point, my fault.
No, I understand your point. I'm making a counter-point. People are blindly giving into myths. I'm sick of seeing this. As much as us drug users hate it when people give in to anti-drug myths, we're mostly just as blind to the pro-drug myths that we create. The "bong hits get you highest" myth is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
> You are defending this to the point of attacking others with the "you are ignorant" comment.
Yup.
> Perhaps you need to go smoke a bowl because you appear to be quite insular "Kid".
Everybody is afflicted by their personal bias(es). I don't think smoking weed will open my mind.
|
Floydian
veteran
Registered: 05/13/00
Posts: 1,022
|
 Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#317025 - 05/14/01 02:53 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I HAVE read the article. Have YOU read the article Kid?! It does say in the article that they used low quality weed. Plus it said that they only used 5 grams while experiementing! Sounds like a fairly unthorough study. This line from the study made me be a little suspicious of the validity of the experiement. "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." This part of the study is suspect to being invalid in my opinion because THC isn't water soluable and in my personal experience i use less weed with a bong to reach the desired effect. I would need further explaination of how they came to this before I believed it. And how can you start acting like this study has proved any scientific fact?! Did you even read the following part of the article?!
"Nonetheless, it is still premature to judge that waterpipes are actually unhealthful, since they may filter out other, non-solid smoke toxins occurring in the gas phase of the smoke, which was not analyzed in the study. Noxious gases known to occur in marijuana smoke include hydrogen cyanide, which incapacitates the lung's defensive cilia; volatile phenols, which contribute to the harshness of the taste; aldehydes, which promote cancer; and carbon monoxide, a known risk factor in heart disease. Previous studies indicate that water filtration may be quite effective in absorbing some of these [Nicholas Cozzi, Effects of Water Filtration on Marijuana Smoke: A Literature Review, MAPS Newsletter, Vol. IV #2, 1993]. If so, waterpipes might still turn out to have net health benefits."
Further more I would love to see a poll taken in this forum or anywhere else and ask people which smoking method gets them the highest. The question would be something like this: If you smoked the same amount of weed in a bowl, bong, or joint, which one would get you the highest? I am willing to bet money that bongs would come out on top of joints, bowls, and blunts. I'm sorry but your acusation that part of the reason people get more high off of a bong is attributable to placebo is way off. The first time I tryed a bong i had no expectations and it still got me way higer than I ever had before. And they consistently continue to do so. How can something be a myth if it consistently proves itself to be true? This study raises interesting questions, but it really doesn't prove anything. Read the article again and you will realize that their conclusions are speculations most times. They state it many times in the article that they are still unsure and need to do more research. I don't know about you but when studies fail to give me any solid evidence of something, I tend to trust my personal experience. Stop being so proud and admit that this study really doesn't give us a definitive answer to the question of a bongs usefulness.
Excessive use of technology will eventually enslave mankind.
--------------------
Don't squeeze the pancake batter
|
Floydian
veteran
Registered: 05/13/00
Posts: 1,022
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#317049 - 05/14/01 03:16 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
One more point. In the article it suggests that joints are more efficient in delivering more of the THC in the weed. "The percentage of total THC delivered to the user is called the THC transfer rate. The unfiltered joint scored surprisingly well in smoking efficiency, coming in second place with a transfer rate close to 20%. The portable waterpipe did slightly better, and the bong slightly worse." I don't refute this, but I would like to point out that this study is concentrating of health factors and not the amount of high one gets. I would argue that bongs will get someone higher than a joint because the amount of smoke inhaled and the speed as to which it is inhaled is much greater than most any other method. Therefore, delivering more THC at higher concentrations. Even if a bong is slightly less efficient in it's THC transfer rate this can be made up for by the fact that you can take much bigger hits from a bong. Remember, that in the study they were using a machine to simulate the puff length of a pot smoker. I suspect that they used a standard puff length for all devices and didn't account for the fact that much bigger hits are possible with bongs. This raises questions on the validity of the study. In conclusion all this study does is raise questions about the commonly held belief that bongs are more healthful. It does not, however, disprove the commonly held belief that bongs will get you much higher. Thank you, drive through.
Excessive use of technology will eventually enslave mankind.Edited by Floydian on 05/14/01 05:33 PM.
--------------------
Don't squeeze the pancake batter
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Floydian]
#317122 - 05/14/01 04:23 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
> It does say in the article that they used low quality weed. Plus it said that they only used 5 grams while experiementing! Sounds like a fairly unthorough study.
I don't care that they used low quality weed. I have no fucking idea what "swag" is supposed to mean, or how it's relevant to the study. So what if they had used high potency marijuana?
And 5 grams is still enough to make measurements about the cannabinoid / tar ratio. The results wouldn't change if they burned 500 grams.
> This line from the study made me be a little suspicious of the validity of the experiement. "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." This part of the study is suspect to being invalid in my opinion because THC isn't water soluable and in my personal experience i use less weed with a bong to reach the desired effect.
No, but tar is even LESS water soluble. Saying THC isn't soluble in water means that it's less than 5% soluble; not that it's absolutely unsoluble. Therefor, the more water the smoke passes through, the more THC (than tar) you dissolve into the water. Also, realize that the increased amount of surface area inside a bong gives the THC-tar more places to stick to (meaning lost THC). As to your subjective levels of effect, I have no concern for that. My experiences tell me otherwise. So it seems that subjective reports on the effects of a psychedelic substance can contradict each other. Whoopdedoo.
> And how can you start acting like this study has proved any scientific fact?!
Scientific data is scientific fact. Very simple.
> Did you even read the following part of the article?!
[delete]
That part is not what I am contesting! What I'm saying is that it's stupid to assume that bongs produce better, more potent hits. I'm not saying that they're less healthy! They probably are more healthy simply because they cool the smoke down.
> Further more I would love to see a poll taken in this forum or anywhere else and ask people which smoking method gets them the highest.
It's the same old shit. It's just like some people say white wine fucks them up more than vodka. I'm skeptical. Alcohol is alcohol. Weed is weed. etc. etc. If you believe that a bong hit will work best for you, then it probably will. I don't believe it, so it affects me just as much as other methods.
> I'm sorry but your acusation that part of the reason people get more high off of a bong is attributable to placebo is way off.
I don't think so. Weed has hallucinogenic properties. Have you ever seen someone smoke something that isn't weed and they really believe that they are stoned? Placebo. Have you ever seen someone take fake acid and believe that they are starting to trip or have visuals? Placebo.
You have expectations for every experience that you have future knowledge of, no matter how limited your knowledge of the event. I don't know what your expectations were, but you still expected something.
>The first time I tryed a bong i had no expectations and it still got me way higer than I ever had before.
So, for some reason your one experience is more valid than mine?
And you're assuming that you smoked amount X, and you directly compared it to other times you smoked amount X?
> And they consistently continue to do so.
Because now you expect it.
> How can something be a myth if it consistently proves itself to be true?
What I'm saying is that it's a myth that bongs give you more THC. The reasons behind the "actual getting higher" are psychological. If you consider placebo a valid part of a hallucinogenic experience, that's fine.
> Read the article again and you will realize that their conclusions are speculations most times.
Please point out one speculation. And please tell me which conclusion(s) you are referring to.
> They state it many times in the article that they are still unsure and need to do more research
They do? They state once that they're going to do another study. What are they saying they're unsure about?
> I don't know about you but when studies fail to give me any solid evidence of something, I tend to trust my personal experience.
If you choose to accept your personal experience over scientific data that's fine.
How much more solid than empirical science do you want?
> Stop being so proud and admit that this study really doesn't give us a definitive answer to the question of a bongs usefulness.
And stop assuming my motives. I am being argumentative. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to state this. I argue to get people to think for their fucking selves. I am trying to provoke independent thought even if that thought has to literally be provoked with anger. I am not being proud. I'm simply arguing. I find it fun. I also find it entertaining.
The study admits that a bong's usefulness is in question as to health concerns. I'm raising the issue that a bong's usefulness in terms of potency of experience is what should be doubted.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Floydian]
#317135 - 05/14/01 04:29 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
> I don't refute this, but I would like to point out that this study is concentrating of health factors and not the amount of high one gets.
Yes, though accordingly it's the THC-et al. that get one high. As well as (as with all hallucinogens) the user's expectations.
> I would argue that bongs will get someone higher than a joint because the amount of smoke inhaled and the speed as to which it is inhaled is much greater than most any other method.
I would then point out to you that more THC at once in the lungs would mean less THC absorbed into the blood stream (your lungs can only absorb so much at once).
Though more THC at once would be a more intense rush than via other methods.
> It does not, however, disprove the commonly held belief that bongs will get you much higher. Thank you, drive through.
No it doesn't, but remember that "higher" is reflecting on the subjective effect of a hallucinogenic substance. A more intense rush feeling (as the result of a more THC being delivered at once) could be the result of people getting higher, and has nothing to do with the actual amount of THC at all. It's all subjective yes, but you have to remember that people that look at it differently (like me) won't experience it the same way.
|
Floydian
veteran
Registered: 05/13/00
Posts: 1,022
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#317211 - 05/14/01 05:38 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
ok we are agrueing over two totally different things here. I pointed out the fact that they used low quality weed because you seemed to miss that point earlier. You asked me if I had read the link so i was kind of rebuting that by pointing out that you missed something when you read it. Also, it doesn't blaytantly say that they are unsure about things. It's more the terminology they use. For example, "water bongs don't NECESSARILY protect smoker..." etc. Also, you basically just agreed with me when you said that bongs would create a more intense rush. thats basically what i'm talking about. Like you said, the amount of "high" one percieves is very subjective. Since it hits you much faster and your state of mind will change quicker and most will percieve the high as being greater. Whether this actually means more THC or not is null. Like I said before the actual amount of THC that is consumed really doesn't matter since the high is subjective. You are nit-picking again. Although there are limits to how much your lungs can absorb in one hit do really we know for sure where you "max out" and how much you can absorb? I had access to a five footer last year and if you take one rip from this thing you will be much higher than you would if you smoked the same amount through other methods. You would be dishonest if you tried to state otherwise or you would only be less high because you were expecting that effect. Simply because the amount that you can get into your lungs in one hit is equal to about four or five hits from a bowl. I really don't think that more THC in the lungs would mean less THC is absorbed into the blood stream. That seems like a contradictory statement. If you can prove that bongs don't deliver THC at a faster rate maybe I can agree with you. But personal experience reigns supreme in my book. Science is far from perfect and many studies have variables that can't be controlled or anticipated. I would need many more studies that concentrated more on what we are talking about rather than health issues, before I believed them. I'm a skeptic when it comes to science, it's obvious you put more faith in it than I do. Also don't preach about how you are encouraging independant thought. That's why I disagreed with your placebo explaination for the popularity of bongs. I never really had anyone tell me that bongs get you much higher. it's not like it was something that i was hearing all the time or that people talked about much, if at all. I came to the conclusion through personal experience and logic. This meaning, more smoke+faster rate of intake=more high. just kind of figured it was a common experience for everyone. So don't try to act like I'm a not thinking independantly because I happen to have a majority on my side. Don't assume more than you know.
Excessive use of technology will eventually enslave mankind.
--------------------
Don't squeeze the pancake batter
|
Floydian
veteran
Registered: 05/13/00
Posts: 1,022
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#317239 - 05/14/01 05:52 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
a few things I missed. First off like it was mentioned earlier this is only one study. Studies have flaws so I'm inclined to put faith in personal experience before i believe just one study. You say the measurements would have been the same if they used 500 grams. This is not necesarily true. if you have ever done a science experiment you know that data can vary greatly from one trial to the next. I critisize this study because 5 grams doesn't seem like much to be working with allowing for a minimal amount of trials. You ask the question "So what if they used high potency marijuana?" That's a great question and I would really like to know if it would have made difference! This shows once again that this study wasn't very thorough. Scientific data is not scienctific fact! measurements taken in an experiment are done by non-perfect measureing devices and scientist that have the potential to make mistakes. Also you say "It's the same old shit. It's just like some people say white wine fucks them up more than vodka. I'm skeptical. Alcohol is alcohol. Weed is weed. etc. etc. If you believe that a bong hit will work best for you, then it probably will. I don't believe it, so it affects me just as much as other methods." Sure alcohol is alcohol and weed is weed but more potent alcohol/weed allows for faster consumption and greater effects will be experienced. That's the point I'm trying to drive home here. Bongs allow for faster consumption of weed and therefore get you more high.
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, 4 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Floydian]
#317251 - 05/14/01 06:02 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
i love stirring up heated debate :)
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.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Floydian]
#317277 - 05/14/01 06:22 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
> I really don't think that more THC in the lungs would mean less THC is absorbed into the blood stream.
Less percentage of the total of what's in your lungs would be absorbed by one toke, than say, if you took the same amount of THC in 2 or three tokes.
> Don't assume more than you know.
Everything is an assumption and I don't know what I know.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Floydian]
#317283 - 05/14/01 06:28 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
> Sure alcohol is alcohol and weed is weed but more potent alcohol/weed allows for faster consumption and greater effects will be experienced.
Well, that's the point I have to contradict based on my own personal experiences. For me, for faster consumption to lead to a sensation of being higher, the difference between the consumption timing has to be rather large.
For example, if I smoked one joint and smoked another 15 minutes later, my "high" plateau would be the same if I smoked it all as fast as possible in one bowl.
The same generally holds true for liquor (provided and empty stomach and that I can drink fast enough). 10 beers in 1 hour leads to the same drunkeness at 10 shots of vodka in 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm just an anomaly, but what I experience definately is the other way around than what most people report.
|
Anonymous
|
|
THC isn't water soluable UNTIL it's cooked. lighting it on fire would make the thc in the smoke, water soluable.
|
dragoon
enthusiast
Registered: 05/16/01
Posts: 204
Last seen: 22 years, 5 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#325098 - 05/24/01 01:18 PM (22 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If THC was water soluable you could drink the bong water and get fucked up, which you can't, it will only make you sick. I know for a fact I get more fucked up off bongs and bubblers than pipes and J's because you can draw larger hits because the smoke is smoother. One fuckin study and now thousands of bong tokers have pretended to get more fucked up off there bongs for hmm 30 years?
Kid you are a genius, how are those flashbacks going?
============================
Everything above is entirely FALSE.
|
hubertd8
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 07/13/00
Posts: 821
Loc: springfield
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#325130 - 05/24/01 01:55 PM (22 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
i was really surprised about this responce on your behalf. Actually i was surprised to see anyone here share my view point on bongs. But believe me its no use i've tried argueing before they just don't like to listen to facts which contradict there little beliefs. Most of which are based purely on info which they have accumulated through out the years from peers. I've tried arguing that since the thc is vaporized it is at an elevated temp then by passing it through cool water it dosen't neccesarily dissolve but cool back to a solid or liquid state, or perhaps that a saturation point exsist in the water regarding tars and other harmful elements. Little seems to work, people here always look for proof but when you present them with it and it dosen't appeal to them they claim it to be bias or just gov't propaganda.
Good luck,
--------------------
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."
Bertrand Russell
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Anonymous]
#325165 - 05/24/01 02:38 PM (22 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> THC isn't water soluable UNTIL it's cooked. lighting it on fire would make the thc in the smoke, water soluable.
Incorrect. The solubility of THC might be increased at higher temperatures, but it wouldn't be soluble.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: hubertd8]
#325169 - 05/24/01 02:42 PM (22 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> But believe me its no use i've tried argueing before they just don't like to listen to facts which contradict there little beliefs.
I've noticed.
> One fuckin study and now thousands of bong tokers have pretended to get more fucked up off there bongs for hmm 30 years?
I never said they were pretending.
> Kid you are a genius, how are those flashbacks going?
Dude, you're a fucking idiot. I know that I see things that weren't there before my psychedelic drug use. If you want to agree with Murple and say that it's not a drug induced "flashback" fine, but don't bring up irrelevant information.
|
Pyrotechnist
enthusiast
Registered: 12/06/99
Posts: 212
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 22 years, 1 month
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#325219 - 05/24/01 03:33 PM (22 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
This study certainly has merit, but it is merely pseudoscientific to draw definite conclusions from one study with a small sample size - any scientist will tell you that. While this one study may start to indicate a trend, it would be entirely premature to draw be-all-and-end-all conclusions from one study alone. Until this study is repeatedly replicated with very similar results, science itself says that it is not definite. Ask any scientist, and they'll tell you the same thing. By the way, I'm not having a go at you, I'm just telling you as a scientific skeptic my view of the situation.
In the 1800s it was a fact that light travelled through space in a medium called the aether. One religious scientist discovered the fact that the human soul weighs 3g. And I just did a biology prac with results that made no sense whatsoever due to incomplete control of variables.
And why 'the fuck'* is everybody getting so angry? Since when did emotion have its place in a supposedly logical scientific debate? Set your differences aside and think.
*added for emphasis
--------------------
"Sure, just cut them up like regular chickens."
|
Anonymous
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Kid]
#325479 - 05/24/01 07:49 PM (22 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
marijuana can be cooked, and then consumed. it must be water soluable to be active when eating it. but believe whatever you want
|
Floydian
veteran
Registered: 05/13/00
Posts: 1,022
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Pyrotechnist]
#325851 - 05/25/01 05:47 AM (22 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
That is exactly the point i was trying to get across Pyro. Oh and Bill Woodruff, Thc is active when you cook and eat it because its soluable in oils.
"I hate to say this, but this place is getting to me. I think I'm getting the Fear."
--------------------
Don't squeeze the pancake batter
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: Anonymous]
#325955 - 05/25/01 11:42 PM (22 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> marijuana can be cooked, and then consumed. it must be water soluable to be active when eating it. but believe whatever you want
No, it dissolves into the fats.
|
augustwest
addict
Registered: 12/19/00
Posts: 55
Last seen: 22 years, 7 months
|
Re: bong usefullness in doubt [Re: drunkgoat]
#327765 - 05/28/01 10:45 AM (22 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
my double chamber would answer this question and leave you with no doubt about its effectiveness....unless you smoke comercial swag.
I only put buds in my bong kind and sweet.....
not to mention if your weed tastes good you dont want to be drawing the smoke through resinated paper.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
Bridgetown Botanicals 
Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Kratom Capsules for Sale 
Kratom Powder For Sale
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
mjshroomer
ncj
iloveraving
Barnaby