Talk:Bong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Milestones Date Process Result July 21, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 27, 2005 Peer review Reviewed

This article is part of the WikiProject on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, set up to organize and expand entries on Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants as well as related subjects according to chemical type, effects, organic carriers, and cultural/historical uses. Please feel free to participate by editing this article and visiting the project page.

Contents 1 Bong water 2 The user should been known as the smoker 3 Picture Needs Re-Numbering 4 description 5 Sources 6 Can aluminum (tin) foil be toxic? 7 bamboo 8 Bong, water pipe, Hookah - what are the differences? 9 Solar Bong? 10 Pics 11 Restructuring plan 11.1 Introduction and categorization of article: paraphernalia=POV? 11.2 First major structural change: section 2 leads with the technologies 11.3 Second major change, section 3: care and use, also, a place to isolate anecdotal claims. 11.4 Finally, place the gravity bong and other "pseudo-bong technologies" in some sort of collector section 11.5 Gallery 12 Tobacco or Cannabis? 13 Tom & Greg 14 Percolator bong 15 Tobacco and cannabis 16 Taking out sources is not vandalism. 17 Picture of Bong 18 shotty info unsatisfactory

[edit] Bong water

What do bong water energy drinks have to do with bongs? Or is it the result of a typical wikipediaism where every minorly tangential item is shoe horned in. --75.22.182.130 16:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive (2002-May 2006)

[edit] The user should been known as the smoker

For example the user of a plane is known as a pilot. Same thing here, should be known as the smoker.

[edit] Picture Needs Re-Numbering

When re-writing the "General" section into the "Basic Structure" section, I wrote about number 2 on the picture first because it made the explanation more linear and short. If you want to keep my re-write could someone please update the picture and my numbering. Thank you.

[edit] description

bottom two paragraphs of this seem contradictory. Joints are better, but bongs are better.. hmm

[edit] Sources

Has anyone ever lived that smoked tobacco out of a bong? Not a hookah, a bong?

Large portions of this article are without sources. Are there any unsourced sections that are worth looking for citations for?
brenneman ^{L} 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can aluminum (tin) foil be toxic?

The article seems unsure of this; one section says that aluminum foil is toxic when used as a bowl and should not be used, another section says that the vaporization temperature of aluminum is above that of a bic lighter flame, hence it is not toxic.

I think a definitive answer on this is important. Is foil, or an aluminum can safe, or is it not?

I highly recommend not to use foil. It tastes gross. ReverendG 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One can observe the reaction when a piece of aluminum foil is placed under the lighter's or match's flame. It does catch fire, and I'm pretty certain there is very good reason to believe that this releases REMARKABLY harmful chemicals, such as poisonous oxides. In my opinion, this should certainly be noted in the article. -Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.233.243.229 (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] bamboo

i would just like to point out that it is possible to make a type of bong/pipe called a steamroller (ive heard it lovingly named a bamboozie before) out of bamboo by taking a length of bamboo, making it a hollow cylinder, and placing a bowl in the side of one end. you simple place your mouth over the end farthest from the bowl and your hand over the other, you light the bowl, draw smoke into the bamboo cylinder, and then remove your hand from the end and inhale. Exactly like a shotgun, but for one person. --Mad Gouki 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely this is a form of pipe, not a bong. Bongs are water filtered.

[edit] Bong, water pipe, Hookah - what are the differences?

I've been dealing a with the terms Bong, water pipe and Hookah in recent edits, but I can't really understand what the difference is. Are bongs and hookah's both waterpipes, if so, what are the differences? Please can someone try to clear this up for me (and please do so in the lead intro of each article!) Jens Nielsen 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Their mechanism is slightly different, although they are both water pipes. I'm sure there's a diagram somewhere showing, idk though. In a hookah, the bowl is at the top and the smoke travels down an inner pipe, bubbles out of the water into the chamber, and then out of the chamber through a hose into the user's mouth. In a bong, the bowl is near the bottom so that it is close to the water, and the smoke doesn't have to travel though a long pipe to get to it. It bubbles directly into the chamber, which is often directly connected to where the user places their mouth. Also the bowls are typically different shapes, and a bong has a carb, and a hookah either doesn't, or it isn't intended to be covered. Also a hookah can have more than one hose, although it doesn't have to. (Don't take my word 100% though, this is just what I've gathered from the articles and my experience.) --Anaraug 04:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solar Bong?

The solar bong has to be a joke. There are no sources on the internet about solar bongs, and after constructing one I have found it does not work.

never heard of a solar bong, however, solar hits can be taken by replacing a lighter or traditional heat source with a sizeable magnifying glass and the sun. this is rarely done outside of california

[edit] Pics

there are too many pictures. ReverendG 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring plan

I'm the original writer of the principles and motivations sections some years ago (especially proud that my principles section got illustrated) and I think I know how to improve this article's structure greatly. Some of the restructuring's drastic, which is why I'm explaining it in advance. It is not my stated intention to remove anything at this point, but I do intend to isolate a number of things that aren't actually bong-related in a section that will ultimately be splintered into a new article (named "Other drug smoking methodologies" or whatever). Below is my proposal, with my signature interspersed to facilitate chaotic expansion.rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction and categorization of article: paraphernalia=POV?

The introduction needs a lot of work. I think it's POV to call this drug paraphernalia, but not hookahs or cigarettes or tea kettles. Am I wrong, people? The legality of cannibus is clearly a peripheral issue. This is a technology: when it's used to combust a legal substance a bong is a legal object.rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First major structural change: section 2 leads with the technologies

The overall structure should be changed so that 1.1, parts of 2,2.1,3,4.1, are grouped into a major section (2') named Description of bong technologies. This will also contain a history section; all of those should be more cross-referenced to hookah.

proposed structure of revised section 2:

• General physical layout of a bong
• Physical principles of bong action
• Other bong technologies
  • Enhancement of cooling effect (ice tricks, flavorings, special solvents)
  • Enhancement of combustion methodology ("vaporiser bong" would get gutted and go here)
  • Enhanced control of smoke delivery (slides, carbs, large vs. small chambers, etc)
  • Embellishments on the basic bong design
    • Improvised (homemade-MacGyvah-soldiah)
    • Bubbler
    • "Zong" (think this should be merged into enhancements of cooling)rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Motivations" section should be focused on health (or, perceived health) benefits, with a subsection on research into this area.rmbh 07:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second major change, section 3: care and use, also, a place to isolate anecdotal claims.

I'm going to place the relatively peripheral stuff in some sort of slush category. This will contain the sections 2.2, 2.3, as well as parts of 2.1, and whatever is excised from the material comprising the revised section 2 (above).rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finally, place the gravity bong and other "pseudo-bong technologies" in some sort of collector section

rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

Make a bong gallery that showcases some different styles of bongs. Acrylic, glass, fat bases, skinny bases, zongs etc... --Arm 03:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. ReverendG 03:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobacco or Cannabis?

Someone keeps changing Bong to indicate that bongs are used primarily to smoke tobacco. It seems to me that while it might be possible to smoke tobacco in a bong, and this is a reason one might give for owning a bong, it is far more common for bongs to be used in the process of smoking cannabis. I have heard of tobacco pipes, but never tobacco bongs. What do y'all say? BobbyLee 03:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The user who keeps changing it claims that shops that sell bongs must claim that they are tobacco. I can imagine this being true, but unless he/she finds a verifiable source, then we can't include that information because of WP:NOR. In any case, we already have sources that refer to bongs being primarily used for cannabis, so there is no basis for changing that at all. I would be ok, with "A bong is used for smoking cannabis or ..list of other things.., but they must be sold as if they will be used for tobacco according to the laws in many jurisdictions (cite source)." Or something. We should discuss it further here before adding that though. --Anaraug 03:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok... I tried to strike a compromise, but now that user is blatantly ignoring policy which I have intentionally made him/her aware of, so we're no longer able to assume good faith... We might need to get an admin or someone to do something about it. Until then just keep reverting I guess. --Anaraug 04:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all English-speaking countries have such laws; the reality is that the majority of bongs sold worldwide are intended for Cannabis use. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know they are. I just meant that it still might be notable enough to mention that some jurisdictions have such a law, but I don't think it's important enough to actively go look for a source, etc. --Anaraug 05:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought of the term waterpipe referring to a bong used for tobacco, but when bong is used it's always weed (or crack). ReverendG 06:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be at it again. ReverendG 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I also see a lot of jargon: "can allow a user on a tight budget to conserve bud and still get toasted." Suggest "smoker to use substance very efficiently." Was whoever wrote the original smoking dope at the time?;-)209.43.10.224 05:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Mike Williamson

agree with suggestion and, to answer your question, probably. ReverendG 15:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom & Greg

Vandalism. They're irrelevant to the article.

[edit] Percolator bong

Has anyone ever heard of the percolator bong? Its like a bong, but there are more then one water filters all fitted into 1 chamber. Less harsh then the zong. It would be a good thing to add to Wikipedias collection. --Arm 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobacco and cannabis

Both are used in abong, the former in many arab countries like Morocco, SqueakBox 17:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The apparatus used in Morocco is more accurately described as a Hookah; this article is clearly about a device that is most commonly used to smoke Cannabis. I don't think it's necessary to provide citations for what a bong is used for; it's common knowledge. If someone insists on citations, here are a few [1] [2]. The second reference mentions the fact that while it's common knowledge that bongs are intended for cannabis, Head shop owners in the US (and perhaps other locations) market them for tobacco consumption to skirt drug laws, which the head shop article already mentions. Here's an example of a court case. [3]. This article should reflect the reality that bongs are primarily used for marijuana use. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. They are used as such in the first world, in the arab world they are often used in public for tobacco. You reverting cites makes either a POV pusher or a vandal, SqueakBox 19:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who engages in persional attacks, see your edit summaries which are a personal attack on me. There is no reason to remove the cite requests other than POV pushing or vandalsim. Which is it? I suspect the former. Just give the refs or leave the article be, SqueakBox 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can see via my recent contributions that there are no attacks in my edit summaries or messages regarding this topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This and this clearly contain attacks in your edit summary, and if you are an experienced user you must surely know this, SqueakBox 19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Those edit summaries are automatically generated by the Administrator rollback tool. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. And you had no excuse to use that admin tool when reverting me. That was telling everyone that I am a vandal, and for wanting cites for unreferenced information. Please dont abuse your admin tools like this, thety should be used for real vandalism, of which my request edits were clearly not an example, SqueakBox 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The rollback summary does not mention vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It implies it as the rollback is for use for reverting vandalism, I wouldnt be narked otherwise, hence the link to the contributions of the person being reverted so others can check their contribs for further vandalism. As an admin I would expect you to know this and not use the tool when reverts arent vandalism, SqueakBox 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taking out sources is not vandalism.

Seriously. The US Government is not an authority on bongs. In any way, shape, or form. Tobacco can be used in a bong... but so can parsley and sage. The point is that CANNABIS IS THE MATTER THAT IS TYPICALLY SMOKED IN A BONG, and that TOBACCO IS THE MATTER THAT IS TYPICALLY SMOKED IN A HOOKAH. Okay? 71.147.39.11 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what it says, SqueakBox 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Bong

I have a nice picture of a bong(never thought I'd say that).10-23-2006-01.jpg I think this page has enough pictures to let someone know what a bong looks like and it might be a bit extraneous to add, but take a look @ this pic I have and see if it's worth it, maybe even as a file that links to the page. Flclovesun 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Maybe even to show the art of the specialized glass working? i don't know.Flclovesun 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

|Regarding the above mention of the steamroller: yes, it's quite legitimate, though it usually gave me some pretty intense headaches, for whatever reason; in absence of a some kind of coolant, however, it is a pipe, not a bong.

Regarding ice: IMHO, this facet receives insufficient attention, particularly since HS level physics alone reveals many advantages (and a few potential drawbacks for the unwary. ) In short, ices latent heat requires 80 calories/gram to overcome; this will NOT change temperature, merely create 0° C water. Another 80 calories will raise that gram of 0° water to 80°, or roughly 177° F. That's more than it takes to raise room temperature water to boiling temperature (though waters latent heat must be overcome before steam is produced.)

One advantages is immediately obvious, and arguably greater with ice in the BASE instead of/in addition to the CHAMBER. In addition, in a base with even a little ice water temperature CANNOT rise until ALL ice is melted. Simple experimentation will quickly confirm what I verified by experience: ice water stays very cold as long as even a little ice remains; once the last ice melts, the water is at or above room temperature in just a few hits. A similar effect is familiar to those familiar with heavy snow fall: temperatures won't fall much below freezing until the first snow sticks, but once lasting snow arrives it will be at or below freezing until it's all gone.

Another (comparatively rare) physical property of water is a potential trouble spot, particularly with LOTS of ice in the base (hence that isn't normally done:) water takes more space just before freezing than just after, (if you place a full glass of water in the freezer it will crack when it freezes. ) For the bong, this means if the water level is at or near the bowl (running the risk of soaking the cannabis/tobacco) melting ice WILL soak the cannabis/tobacco. So if you put ice in the base, don't overfill, leave a little room for the ice to expand as it melts. Ice in the chamber as well requires special care, since it will run down to the base when melted. Often one can simply tip the bong the after some ice melts, letting the excess water out the carb, or with a slide remove the bowl and pour it out the stem.

Last but not least is another benefit--IF you're not greedy. Otherwise, it's a deteriment: gas volume and/or pressure rise as temperature, per the Ideal Gas Law. An icy base is near 0°; body temperature is 27°: hits expand as the lungs warm them, literally pressing the smoke into the lungs, a potential benefit for concentration/speed. However, much as with the base, YOU CAN'T OVERFILL! Overfilling the base is annoying, but wee-er, cannabis/tobacco will dry; overfilling your lungs with low temperature gas is dangerous, because if volume can't increase, pressure MUST!

Good news: You can take smaller hits that are force fed into your lungs at (initially) near freezing (technically, they're NOT smaller hits, they just take up less space and get gravity bonged.)

Bad news: If you're greedy and try to monster hit you'll cough it up in a matter of seconds, and possibly burst a blood vessel if you try to hold it (you CAN'T;) continuing the gravity bong analogy, it's like if you had a trash can gravity bong and tried to shove it into your lungs: it's not gonna work, and trying could hurt.

The bottom line is if you're not greedy ice, preferably in the base, makes the experience more efficient in both resources and intensity; I won't smoke without ice in the base.

Regarding alcohol: while there is risk of some chemical bonding, THC and nicotine are both covalently bonded, like ethanol; they won't bond with the alcohol, but they WILL dissolve in it (but not water. ) On the other hand, ethanol is a gas at room temperature, meaning it can be inhaled WITH the THC or nicotine, and as with most drugs will produce a "multiplier effect." However, as already noted in the article, ethanol IS flammable, and it IS a gas at room temperature; just as there will be alcohol vapor in the chamber there will be in the stem, and if it reaches the flash point nasty things can happen. Ice, placed in the base (to cool the ethanol rather than the smoke alone) is probably a good idea here. Bad news: you'll get less of the ethanol vapors in the hits; good news: the bong's much less likely to ignite and/or explode.

I think that covers it; the best part is it can be verified in any HS chem lab.|

[edit] shotty info unsatisfactory

well, you removed the shotty page. fair play, it was a mess and probably needed combining with this article anyway, but youve totally failed to define what a shotty is in this article. maybe you should have read the article and made an effort to transplant the necessary information to this page. a shotty is a bong without a cup or gauze, and uses a plate of tobacco to block the tube while the weed rests on top. what happened to the details of the yatti kit? wikipedia nazis strike again!

Hahaha I loke how this article is longer than the article on Lutheranism. 24.6.118.254 04:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry really off topic.