Printable View
joints..there cheaper at a price of 1.00 a pack to 1.00 a blunt wrap which means 32 more papers they conserve more and smoke just as well. but you gotta love the occasonal blunt.
This is why i prefer a bong over a pipe and a joint over a blunt.
feel free to give your opnions.
Vaporizing for the win.
It's much better for the lungs, and conserves an amazing amount of weed.
Of course, if you can't afford one, then I would go a with bong. Cooler, filtered smoke, (THC is not water-soluble, so you're not losing it), and the ability to smoke just as much as you need, and have no excess smoke in the air (put out your bowl with a penny or something).
you just confused the fuck out of meQuote:
Originally Posted by HypnotizedMind
Bongs don't actually filter that much smoke. I know you didn't say that it did, I wa just adding.Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNiner
Vaporizer for the win. It's good and good for you!
Well, yeah, but it certainly helps to cool it and filter out SOME of the harmful stuff you're inhaling, so why not? It's a much more pleasant smoke in my opinion than say, a joint or a pipe.Quote:
Originally Posted by graph
Anyway, glad we agree..wish I could afford a volcano, though.
Peace.:stoned:
Blunt wraps fuck up the weed.
Bongs are the most efficient way to smoke so why waste your weed? Vaporizors take away from the fun of smoking, they are too complicated and leave too much waste.
Not that I can't roll the sweetest joints you have ever seen but they are just a waste of smoke. And then there will always be a bogart on that joint if you smoke with friends, you know the guy. The one who has to hit it so hard that it runs halfway down the side, burning it unevenly and whatnot because he is so selfish and uncaring about the art of smoking.
http://www.ukcia.org/research/pipes.htm
basically this talks abt the efficency of various ways of smoking... i think ull be surpized
That is pretty interesting! So, efficiency-wise, joints seem to rule over any kind of waterpipe or bong or vaporizer. They didn't test just normal pipes, but I'd think those would be the same as joints, minus the carcinogens of the paper. I notice they also said nothing about eating cannabis which, in my (admittedly limited) experience, is by far the most efficient way to consume cannabis.
My smoking is generally: normal pipe (titanium bowl, tube, and screen), with an occasional joint, and eating. So, I guess I'm about as efficient as it's possible to get in regards to my consumption. That explains why pot seems to last me a very long time, yet I am often baked. Heh. ;)
If you have ever used a vapouriser with decent weed you will know that study is bollocks.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Whos Carl
They didn't have a volcano
So... if you can't trust that.. how can you trust the rest?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whos Carl
Imean if only one of their conclusions was obviously false, what have we to trust for the other conclusions?
What fun is vaporising though?.
I guess you've never done it right :dance:Quote:
Originally Posted by HypnotizedMind
Vaporizing is awesome. You feel like a scientist. Oh, lemme just adjust the way I breathe so that the ceramic heating element is given a little more time to rush the air past the dried botanical. See how smart you feel?
Oh, and to inferius, they specifically state that the test isn't accurate based on the cannabis they used. Not only that, but in chemistry they taught us that one test is never enough, and no bias should be made on a general level by one test. I mean, no offense to anyone, but if you were to base information off of ONE clinical trial, then you'd popping more pills than Cybill Sheppard. I have no idea who that person is, or what she's done, but I don't like her name.
the only point i was making was that a bong did filter out some THC...
Bubbler ftw.