Talk:Vaporizer (cannabis)/Archive 1

Sneaky advertising

The introduction, prior to an edit, made mention of a certain 'Vaporization Water Tool'. This is the proprietary name of a VripTech [1] vaporizer product and bore no relevance to the text. Go away commercial spammers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.41.124.8 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Patent infringment

The image used is an ubie. I am the inventor author and owner of the technology in which a lighter exaust is drawn in as this drawing indicates. Please direct visitors to my website where I make a socially conscious disposible unit that does not destroy the market and deprive the owner of sales. They are theives who have run after my technology. and have paied me nothing. Tim Sherdian

Disambiguation

This is all wrong. --86.1.185.0

This page should probably become a disambig, since there are lots of other types of vaporisers not currently being dealt with. I've added a dablink to the anaesthetic one, but there are also the steam thingies used for treating cold symptoms, essential oil heaters for adding aroma to a room, and for that matter humidifiers. In that context a quick distinction from atomizer might also clarify a point for some people.

I'm not sure what unambiguous term we can use to refer to the device class the page currently deals with, though, since they seem to be universally referred to and sold simply as "vaporisers" regardless of design. Alternately the page might be expanded to encompass the other definitions (which are in some ways related), but I suspect that would get messy - it has a nice focus now, though it certainly needs both more detail and improvements to style and encyclopedicity. - toh 20:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is why links to commercial examples of different types of vaporizers is useful as PRACTICAL information. Most readers don't know the difference between a convection and conduction and steam vaporizer but with an explanation it grows clearer...with links to actual commercial examples with pictures it becomes crystal clear: effective ENCYLOPEDICITY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.11.127 (talk) 00:51 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It would also be very helpful for someone to distinguish the difference between a vaporizer, a hookah, and a bong, on all of the related pages, in a sentence or so.Mmortal03 (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links?

Why shouldn't this page have an external links section? If there is a valid reason according to Wikipedia standards then that's fine, but otherwise it seems that an external links section, excluding links to vaporizer sellers, would be useful. Wowbobwow12 20:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the external links I've seen thus far (to hugegrins and myvapor) point to vaporizer sales sites. There's no reason why either of those sites should be linked, given they don't provide any more information than was in the article. It seems that such links aren't in line with the WP external links policy, so I've pulled both of them accordingly. Nortelrye 07:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Links to OEM vaporizer manufacturers that are there for the purpose of PRACTICAL information to further define different types and configurations of vaporizers is very much in line with Wikipedia's external links policy....as long as the wording isn't slanted towards one brand or another within such framework these links are fine! Leave them alone so that readers can get more information regarding for instance what exactly a "direct lung delivery" vaporizer looks like without having to go to a commercial vaporizer page and sift through all the links and try to figure out which is which. Clarity is the concept here folks....having some commercial links for reference purposes achieves greater clarity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.11.127 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replaced the link which Nortelrye deleted on the grounds that the site is a commercial site. This site does not endorse any brand or type of vaporizer, it simply provides an overview of the varieties available along with reviews of the various types. Wowbobwow12 01:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Any links should be to OEM vaporizer manufacturer sites only...not commercial sites that sell a bunch of brands of vaporizers under the auspices of being a "vaporizer review" which is simply a marketing ploy for web traffic. Some OEM vaporizer manufacturers do have reviews or comparisons on their sites so this should be acceptable, but the distinction is that they only sell the vaporizers they make which tend to be of one type or another with only a couple of exceptions whereas one manufacturer makes multiple vaporizers with different configurations.

I can't see why links to honourable scientific studies are deleted by Beetstra. These Medical Studies provide information about recent research and I see a great benefit in providing links to these studies. I would suggest to provide the links again. I am sure that it is worthy information. Esender1 (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Esender1

Language problems

The article uses terms like "innovative", "starting at as low as", "highly acclaimed", and "by far superior" which makes it read like an advertisement at times. IMO the language should try to avoid that and stay as objective as possible, and be rewritten to avoid connotations even when the usage is justified.

Anyway, I haven't mastered the Wikipedia policies and integrated them into a framework with which to write good articles so I won't do the edit. If someone has too much time on his hands then maybe consider it, eh? 11:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is reasonable but PRACTICAL examples that are going to be COMMERCIALLY available does not necessarily mean SPAM! having a link to check a picture or get more information elsewhere regarding something discussed in generic terms is PRACTICAL if worded correctly...does not necessarily mean it is SPAM. The links should stay to serve their purpose and whoever keeps erasing them and erasing the discussion that clearly states the reason for their inclusion needs to get a life...if you want to fight SPAM find a way to keep it out of my inbox! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.11.127 (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing your proposed changes on this talk page. Please review Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. If you think that any of the commercial links that you have been attempting to add should be included in the article despite the guideline, please make the case here on this talk page before adding the link back to the article. Please be very specific about why each particular link should be included.

Also please note that your edits over the past few days have removed content from the article, including alteration of a direct quote from a cited source. If there is content that you think should be removed, please discuss the proposed changes here first.

Regarding the material you are attempting to add, please review WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, as well as Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.

Finally, please have a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Help:Edit summary.

Thanks, Chondrite 08:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative links Chondrite....the funny thing is that I see the page called a vaporizer info page under external links is actually a site that "reviews" all the vaporizers they sell and is really a sales site; whereas now all the OEM manufacturer's sites I suggested be provided as links within the context of descriptions of the various types of vaporizers as relevent are gone as is the page that was made seperate listing commercial vaporizer links....but the Volcano Vaporizer page....a commercial vaporizer that somehow has gotten it's own Wikipedia page remains....hmmm....is there more than one standard here? Please advise....I won't make any changes until I am advised by your expertise.

Browns?

Hey I was just wondering what the Cleveland Browns have to do with weed? When you click Browns at the bottom in the External Links it sends you to the football team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.58.224.236 (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

"Browns" needs to be redirected to it's own page, not linked to the Clevland Browns. Browns are the result of vaporizing, (what is left after vaporizing). Browns may be collected and re-vaped or the THC may be extracted from the Browns using an ethanol extraction.

I took out the entire section. IT is jevenile, and not correct. References please. 96.235.112.104 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

semi-protect article from anonymous contributors?

More than other articles I've worked at, this one seems particularly liable to anonymous contributions from commercial providers or others with dubious motives. More often than not, I find anonymous contributions detracting from the article rather than improving it. Do any other regular editors support a proposal to have this article blocked from anonymous editing?

Jens Nielsen 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to support it - the page has become a mess, and appears to be declining in quality rather than improving. At the moment it's in need of considerable "devulcanism" just for starters. - toh 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

pride

i am just so proud of everyone here who's worked on this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chantoke (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Correction needs to be made to the Scientific Studies section

At the end of the Scientific Studies section in this article, it is stated that:

"Although vaporizers produce cleaner vapors than smoking, they do not completely eliminate respiratory irritation. A puff of strong vaporized cannabis will occasionally cause coughing. This however, could be due to THC itself, which is known to irritate the bronchial tract due to muscle contractions causing slight constrictions."

The italicized portion of that quote is incorrect. THC is a proven bronchio-dilator (not a bronchio-constrictor). In a study done by Donald P. Tashkin, published in the AMERICAN REVIEW OF RESPIRATORY DISEASE, VOLUME 112, 1975, it was found that,

"the smoking of marijuana and ingestion of Delta 9-THC by subjects with chronic, clinically stable, bronchial asthma of minimal to moderate severity has been shown to produce airway dilatation of a magnitude similar to that previously noted in healthy subjects"

Here's a link to the study

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:KbLaj8CL9gkJ:www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/tashkin/tashkin1.htm+THC+bronchial+dilation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

I'm new to the editing process of Wikipedia, and I don't know all the rules (I read wiki all the time though), so if someone could make this edit for me, it would be greatly appreciated :).

edit: okay so instead of changing the text, someone just took my citation (which contradicts the current text), and added it to the end of the incorrect text... So now when people read that marijuana smoke may cause bronchial constriction, they can click a study that says marijuana causes bronchial dialation.

'enhanced lung capacity technique'

I’ve been vaporizing for many years. The ‘enhanced lung capacity technique’ part reminded me of a technique of my own, and then my more recent technique. I used to fill my lungs to 2/3 capacity and then immediately breathe in as much clean air as possible. My theory was that with more air to breathe during the hit I might be able to hold it in longer. Now I have decided that a better strategy involves getting dense vapor, without any outside air, against all of my lungs insides. I think I read that the urge to take a breath, while holding a breath, is caused by too much CO2 and not lack of oxygen which I had previously assumed before. Now I simply empty my lungs and inhale as much as possible from the vapor bag. Then hold it in, and after that I catch my breath for a while. It is my experience that with both techniques I hold in my breath the same amount of time. So I think the second technique is better. Also more vapor at once means less time spent doing the process.

---

Yes, but does this belong in an encyclopedia entry about vaporizers? Have any experts in the field published any hard numbers about this? No... Just a bunch of stoners passing along conjecture, word of mouth, and original research.. Even if there were a verifiable source, at best this would belong in something like lung absorbtion of drug vapours or breathing techniques or something...

I think the whole section should be scrapped along with about half of the entire article. 24.68.135.133 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

--- I deleted the section as the only reference was a single random blog post, the entire section was a cut-and-paste copy of that blog post, and this is clearly meaningless original research. My revision was undone, so I will delete it again... I don't want to start an edit war here, but I think WP:V and WP:OR would agree this is original research and plagiarism. 24.68.135.133 22:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that external page copied off the wikipedia entry. (It was published after the wiki article was) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.171.185 (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

tumor reduction and 'american smokeless'

Two issues -

• 1) As far as this line: "The principle health benifit of vaporization is an aproximatly 90-95% reduction in tumor formation as demonstrated by past studies of laboratory animals painted with condensed vapor and smoke..." shouldn't we have a citation for that? Simply saying "the page was moved" doesn't quite seem adequate. What was the url for the old page? Also, the spelling is supposed to be "approximately" and "benefit"... this line seems like it was just thrown in on a whim. I'm just going to take this line out. The scientific studies section provides good coverage of the health benefits of vaporizing versus smoking. If anyone has a problem with this, please discuss here... and please provide a citation.

• 2) As far as the reference to "American Smokeless", the maker of the ubie vaporizer, I don't really see why this is in here. People have been vaporizing cannabis with "lightbulb vaporizers" for a very long time. The ubie is no more notable then other portable, flame driven vaporizers. I don't see any evidence that the ubie "dramatically expanded the market for safer smoking technology." This seems more like an ad for the ubie then anything else. Again, if anyone has a problem with this, please discuss here... and please provide a citation. Jsn9333 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• 3) The Ubie is a garbage vaporizer in addition to looking like some sort of crack pipe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.14.104 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

first thing I'm going to do when I move out is purchase one of these bad boys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.156.71 (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

www.buyvaporizers.org/

this sites main intention is to direct you to a site that aims to sell you things. Not appropriate. I'd even go as far as calling it spam. Ducttapeandzipties (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam and what's not

There seems to be a lot of thinly veiled spam being added to this article. However, there are some sites online that actually have useful information on vaporizers. www.fuckcombustion.com is the best I've found, they seem to have a strict no ad policy as well as a wiki. www.vaporinfo.com is another big one but has ads and seems to be dead lately. IMO these could be useful additions to the article. H4ze (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

---

"In response to the concerns, several studies have aimed to establish whether or not vaporizers could offer a clinically reliable and safe route of administration for cannabis. Though vaporizers show great variations in performance, such studies have consistently found vaporization superior to smoking and with best case (high-end vaporizers used with potent cannabis) results showing an elimination of undesired compounds suitable for clinical trials.[citation needed] In comparison to other routes of administering cannabis such as eating, vaporization offers the advantages of inhalation - immediate delivery into the bloodstream, rapid onset of effect, and more precise titration, the ability to more accurately control the dosage to produce a desired effect."

These sentences are used twice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer#Medical_implications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer#Health_and_medical_use They're exactly the same sentences in both parts of the article.There is no need to repeat something that has been already said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.149.217 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)