Talk:Cannabis smoking

Don't know how to cite properly
The summary article I used was http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040842811002319 Chinaman88 (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Under the Pipe or bowl section there is a missing citation/reference that should be number 22. The article here is discussing how different countries use different forms of smoking cannabis, but has no citation to back up the evidence. There should be a link here taking us to a page that proves what was just said is true. This is relevant to the citation question/references I am making a comment on. Levischwartz (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Levischwartz

There is also another piece of information that has no citation/is not cited properly in terms of having no reference. This is directly after what should be citation 22, so this citation should be number 23, still in the pipe or bowl section. I noticed that here in the article, the definition of a "one-hitter" is brought up, and we as readers need a citation to see where they are getting that information from. In both instances there is a need for an update/implementation of citations/references. Levischwartz (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Levischwartz

Citation 12 down
Citation 12, used 4 times in the article redirects to a 404 page. It's an important one: Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer

http://www.thoracic.org/sections/publications/press-releases/conference/articles/study-finds-no-link-between-marijuana-use-and-lung-cancer.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.87.245 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As of December 2011, that reference is still 404-ing. And I agree, it's definitely an important one. Galatix27 03:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatix27 (talk • contribs)

Please reread NOTHOWTO
{{collapse|

The above cited individual and one other editor have made it a point to ban entirely from WP cannabis-related articles the following technical references:

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Smoke-Pipes-From-Everyday-Objects

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-1/4%22-diam.-Screen-for-a-Single-Toke-Utensil

http://www.wikihow.com/Convert-a-Wasteful-Hot-Burning-Wide-Mouth-Chillum-Into-a-Screened-Long-Stemmed-One-Hitter

http://www.wikihow.com/Convert-a-Hot-Burning-Big-Bowl-Tobacco-Pipe-Into-a-25-Mg.-Serving-Size-One-Hitter

http://www.wikihow.com/Sift-Herbs-for-Smoking-Use

Not only does WP not ban references to wikiHow.com, the above cited rule explicitly encourages consulting it! If Wikipedia articles are not to read like a how-to guide, then the correct recourse is to add links helping readers seeking such information to find their way to it.

Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Lung Cancer vs. Paraneoplastic Syndromes
Suggesting cannabis is cancer safe because of lower lung cancer incidences compared to chemically altered commercial tobacco is misleading. Use of organic tobaccos also have a much lower lung cancer incidence rate, such as are found in better quality Cuban cigars. What is not addressed along with the suggestion that cannabis is cancer safe are higher paraneoplastic syndrome incidences, and higher incidence of the rarer cancers. 74.13.56.62 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point has some merit, but not to forget that a 1% difference in lung cancer rate may be a bigger issue than a 50% difference in that of some rare cancers.
 * The title Cannabis smoking suggests an opportunity to provide information about alternative serving methods which reduce health hazards-- such as the vaporizer or one-hitter. Use of a harm reduction utensil (almost anything except a cigarette) could provide a greater difference than the choice of which herb to use.

Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: SPS (wikiHow.com: How to Make Smoke Pipes From Everyday Objects)
1. "Self-published media, such as... open wikis... are largely not acceptable as sources." Note the hedging adverb "largely"! References to a source such as wikiHow stand or fall, i.e. can or can not be considered "reliable", not on the basis of whether they are self-published but rather on the basis of the truthfulness and accuracy of information provided (on which you have not commented at all).

2. WP:NOTHOWTO specifically states:  "If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow, How to Wiki or our sister project, Wikibooks." This must be seen as an endorsement of the practice of citing a wikiHow article as a source, in that such a citation actually makes it possible to omit how-to directions from WP itself.

3. To avoid denial of service to Wikipedia clients, especially young persons seeking trustworthy information about controversial subjects such as cannabis, a certain opportunism is expressly permitted (WP:Ignore All Rules). Failure to include a reference to descriptions of how to make harm reduction equipment (in this case for those contemplating smoking) may put such vulnerable clients at the mercy of "headshops" which notoriously practice rip-off pricing and push heavily glamorized hot burning overdose equipment (wide bowl-diameter pipes etc.). This question of dosage size in my opinion rivals that of avoiding mixtures with tobacco in importance as a public health issue.Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. You need to read the next sentence "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The references you are citing are written by yourself and AFAIK you are not an established expert.


 * 2. That's a very circular argument - you could link to a wikibook in the EL section but that's as far as it should go. Saying we don't do how to, but we can if you write it on another wiki is nonsense.


 * 3. We have no clients and adding unverfiable information does not "improve or maintain" wikipedia, as IAR requires for it to be cited. IAR doesn't mean do what you want. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. The quoted sentence does not say any particular source can not be considered reliable.  In this case, you or any expert or any Wikipedian can sign in on wikiHow, re-edit, upgrade and reliabilitate the "smoke pipes", "screens" and "sifting" articles to meet any WP standard of reliability, and the presence of a link or footnote in the WP article constitutes an invitation to do that (rather than wait for an accredited expert, who may not exist due to the power of the hot burning cigarette commercial empire until now to intimidate authors, institutions and governments).


 * 2. We aren't doing "How To" by merely including a link or footnote to another source that does.  A title like "Cannabis smoking" actually lures readers to expect "How To"; and such a link gets WP out of the dilemma of appearing to break a promise.


 * 3. I was merely using the term Client to refer to all WP readers, especially the young who unguardedly put their trust in WP.  Linking to exterior information such as on wikiHow does not constitute "adding" it to WP.  The Veracity or Verification of info on a source like wikiHow is inherent in the information itself without respect to the credentials of whoever wrote it-- please sign in there and rectify failings as warranted.  The anonymity of writers on wikiHow describing how to make or use alternative "smoking" equipment instead of the genocidal cigarette or hot burning wide bowl pipe is a necessary protection for their personal safety, as much as the same principle applies on WP.Tokerdesigner (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)}}

Edits by Tokerdesigner
Like many other editors, I continue to revert the flippant and original research edits by Tokerdesigner. Adding "hot burning" everywhere possible, adding visual estimates, how-to, all unsourced and based on his singular experiences. Now he threatens retaliation of my Coffin Joe articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Image change
I replaced the preposterous "Midwack" leader image with the more common image of a man smoking a joint, article is titled Cannabis smoking. Editor Tokerdesigner is obsessed with Midwacks and puts the image everywhere possible. --Mjpresson (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Image change"-- in whose interest?

 * Note: Tokerdesigner is being appealed to be blocked for these types of edits. Reverted. Tokerdesigner should consider laying off this type of edit while under blockade discussion.Mjpresson (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Before adding the last, possibly taunting comment, above, Mjpresson had't seen all revisions and improvements (including bolds) I made to my previous statement. Sorry, Mj. Also, Mj didn't wait for the close of voting to make 20 more deletions from the same articles under discussion.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner needs to stop
Tokerdesigner is under a block appeal and should refrain from disrupting the images on the page. He feels that the photo promotes smoking joints. So what. The title of the article is Cannabis smoking and there is a pic of a man smoking a joint which is very contextual.--Mjpresson (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Vaporizing is not smoking
There were 2 images of vaporizers in this article which is excessive as vaporizing is not smoking, the images should stress smoking images per title of article. Stress on vaporizer images can go on the vaporizer page.Mjpresson (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - vaporising ≠ smoking. It can be dealt with at the parent article of cannabis consumption and Vaporizer (cannabis). That was backed up by the reference used in the pipe section titled "Vaporization as a smokeless cannabis delivery system" - clearly shouldn't be included here. SmartSE (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Vaporizing needs emphasis because it is a less unhealthy alternative to "smoking"" - quite simply, no it doesn't - that is your personal belief, not backed up by any policy. If you can find strong references discussing how it is less unhealthy than smoking a joint, then include this in the health effects section, but not it doesn't merit a section in this article. SmartSE (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Should this be called "Smoking of cannabis"?
Or something else? It's a legitimate topic and decently written, but the title strikes me odd. Not quite sure what the MoS would say. Anyone else watching this page? WWB (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "Cannabis smoking" is a more appropriate naming than "Smoking of cannabis". If you got a better alternative for the naming, feel free to come with suggestions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I believe that One-hitter (smoking) should be merged into this article. I has almost no content and is unreferenced. Mjpresson (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to be done now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted materal
I removed a lot of material that was not specifc to smoking, since general information is covered in the main article Cannabis (drug)). I also paired down the Health Effects section to a summary, since this is covered in the main article Effects of cannabis.  The article is now about "cannabis smoking" and not a rambling narrative on cannabis in general.  Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted material
(Deleted from Health Effects)

Cannabis can be habit-forming and the development of cannabis dependence in some users has been well established;

its effects on intelligence,[2] memory, respiratory functions and the possible relationship of cannabis use to mental disorders[3] such as schizophrenia,[4] psychosis,[5] depersonalization disorder[6] and depression[7] are still under discussion.

In 1999 a paper summarized that "There is little direct evidence that THC or other cannabinoids are carcinogenic" but that epidemiological studies indicate that smoking cannabis may cause the development of head and neck carcinomas and for carcinomas of the respiratory tract in humans and "some experimental results suggest that cannabinoids may cause chromosomal damage" and that "cannabinoids represent several risks in terms of chronic toxicity". "By contrast, cannabis smoke is carcinogenic in rodents and mutagenic in the Ames test." In humans it has been more difficult to definitively prove.

In September 2011, the University of Colorado Cancer Center published a paper which summarized the current status of Marijuana in the United States.

As of 2012, there is conflicting data on the correlations between various forms of cancer and cannabis use as studied in members of a US health management organization (HMO). In a study of 60,855 insured patients by HMOs showed "no increased risk of HNSCC, lung, colorectal, melanoma, or breast cancers in current or former cannabis smokers versus never smokers or experimenters when controlled for tobacco use, alcohol intake, and socioeconomic status." However, the study did find an increase of prostate and cervical cancers. In another study of 105,005 HMO members, "found an increased risk of malignant primary gliomas (RR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3–6.2) in people who smoked cannabis once per month or more. Smaller studies have implicated cannabis use in the development of bladder cancer and testicular germ cell tumors.

Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma risk (HNSCC)
As of September 2011 are currently 3 studies which show an increased risk of HNSCC and 7 (3 Large) studies which show no association. Studies which support HNSCC show that users of cannabis "had a 2.6-fold (95% CI 1.1–6.6) increased risk of HNSCC compared with blood-bank controls when adjusted for cannabis dose, duration of use, and confounding variables such as alcohol or tobacco use. Similarly, heavy cannabis smokers in Northern Africa had an odds ratio of 2.62." In addition, "a recent study found that human papilloma virus (HPV)-16 positive HNSCC was associated with increased cannabis smoking intensity (joints per month, p = 0.007), duration (in years, p = 0.01), and cumulative joint-years (one joint year equals one joint per day per year, p = 0.003) when adjusted for alcohol and tobacco use."

Other studies have not shown a correlation between cannabis smoking and HNSCC. "Two small, population-based case–control studies of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers in England did not find an association between cannabis use and HNSCC" and "Another small case–control study from New Zealand found no association between cannabis use and HNSCC once adjusted for tobacco and alcohol intake." In large population based case control studies by the INHANCE Consortium, "no link between cannabis use and HNSCC was found when controlled for alcohol and tobacco use." In another study from Boston "found that, after adjusting for confounders, 10–20 years of cannabis use was actually associated with a significantly reduced risk of HNSCC."

A major 2006 study compared the effects of tobacco and cannabis smoke on the lungs. The outcome of the study showed that even very heavy cannabis smokers "do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer," while the same study showed a twenty-fold increase in lung cancer risk for tobacco smokers who smoked two or more packs of tobacco cigarettes a day. It is known that cannabis smoke, like all smoke, contains carcinogens and thus subjects exposed persons to some increase in the risk of lung cancer, but THC, unlike nicotine, is thought to "encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation." Cannabidiol (CBD), an isomer of THC and another major cannabinoid that is also present in cannabis, also has been reported elsewhere to have anti-tumor properties.

Lung cancer risk and lung function
As of 2012, there is conflicting data on the correlation of an increase in the incidence of lung cancer and cannabis smoking. "A systematic review evaluating 19 studies from 1966 to 2006 found no significant tobacco-adjusted association between cannabis smoking and lung cancer development despite evidence of precancerous histopathologic changes of the respiratory mucosa." An INHANCE Consortium study showed that after analyzing 1200 lung cancer cases, there were no correlations between lung cancer and cannabis use. However, a pooled analysis of three studies of male cannabis smokers in North Africa found that the odds ratio for developing lung cancer was 2.4 (95% CI, 1.6–3.8) for cannabis smokers. A case control study of patients with lung cancer under 55 years of age in New Zealand found an 8% (95% CI, 2–15) increased risk for each joint-year (one joint/day/year) of cannabis use. This effect persisted only in the highest tertile of cannabis use (>10.5 joint-years of exposure) when adjusted for tobacco use (RR 5.7, 95% CI 1.5–21.6).

A 2008 study (later quoted in a 2012 survey of the field by the British Lung Foundation ) argued that the way cannabis is smoked compared to tobacco (such as the tendency not to use filters; and deeper, longer inhaling) made the risk of developing lung cancer from smoking a single cannabis cigarette daily the equivalent of smoking a pack of 20 cigarettes a day "despite similar carbon monoxide concentrations in the smoke". The 2008 study did not investigate the increased lung cancer risk of smoking a single tobacco cigarette daily, or twenty cannabis cigarettes daily, so the subsequent the claim by the 2012 British Lung Cancer foundation review which extrapolated that "a typical cannabis cigarette increases the smoker’s risk of developing lung cancer by 20 times the amount of one tobacco cigarette." was not derived from the study it based its claim on.

(deleted from summary)

Cannabis is consumed for a variety of reasons including its hallucinogenic and sedative effects for recreation, to produce a feeling of euphoria, medical therapy or to suppress nausea, or by inventors and artists in pursuit of creativity.


 * It then mostly targets the brain, where it binds to cannabinoid receptors. The immune system also contains cannabinoid receptors and may modulate its function. The cannabinoid receptors receive the THC and other cannabinoids, leading to the feeling of a mental "high," which varies strongly by person.


 * Studies have also found that the heating of cannabis (which can be achieved without the health hazards of combustion by means of a vaporizer) results in the production of additional THC from the decarboxylation of the non-psychoactive Δ9-tetrahydrocanabinoid acid (THCa).

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013
Remove text "and users are led to smoke more." from Reference number 10.

66.99.3.241 (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-encyclopaedic tone
The phrase "stoned off your ass" appears in the article text, this is not encyclopaedic tone, nor does the word "stoned" appear in the citation given. Suggest removal/rewriting the offending phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.39.97 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hotboxing?
Hotboxing redirects here, but the article contains no mention of hotboxing. 76.118.43.224 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Article Title Change
I propose that the name of the article title be changed from "Cannabis Smoking" to "Cannabis Inhalation." I know there has already been some discussion of the relevance of vaporization on this page, and it seems that there is already a consensus that vaporizing and smoking are not the same thing. Hotboxing does not directly fall under the category of "smoking," either, however I do believe that it is a valuable inclusion in this article. The proposed change to "Cannabis Inhalation" would serve to more accurately describe the content of this article and reduce confusion/discrepancies about the classifications while also differentiating the methods listed here from the ingestion methods (including edibles, green dragon, and THC teas) listed under the Oral Consumption header of the more general Cannabis consumption page. NotFromStateFarm (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I support your idea. If not we should merge Cannabis_smoking to Cannabis_smoking and put at the top of this article. To complicate things more, there are now cannabis nebulizers on the market so we could the article to Cannabis inhalation and add a #Nebulizer section. --Bawanio (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cannabis smoking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927183248/http://www.blf.org.uk/Files/8ec171b2-9b7e-49d9-b3b1-a07e00f11c05/ to http://www.blf.org.uk/Files/8ec171b2-9b7e-49d9-b3b1-a07e00f11c05/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Can someone add a "History of cannabis smoking" category and paragraph?
Like since when is it smoked, when it was discovered it could be smoked, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maravjua (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"Smoking (non-tobacco)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Smoking (non-tobacco). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"Jamaican Shower" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jamaican Shower. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 17:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing Information
I believe this article could be updated with its information in many ways. There is missing information on how smoking cannabis biologically affects the brain in detail. I think the article should discuss how each different way of smoking cannabis affects a person differently, and that is just not there. This is because smoking out of a one-hitter is much different than smoking a large joint or hitting a bong. That is not discussed at all. In terms of a scientific manner, if the article is about smoking cannabis, it should explain what smoking will do to a person physically and mentally going into detail about the neural connections being made. It is only briefly discussed how it affects people physically with meager references, so I think this could go more in depth. Levischwartz (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Levischwartz
 * Sure, good idea. Thing is, we need reliable sources, and in this regard I think we need WP:MEDRS and somebody needs to find them. I'm just going to hit my bubbler. Cheers. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 21:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)