| Revision as of 14:41, 27 April 2018 editJohnbod (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers280,693 edits →Logical inconsistency?: re← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:05, 22 January 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,279 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (31 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| | ||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Cannabis|importance=Mid}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Merged-from|Volcano Vaporizer}} | {{Merged-from|Volcano Vaporizer}} | ||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject |
||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
| | auto=yes | | auto=yes | ||
| | title=Current archives|<center>'''Archives from previous page name<br>(''Vaporizer (cannabis)'')'''<br>], ]</center>}} | | title=Current archives|<center>'''Archives from previous page name<br>(''Vaporizer (cannabis)'')'''<br>], ]</center>}} | ||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014 == | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|<!-- Page to be edited -->|answered=yes}} | |||
| <!-- Begin request --> | |||
| Medical-e-Joint has been tested in Holland with MMJ and test show that the Medical-e-Joint is a better way to deliver cannabis to patient. | |||
| <!-- End request --> | |||
| ] (]) 10:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 13:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Electronic Cigarette == | |||
| I've replaced what was said about ] with the opening of the main article. The prior info contained to many controversial health claims that were sourced only by primary literature when secondary sources are available as per ]. These issue were extensively discussed on ]. ] (]) 00:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Electronic Cigarettes ------> Moving OUT content and pointing to main article. Opportunity to comment before I proceed. Logic is. == | |||
| Electronic cigarettes are a type of Vaporizer, however they are clearly the most common in use today. They are being subjected to FDA regulation specific to Nicotine, which is unique. Electronic Cigarettes already has a topic defined.<br /> | |||
| :The problem is that this content is old, and does not match the main Electronic Cigarette article. It will always become unlinked and out of sync to the main.<br /> | |||
| ::::The proposal: Leave the section, and put in a line something like. "Electronic Cigarettes are a form of a Vaporizers that are used to inhale nicotine in a manner similar to cigarettes. SEE MAIN ARTICLE.<br /> | |||
| FEEDBACK PLEASE. I do think this is somewhat of a no-brainer. Any solution to keep it the way it is now, would have to propose a way to keep them synced up. Thanks ] (]) 12:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The content is not old. I updated the content. ] (]) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :As outlined on ? The text was updated and e-cigs are a type of vaporizer. ] (]) 19:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::'''Attention. I am asking again for feedback.''' This article is part of the Cannabis project. Electronic Cigarettes have nothing to do with Cannablis. Electronic Cigarettes create an aerosol, which is a different process than Vaporization. This article is about specific forms of Vaporization. There are electronic systems that Vaporize Dry Tobacco, which are indeed part of this ARTICLE. However Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, are in fact not Vaporizers as defined by this article. To which I will be moving out the ENDS items and gathering in the Dry Leaf Vaporizers of Tobacco. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::'''If there are objections please inform me, so we can discuss.''' Thank you ] (]) 08:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :THE CONTENT IS OUTDATED and not in line with the articles its links to. Some users of wiki don't have time to click on every page, they might land here first and read through it completely taking it as likely gospel. Yes the other pages may be more current, but when its dinner time and you have to shut the computer, there isn't time to poke around for page two. I SAY, SCRAP THE PAGE AND JUST REDIRECT people to better pages or this link needs to be current with 2017 or 2018 facts, not 2014 speculation. ] (]) 04:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::What is outdated? We don't delete relevant content. ] (]) 17:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Logical inconsistency? == | == Logical inconsistency? == | ||
| Line 50: | Line 24: | ||
| ] (]) 14:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | ] (]) 14:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :Doesn't that mean that you need less stuff but will get an equivalent dose? Presumably in both cases the "amount delivered" is up to the user, & how long he keeps going. E-cig studies have tried to establish a "standard puff" for machine smoking but it doesn't work very well imo. ] (]) 14:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | :Doesn't that mean that you need less stuff but will get an equivalent dose? Presumably in both cases the "amount delivered" is up to the user, & how long he keeps going. E-cig studies have tried to establish a "standard puff" for machine smoking but it doesn't work very well imo. ] (]) 14:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::I've looked up one of the studies that were linked to by the source that Misplaced Pages links to. It says there in "Some smoking characteristics of marijuana cigarettes": "Under constant draft conditions in which the whole cigarette is consumed in a single puff, and under which virtually no smoke is lost as sidestream smoke, 69% translation of THC to mainstream smoke is obtained. This represents the maximum proportion of THC which could be obtained in the smoke from a marijuana cigarette. Some 31% of THC is not found upon analysis of the smoke condensate, and is presumed destroyed by pyrolysis."] (]) 06:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Failed verification edit == | |||
| {{ping|QuackGuru}}, in , were you verifying against Jacob or the footnoted sources? -- ] (]) 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I could not find a source written in January 2019 by Jacob in the journal, the Proceedings of the Physiological Society. The footnoted sources verifies the current claim. The text I deleted is not a good summary of electronic cigarettes. ] (]) 16:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK. -- ] (]) 04:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:05, 22 January 2024
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Volcano Vaporizer page were merged into Vaporizer (inhalation device). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 Current archives |
| 1 |
|
(Vaporizer (cannabis)) 1, 2 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Logical inconsistency?
First it says "Vaporizing is more efficient than smoking, because approximately 30% of THC in marijuana or hashish cigarettes is destroyed by pyrolysis during smoking." then it says later: "The study stated that the amount of THC delivered by vaporizers were equivalent to the amount delivered by smoking. Because of those studies and other studies, vaporizers are considered medically sound devices for delivering THC.".
Doesn't the second quote contradict the first, because if 'equivalent' means 'same' then that means you need to take the same dose of cannabis for each method to deliver the same amount of THC? I can't access the studies, but I also can't think of another meaning of 'equivalent' in this context. 84.119.3.225 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't that mean that you need less stuff but will get an equivalent dose? Presumably in both cases the "amount delivered" is up to the user, & how long he keeps going. E-cig studies have tried to establish a "standard puff" for machine smoking but it doesn't work very well imo. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've looked up one of the studies that were linked to by the source that Misplaced Pages links to. It says there in "Some smoking characteristics of marijuana cigarettes": "Under constant draft conditions in which the whole cigarette is consumed in a single puff, and under which virtually no smoke is lost as sidestream smoke, 69% translation of THC to mainstream smoke is obtained. This represents the maximum proportion of THC which could be obtained in the smoke from a marijuana cigarette. Some 31% of THC is not found upon analysis of the smoke condensate, and is presumed destroyed by pyrolysis."84.119.3.225 (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Failed verification edit
@QuackGuru:, in this edit, were you verifying against Jacob or the footnoted sources? -- Beland (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- I could not find a source written in January 2019 by Jacob in the journal, the Proceedings of the Physiological Society. The footnoted sources verifies the current claim. The text I deleted is not a good summary of electronic cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- OK. -- Beland (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)