Talk:Blunt (cigar)

Removed half of Blunt Cone section

Removed "The theory behind a cone-shaped cigar or cigarette is that it has a more even flavor. This is because as you burn tobacco it passes through the unburnt tobacco left in your cigarette. Thus it leaves tar and nicotine on the unburned tobacco and raises its strength and flavor. So, by using a conical cigarette, you are burning less and less tobacco with each puff - helping to compensate for the stronger and stronger tobacco Ref. That is why so many Europeans use cones and sales of cones in the USA increase every year. Ref" because the references are not valid. Feel free to put this back if you can find more reputable sources to cite. Cheers.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.84.11 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Obstacles

I removed the following sentence from the Subheading "Common Obstacles." "The practice of smoking blunts draws much criticism even within the smoking community for many practical, but also sometimes cultural, reasons." Not only is this statement unattributed and unexplained it is simply asinine Gardiangel 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Gardiangel[reply]

I moved the content of the blunt page here, except for two disambiguation links, which I moved to a new disambiguation page Blunt (disambiguation) which contains a link back to this page as well as several other uses for the word blunt. Dystopos 04:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

verifiability

We seem to attract a lot of unsourced definitions. This isn't urban dictionary. I'm going to start weeding out material that isn't readily verifiable unless someone starts providing citations for all this. Dystopos 05:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree on this point, the tone of the article "Bloint" seems to suggest its inclusion is mostly for personal satisfaction rather than spreading useful knowledge. Many of the slang terms for a blunt are merely that - slang - and nothing more. Besides for a few well-recognized terms such as "roach",

changes?

But then you got high and forgot to do it? lol...unisgned comment by User:65.7.223.51
- I didn't provide a timetable. --Dystopos 16:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

who smokes salvia blunts? salvia will make you trip after one hit, making a blunt which keeps burning wastefull. also salvia is sold in 1 gram containers, which is around enough for a joint but not nearly enough for a blunt. also i have read many places that salvia is not activated properly unless smoked out of a bong with a turbo lighter. also, the term blunt refers specifically to marijuana.

cannabis/marijuana

I've replaced all instances of the word 'cannabis' with the word 'marijuana'. Cannabis can refer to either marijuana (aka sinsimilla, pot, dope, hash, etc) or Hemp. In order to avoid confusion, it is very important to discern between these varieties. Thanks!

Bennyp 22:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

canibus can also refer to hash

Isn't the use of the term marijuana considered non-NPOV due to it's racist history? See Talk: Bong

I prefer the term 'cannabis' over 'marijuana' always because it's the scientific name of the plant; whereas 'marijuana' is mexican slang that was inseminated into our culture via a propoganda campaign (think reefer madness) designed to scare people.

                                                                      -fantino

--Silverrobes 11:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ that's way too punctual. You'd have to find alternative definitions for "jazz" and "rock & roll" since they're african-american slang terms that mean semen and sexual intercourse, respectively. The word "marijuana" is so finely ingrained in our society that its racist connotations are no longer applicable. Also, marijuana is a slang term for the ground up flower buds of the cannabis plant, and it is possible to use hash in a blunt, so I think the term "cannabis" is completely legit for this article. Necromancer 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis is the international term and therefore is preferred. Also, "marijuana" has all these cultural implications/baggage that we can do without. (Although I'm not sure how legitimate the latter is, as a reason for using the word "cannabis" here) Ron Duvall (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of blunts?

Does anyone know when people started rolling blunts? Early 90s?

i think so, Eazy E said it in a song in 92--EZ 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- People rolled blunts before then, there are earlier mentions of them in KRS songs and others, but Cubans have been smoking them for who knows how long.

God no! Theyve been around since the 60s, prolly well before.-anon

Worst drug cult manipulation

I have heard it said that tobacco companies slipped money to rap stars to have them mention the "blunt" in songs, to get youngsters hooked on nicotine through the synergy of that drug with cannabinol. Anyone who can research this further and find the smoking gun (no unnecessary pun intended) would be doing a service because 5.3 million deaths a year result from cigaret addiction (WHO 2003 estimate) and I am sick and tired of riefer getting the blame. The edit history of this particular article indicates that some youngsters have been racially sensitized to view blunt smoking as a self-assertion trip.

What a stupid conspiracy theory. Black people rap about blunts because that is how they smoke weed. And that 5.3 million is an exaggeration at best and complete bullshit at worst.

Further deception

Some even seem to think by discarding the tobacco cigar filler they are escaping nicotine, which is not the case, there is some in the cover leaf.Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Haarlem Blunt?

someone posted a link on the blunt page to this product but when you follow it goes to a clothing company?

Anyone know if this really is a blunt or just some wierd European blunt clothing thing?

--Mrtobacco 11:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Jerks are vandalising the page :(

I nominate this page for Sprotect. Anyone second the motion?

--Mrtobacco 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--User:fiscclipper why is everyone removing the picture of the blunt i put up? the one that they have representing a blunt is absolutely horrid and a discgrace, the L i put up is proper and how it should be done

This isn't the hip hop dictionary..

I agree with ReverendG. This page should not have all of these slang terms without reference. People could be posting any sort of silly thing such as:

"A Carrot stick is a blunt dipped in Orange Tang". Note that I just made this up but I wouldn't be surprised to see it listed on the Blunt page soon... It's getting kind of busy and silly so maybe we should remove those.

--Mrtobacco 15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worst article ever

Here is why:

1 The article has NO, as in NONE references whatsoever. It doesn't have bad or Biased sources, but none. Somebody please add some verifiable sources!

2 It violates WP:Not since wikipedia is not a how-to about the drug culture nor yet about map reading or how to make a great fried egg or orange sherbet. The specific policy is that wikipedia is not an instruction manual.

3 The whole tone of the article has a wink,wink, nudge, nudge tone of an overly clever instruction manual which besides being vaguely creepy and unpleasant does not have an encyclopedic tone.

Conclusion: This article needs an extremely extensive rewrite!

No References Exist

Since blunts are illegal, no viable historical references exist about their use. The article is definitely a good resource and has probably helped people discover new methods of rolling or what exactly a blunt is made of, but it could use some cleaning up. However, there will be little references on the page since no true references exist.

Can we add some sort of notice on top of the article that disclaims all article data, like basically a "This article was written by the community, for the community. All content in this article is comprised of knowledge without references, basically hearsay. Use this knowledge at your own risk." or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necromancer (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, references exist. My university anthropology text had some reference of marijuana smoking broken down by prefered method of ingestion. Pity I don't know where the book is now. Also, its not hard to look at the sales of tobacco rolling paper via shopkeeper information, or from the manufactures. I know a lot of them are made in Spain ("Juicy Jays" et al.) 128.189.143.126 (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Heh... I forgot to sign V. Joe 16:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop removing the pop culture section

Please I worked hard on it and it is relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.85.6.211 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

== !? ==mmm

I have made the same relevant addition to this article at least three times now and each time it has been removed. I do not understand why. The edit I've been making has to do with the prevalence of blunt use among young, wealthy white people in contrast to the blunt's origins among poor blacks. Can you someone tell me why this is being deleted?

wording not quite right here

Rolling papers and pipes are also widely available and many prefer them, as these apparatus are less wasteful than the constantly burning blunts.

Why are we listing rolling papers as an alternative to blunts if the problem stated in this sentence is that they are constantly burning? A joint rolled with a rolling paper would also be buring the entire time you're smoking it, and while it is smaller so you may waste less with each joint, it seems like we could change rolling paper to bong or vaporizer or steamroller or something else.

Why this isn't the worst article ever, you jerks...

Show me a reference for the history of a blunt. Original research must be applied here or else the article would be useless. There are no books or scholarly articles written about the history of blunts except for brief mentions of the item's existence in our society. Necromancer 19:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article - I had no idea there was tobacco in one of those.159.105.80.141 15:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused

I can see that there has been a lot of discussion, editing et cetera done to this page already, and that it has been the subject of some controversy, but nonetheless I am confused as to why the article currently has no mention of the fact that blunts are used for smoking cannabis. My previous understanding was that the term "blunt" refers only to a type cigar containing cannabis, but this article would imply that use of blunts to smoke cannabis is just a secondary use. Of course I might be wrong, but even so the article needs to clarify.

On a different note, I would like to mention that here in the UK the term "blunt" refers simply to a joint rolled with no tobacco, only cannabis. In the UK I have never heard the term used to refer to the use of cigars or anything along those lines. I imagine it would be appropriate to add a section mentioning the different meaning in the UK, but due to the level of argument/discussion about this page, I am hesitant to make any edits straight away. Static Sleepstorm (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently "blunt" does refer to the type of tobacco cigar mentioned in this article, however I have always used the term blunt to refer to a cigar that has been hollowed out and repacked with cannabis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.15.34 (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that blunt that's showing is the ugliest blunt i ever seen! LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.128.13 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not That Confusing.

Blunt originally refers to a particular shape of Tobacco Cigar (It is a short {blunted} cigar). Blunt in the modern vernacular usage, in the United States anyway, refers to any marijuana cigarette that is rolled using Tobacco Papers. This is an urban African-American slang usage that spred into more common vernacular by the decimination of street slang through hip-hop (rap) music.

(I am an expert because I am Urban, African-American, a hip-hop artist, and a pot head that smokes blunts exclusive of any other method).

lol

It does bother me that there is a picture of a Marijuana Blunt, but the desciption only speaks on the shape of a tobacco blunt. There should be a large amount of information included regarding the illicit use of these cigars.

Creator7 (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's hard to have a large amount of information, because there isn't a whole lot to it! It's just a cigar shell with pot in it. If you have more reliable sources with more information about blunts that would be relevant to an encyclopedia, feel free to add it. Gigs (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god

LOL!! Oh my god whose the genius that put a picture of a blunt on the page?hahahah. Too be honest Im a well known blunt smoker but I dont think this page has any real significance and this is coming from someone who enjoys a "blunt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.130.56 (talk)

Unrelated Picture

The last section talks about rolling a marijuana blunt using the process of splitting and emptying a pre-rolled cigar. The picture of the blunt wraps are rolling papers that are bought empty and do not involve the splitting process. The article does not at all mention these blunt wraps, and the fact that they probably do not actually contain tobacco. There should either be an explanation of the difference between traditional Blunt Cigars and "Blunt wraps" or the picture should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.245.181 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blunt (cigar). 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/20090514160026/http://www.doj.mt.gov/consumer/business/tobaccosettlement/noticewholesalerbluntwraps.pdf to http://www.doj.mt.gov/consumer/business/tobaccosettlement/noticewholesalerbluntwraps.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]