Have You Tried Hemp Rope?

[Sr. Verde]

for fuckin real dude I need to get some of that... I don't blaze a whole lot anymore so that beeline would make a huge difference and would last me a long ass time.......

ima look at that shit... I would imagine it's cheap

It's about 18 bucks a spool. I'm postive that www.aqualabtechnologies.com has beeline, & herb irons. but if you do go for herb iron id go to www.herbiron.com to directly support the [original] RIU member that sells them there! he has a coupon code hi-riu for 5$ off. Had to add that for anyone else reading sorry

I don't know if I said it before, but beeline makes a bic last about 2 months... of like everyday smoking... i gave out like 10 feet of beeline to a lot of my friends often, and like i said 200ft lasted me a year

 

[aeviaanah]

These hemp wicks do seem pretty neat, I think I'll get some for a friend and see how they like it.

They are! If they are bong and/or pipe smokers they should realize the difference.

 

[Sr. Verde]

i even lit my joints with it & noticed a difference

 

[mindphuk]

we've adapted to the act of SMOKING... not breathing in smoke specifically instead of air.

learn a little more? I know probably more about this shit than you do. this is hilarious.

look, my point is simple... smoking since the stone age, vaping since less than 30 years ago. to say our lungs are better for vaping than smoking is totally retarded in my opinion because minor evolution occures based on what your ancestors have done... ours smoked. not vaped. if you want to break the barrier in your generation and vape good for you.

but don't try to claim that it's so much better than smoking when it truly isn't. it's a foreign vapor to our lungs, it will hurt your lungs if you overdo it.

Wow, the bullshit claims that stoners can make up.

Sorry but evolution isn't Lamarckian as you seem to think. Smoke is harmful to our lungs, we are NOT adapted to smoking. The difference between the ingredients in smoke and vapor is that vapor is missing some things that smoke has but smoke has everything in it that vapor does.

As for you claim that we have only been vaping for 30 years or so... do you understand how a hookah works?

 

[poplars]

Wow, the bullshit claims that stoners can make up.

Sorry but evolution isn't Lamarckian as you seem to think. Smoke is harmful to our lungs, we are NOT adapted to smoking. The difference between the ingredients in smoke and vapor is that vapor is missing some things that smoke has but smoke has everything in it that vapor does.

As for you claim that we have only been vaping for 30 years or so... do you understand how a hookah works?

yeah and a hookah is burning at considerably higher temperatures as its using coals at the top, that is not the same as vaporization.

and to say that 8000+ years of smoking wouldn't affect the evolution of our lungs is fucking retarded.

how do you think indians get diabetes hella bad and europeons don't? they've been exposed to sugar far less than we have.

the same concept applies to smoke.

this isn't just some stoner garble, this was well thought out.

if you like vapor that's fine.. just don't act like it's superior to smoking in every way because it will fuck some people up if they overdo it. same goes for smoking. but in my case my lungs handle smoke better than vapor.

 

[jdizzle22]

yeah and a hookah is burning at considerably higher temperatures as its using coals at the top, that is not the same as vaporization.

and to say that 8000+ years of smoking wouldn't affect the evolution of our lungs is fucking retarded.

how do you think indians get diabetes hella bad and europeons don't? they've been exposed to sugar far less than we have.

the same concept applies to smoke.

this isn't just some stoner garble, this was well thought out.

if you like vapor that's fine.. just don't act like it's superior to smoking in every way because it will fuck some people up if they overdo it. same goes for smoking. but in my case my lungs handle smoke better than vapor.

I'm not saying vaporizing is superior to smoking as each has its pros and cons. I'm saying if ones goal is to deliver the maximum amount of THC and most other cannabinoids then vaporizing is superior because it gives you as much THC as smoking destroys it (scientific proven fact that you get more of the THC and most cannabinoids with a vaporizer than with smoking). Smoking destroys most of the good stuff and gives you plenty of bad stuff, while vaporizing gives you most of the good stuff while little of the bad stuff. There is a difference because you don't need as much herb with a vaporizer as with smoking. The experience can be different for people because some of the cannabinoids (but not the big ones like THC) don't get released as much with a vaporizer because it may not get hot enough. With vaporizing you get a lot more THC compared to everything else than you do with smoking.

Human lungs are not adapted to smoke, but they are good for smoking. Vaporizing isn't superior in every way, but it will get you more bang for your buck than smoking ever will. The trade off is it has a different high/stone. Some people prefer a vapor high to a smoking high, but the FACT is that vaporizing gives you 3-4 times as much THC as smoking and has a LOT less carcinogens and other crap it in (some of which gives smokers a false high). I've definitely noticed that with the same bud my volcano makes me feel more 'high' while smoking makes me feel more 'stoned'. I prefer the high myself, my friends mostly prefer the stoned. But they all realize that a vaporizer gets you way more high/stoned with the same amount of bud than smoking does.

 

[mindphuk]

yeah and a hookah is burning at considerably higher temperatures as its using coals at the top, that is not the same as vaporization.

Yea, and the heating element in my Silver Surfer gets red hot, much like coal. The point is the tobacco in a hookah is not combusted.

When one inhales through the hose, air is pulled through the charcoal and into the bowl holding the tobacco. The hot air, heated by the charcoal vaporizes (not burns) the tobacco, thus producing smoke, which is passed down through the body tube that extends into the water in the jar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah

and to say that 8000+ years of smoking wouldn't affect the evolution of our lungs is fucking retarded.

To claim that a specific trait has evolved in as little as 8000 years is double fucking retarded. You have no evidence that our lungs are adapted to smoke and I have a lot that they are not such as the fact that humans that smoke are prone to many lung diseases. Evolution does not occur without selective pressures. I highly doubt that people that tolerate smoke more than others have somehow been able to increase the prevalence of those genes in the gene pool at the expense of other genes. If you can show evidence to the contrary, then fine but making up claim because it seems logical to you is not how science works.

how do you think indians get diabetes hella bad and europeons don't? they've been exposed to sugar far less than we have.

Do you have any actual evidence that it has anything to do with sugar as opposed to being two distinct gene pools?

this isn't just some stoner garble, this was well thought out.

Just not based on actual science and with a flawed understanding of evolutionary theory.

 

[poplars]

Yea, and the heating element in my Silver Surfer gets red hot, much like coal. The point is the tobacco in a hookah is not combusted.


To claim that a specific trait has evolved in as little as 8000 years is double fucking retarded. You have no evidence that our lungs are adapted to smoke and I have a lot that they are not such as the fact that humans that smoke are prone to many lung diseases. Evolution does not occur without selective pressures. I highly doubt that people that tolerate smoke more than others have somehow been able to increase the prevalence of those genes in the gene pool at the expense of other genes. If you can show evidence to the contrary, then fine but making up claim because it seems logical to you is not how science works.

Do you have any actual evidence that it has anything to do with sugar as opposed to being two distinct gene pools?


Just not based on actual science and with a flawed understanding of evolutionary theory.

oh god another evidence nazi.

it's fine, you're right. you're always right

 

[mindphuk]

oh god another evidence nazi.

it's fine, you're right. you're always right

Yet you remain an idiot.

Why would anyone that is putting forth clearly empirical statements discount evidence? You do realize the only reason that you can even make statements about evolution is because of evidence. When you make naked assertions without anything to back up your claims, you sound like every other nutjob repeating pseudoscientific, mind-rotting, nonsense -- "Oh the Law of Attraction has been verified by quantum theory"

Just to be clear, I have no problem with speculation but you made definitive statements that you are unable to demonstrate, even non-empirically, through reason and logic alone. It's fine if you want to brush off the opinion of a working biologist but don't think your deluded opinion actually counts for anything.

 

[poplars]

Yet you remain an idiot.

Why would anyone that is putting forth clearly empirical statements discount evidence? You do realize the only reason that you can even make statements about evolution is because of evidence. When you make naked assertions without anything to back up your claims, you sound like every other nutjob repeating pseudoscientific, mind-rotting, nonsense -- "Oh the Law of Attraction has been verified by quantum theory"

Just to be clear, I have no problem with speculation but you made definitive statements that you are unable to demonstrate, even non-empirically, through reason and logic alone. It's fine if you want to brush off the opinion of a working biologist but don't think your deluded opinion actually counts for anything.

sorry but I have no time or energy for people like you. you require such a level of proof that I'm not willing to get into. I used to have the energy to go on a senseless debate for pages and pages explaining my logic. but I'm done. I stated my point as it is. if you disagree that's fine. trying to say I have no logic behind this is senseless, I explained it. my logic wasn't good enough for YOU. which sucks. but whatever I could give a fuck.

 

[aeviaanah]

lol...the infinite monkey.

 

[jdizzle22]

oops please delete this i messed up

 

[Agent Zero]

"sorry but I have no time or energy for people like you."

Says the guy who just got served.

"you require such a level of proof that I'm not willing to get into..."

Hmmm...It was my understanding that "proof" was defined as evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth?

"I used to have the energy to go on a senseless debate for pages and pages explaining my logic."

And we all know how exhausting typing while thinking can be! As for it being a senseless debate, I would think that, since you were the one who made the initial claims, and did so with such conviction, that you wouldn't mind spending a little time backing yourself up?

"...but I'm done."

I would say so.

"...trying to say I have no logic behind this is senseless, I explained it."

I read your claims with great interest. Surely, there is logic behind it, but logic is not always truth. What may sound feasible at once, can (and has been here) disproved.

"...my logic wasn't good enough for YOU. which sucks."

It was good, but it wasn't true. It's okay, though, there's no need to be sad.

"...to say that 8000+ years of smoking wouldn't affect the evolution of our lungs is fucking retarded."

Even if every single one of each of our ancestors smoked five packs a day since birth, I don't think 8,000 years would be enough time for any sort of generational evolution, but I'm just talking out of MY ass, too! "Generational evolution"? What the fuck is that? Something I just made up! It sounds good, but it probably doesn't amount to a hill of shit. Just like what you claimed.

I will take your "Eight thousand years of smoking must have affected the evolution of the human lung" logic and apply it to something else that humans have been doing for about as long: Male circumcision. Evidence of this practice dates back to the sixth dynasty in Egypt, and yet the foreskin of modern 21st century man has remained intact, soft, and easy to slice. How could that be?

"I could give a fuck."

Me either, I'm just baked.

 

[Auzzie07]

How much did 30' run you?

 

[Sr. Verde]

they come in like 3 footers, and 200 footers.. the beeline at least... youll use like a foot a day if you smoke a lot

 

[poplars]

they come in like 3 footers, and 200 footers.. the beeline at least... youll use like a foot a day if you smoke a lot

since I pretty much only smoke out of my bong would I want the thick beeline?

 

[aeviaanah]

How much did 30' run you?

$5.50 with shipping...about $6.50.

they come in like 3 footers, and 200 footers.. the beeline at least... youll use like a foot a day if you smoke a lot

Yea im at about 6" a day or so....joints and blunts keep the rope short. LOL

since I pretty much only smoke out of my bong would I want the thick beeline?

Not sure if youd want a thick one or not....Do you like huge hits? Then yes.

 

[poplars]

$5.50 with shipping...about $6.50.

Yea im at about 6" a day or so....joints and blunts keep the rope short. LOL

Not sure if youd want a thick one or not....Do you like huge hits? Then yes.

nah I don't take huge hits.. thanks

 

[aeviaanah]

nah I don't take huge hits.. thanks

I'm not big on huge hits either....two smaller ones will suffice!

 

[Auzzie07]

6.50 is cheap for 30'



This is one of those products with ridiculous mark-up:

400' Organic Ball of hemp - $6
1/2 Pound Organic Beeswax - $5

Comes out to around $0.03 per foot if you were to make your own.