A bong is a type of water pipe, and is basically a utensil used for smoking any substance that can be inhaled for pleasure. Its primary purpose is to filter the smoke through water, thus making the experience both more pleasurable and safer. The passing of the smoke through water filters out most of the solid particles and also some known toxicants which would otherwise be taken into the lungs.

A bong is simply an efficient filter. It is the safest way to smoke whatever the user intends to smoke through it. This can be seen when a bong has been used to smoke even a single tobacco cigarette. The bong walls and bong water extract a considerable amount of the tar and all of the ash from the cigarette which would otherwise find its way on to the smoker's lungs.

A bong or waterpipe works by filtering smoke through a series of water chambers, and then running the water filtered smoke through at least one further cooling tube usually doubling as the mouthpiece. All of the ash and unburned debris is collected when the smoke passes through the water. The mouthpiece then collects an amount of tar from the smoke as it cools quickly when it comes into contact with it. The result is a cleaner smoke being inhaled.

What are the Uses of Bongs?

Water-pipes are not used exclusively for smoking Marijuana but can and are commonly used for smoking several types of tobacco, including aromatic, fruit and otherwise, tobacco cigarettes, and a variety of smokable legal herbs. This is a more common practice than might be believed, but consider; The Chinese, Turks, Egyptians but to name a few have been using hookahs, bongs or waterpipes for thousands of years as a form of recreation and relaxation.

Many cultures such as Turkish, Egyptian, Lebanese, Indian and Middle Eastern peoples have been using versions of "Water Pipes" for thousands of years. Commonly known as hookahs, these are multi-stemmed, often glass-based water pipe devices for smoking, originating from Arabia .

This practice is presently popular in many countries including Australia , where even in some restaurants a toke from a hookah is offered after a meal. Of course, in some states in Australia due to current smoking legislation, this is more commonly found if one is lucky enough to be invited to dinner in the family home.

A hookah also operates by filtering smoke through water, and applying indirect heat to the substance to be smoked. It can be used for smoking many substances, such as tobacco, datura, marijuana and herbal fruits. Depending on locality, hookahs are known by other names, such as a water pipe, argeela/arghileh, okka, ghelyoon/ghalyan, nargeela/nargile/narghile/nargileh, kalyan, or shisha/sheesha. These names originated overseas in places like Persia, India, Somalia, Turkey, Ethiopia and Uzbekistan.

The name Narghile is most commonly used in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Lebanon, Albania, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, Israel and Romania. The initial "n" is sometimes dropped in Arabic. In Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Tunisia and Somalia they use the name Shisha. Iranians call them "ghalyoun or ghalyan" while in India and Pakistan they are known as huqqa. The ancient form of this latter name, "Hookah", is most commonly used in English for historical reasons, as it was in India that large numbers of English-speakers first sampled the effects of the water pipe.

Is it Safer to Smoke through A Bong?

This article was extracted from the following website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis

The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies ( MAPS ) is a U.S.-based non-profit organization that assists scientists to design, fund, obtain approval for and report on studies into the risks and benefits of psychedelic drugs.

Recently, MAPS reviewed a study that examined the effects and composition of water filtered and non-filtered cannabis and tobacco smoke. It found that when alveolar macrophages, an important component in the lungs immune system, were exposed to unfiltered smoke, there was a marked reduction in the macrophages' ability to fight bacteria, whereas there was no such reduction in those exposed to water filtered smoke.

It also found that there is substantial epidemiological evidence among tobacco smokers that those who smoke through water-pipes, as opposed to cigarettes, cigars, and regular pipes, have lower incidences of carcinoma. It appears that water filtration can be effective in removing components from cannabis and tobacco smoke that are known toxicants... The effectiveness of toxicant removal is related to the smoke's water contact area.

Specially designed water pipes, incorporating particulate filters and gas dispersion frits, would likely be most effective in this regard; the gas dispersion frit serves to break up the smoke into very fine bubbles, thereby increasing its water contact area.

This study suggests that a bong's smoke is less harmful than unfiltered smoke.

Should Waterpipes & Bongs be Outlawed?

Just as nothing good can be achieved from making condoms scarce or not available to minors, or not allowing addicts to get hold of clean needles, the same can be said of making water pipes illegal to display and sell. It is a silly law to pass and obviously no thought or informed discussion has gone into it. All that this law will achieve is to force people to either smoke without the use of bongs or water-pipes (which will be detrimental to their health) or to make home made bongs (which could be worse).

We have been in business for 26 years and have pursued this line of business in the belief that we were doing a service to the community. Whilst we believe that smoking in any shape or form is detrimental to one's health, we recognise that there is a certain pleasure associated with smoking. This being the case we realize that some people will always want to smoke in the privacy of their own homes. We have provided what we believe to be a better and safer way to smoke if one must.

• Are we so self righteous that we can ignore thousands of years of multi cultural tradition?
  
• Do we realize that the campaign to outlaw water-pipes is being driven by misinformed and also under informed politicians with individual political agendas?
  
• Can we see through the smoke screen that the suggestion of banning these apparatuses is designed to create an appearance of well meaning?

There is a big difference between manufactured bongs and home made ones. Where much care is taken in manufactured bongs with the materials to be used and how they will react and work with the burning tobacco and smoke, this does NOT apply to the home made version. People use the silliest things to make bongs at home. These can have an extremely detrimental effect on their health. One example of this is the most common. The pen-tube through the OJ bottle (conveniently available from any convenience store). When the substance to be smoked is burned, it melts the "stem" or plastic pen tube creating a toxic vapour that is inhaled.

Professionally, we do not sell bongs to people who we know will break the law. We sell bongs for use with tobacco (especially aromatic tobacco) and a variety of legal smokable herbs. In the same context as the person buying a hammer and using it as a murder weapon, we can not be responsible for the individual buying our merchandise and using it for illicit purposes. Whether that purpose is to murder someone by hitting them over the head or to smoke an illegal substance, our understanding with the customer is that they will use the item in a legal and proper way.

Regardless of anyone's opinion of what substances should and should not be smoked, should or should not be legal, it remains that the humble bong is merely a utensil for the ingestion of smoke. To draw an analogy, it can be compared to a wine or beer glass or whisky tumbler in the consumption of alcohol. Would anyone suggest that the removal from sale of these drinking utensils would dissuade a person from drinking their desired poison?

The argument that the availability of bongs encourages people to smoke Marijuana is ridiculous. There is no connection between owning a bong and smoking marijuana. Even in the event of an individual using our products as a means of ingesting marijuana, the person inevitably HAS the marijuana and THEN makes a decision as how best to ingest it. It is not the other way around. One does not buy a bong and then think, "Oh I have a bong, I must get some marijuana to use with it".

To use a previously used analogy, one does not go out to buy wine glasses and then thinks, "I must get some wine to have with these". Wine will be consumed at the appropriate time and this will occur whether the drinker has wine glasses or not.

Marijuana can be taken or smoked in a number of ways. Removing manufactured bongs from the equation will not make one scrap of difference to the amount of marijuana bought, sold or consumed. By far the most common way marijuana is ingested is by rolling it in cigarette papers to make a "joint".

In the absence of a bong marijuana can be:

• Rolled in a cigarette paper
• Rolled in toilet paper
• Stuffed into an empty cigarette tube
• Smoked through any tobacco pipe
  Smoked through a potato
• Made into a tea
• Cooked into food

In the absence of a manufactured bong, a home made one can be made by:

• Drilling a hole into any bottle and inserting a piece of garden hose into the hole, then using a bit of aluminium foil as the cone.
• Buying an orange juice and a biro from a milk bar, burning a hole into the empty OJ bottle with a cigarette, and inserting the outer body of the biro (without the ink bit) through the hole. Again a bit of aluminium foil will do the trick as the cone.
• Forcing a piece of pliable PVC tubing over a small bottle or jar, drilling a hole into the tubing and forcing a bit of hollow curtain rod through the PVC hole.

Common home made bongs:

• Come in the following varieties: Oil Bottle, Springer, Bucket, Plastic Bottle, Chemistry Flask, Potato
• Can be made in a matter of minutes or even seconds
• Are very inexpensive and easy to make
• Can be made from parts that are easily obtainable from any one of - a milk bar, news agent, hardware store, rubbish bin
• Are more commonly used than the manufactured variety
• Are rarely safe to use and can potentially present a much enhanced health risk

Our reasons for being passionate about this topic are simple. We have invested our entire business life of almost 30 years developing and nurturing a business that makes and sells the precise product the Government is about to outlaw. We have done it in the belief that we are doing the community a service.

Further to this, the majority of our customers are tobacconists. They have been degraded, demorilised, and depleted of customers. There has been an inexhaustible campaign to bankrupt them. These people have conducted their business quietly and have battled on in the face of hopelessness. In some cases these people paid a lot of money to buy into a business that would lead them into retirement.

This is a business that, keeping in mind, a few years ago was the supplier of the most common and fashionable drug on the market. These people are not associated with the big cigarette companies who we might argue have been guilty of promoting tobacco addiction in the past. They are individuals who, after all, are just trying to make a living like the rest of us. Now, the one item that they have been able to rely on to supplement their income, the innocent and humble bong, used to filter and purify smoke, is in danger of being taken off the table.

At present we also have our own retail stores throughout Australia . These are called "Off Ya Tree". They represent a considerable portion of our income. They have developed a following over the years and are now all quite substantial businesses. The lure for our customers is the range of bongs that we carry. Even though they may have no intention of purchasing a bong, they like to come in for a look and even if they buy a poster or T. Shirt, boast of having bought it at "Off Ya Tree" rather than any other store. Perhaps it is the "naughtiness" factor that is appealing to them, but regardless of this it will be more than the loss of bong sales that affects us if we were to remove bongs from the overall equation.

This link will provide Helpful UNBIASED information on Marijuana

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm

The gateway drug hypothesis asserts that the use of cannabis may ultimately lead to the use of harder drugs. For the most part, it was commonly thought that cannabis gateways to other drugs because of social factors. For example, the criminalization of cannabis in many countries associates its users with organized crime promoting the illegal drug trade.

A December 2006 study by the "American Psychiatric Association" challenges the Gateway Drug theory. A twelve year study on 214 boys from ages 10 to 12 showed that adolescents who used marijuana prior to using other drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, were no more likely to develop a substance abuse disorder than other subjects in the study. "This evidence supports what's known as the common liability model ... which states that the likelihood that someone will transition to the use of illegal drugs is determined not by the preceding use of a particular drug, but instead by the user's individual tendencies and environmental circumstances," investigators stated in a press release. They added, "The emphasis on the drugs themselves, rather than other, more important factors that shape a person's behavior, has been detrimental to drug policy and prevention programs."

Scientific studies have correlated a change in mental health with cannabis use for young people. Particularly, studies have shown that a risk does exist in some individuals with a predisposition to mental illness to develop symptoms of psychosis.

The risk was found to be directly related to high dosage and frequency of use, early age of introduction to the drug, and was especially pronounced for those with a predisposition for mental illness. These results have been questioned as being biased by failing to account for medicinal versus recreational usage: It could be a causal relationship, or it could be that people who are susceptible to mental problems tend to smoke cannabis, or it could be connected to the criminalization of cannabis.

Another important question is whether the observed symptoms of mental illness are actually connected to development of a permanent mental disorder. Cannabis may trigger latent conditions, or be part of a complex coordination of causes of mental illness, referred to as the diathesis-stress model in psychology. People with developed psychological disorders often tend to self-medicate their symptoms with cannabis as well, although one study has claimed that those with a predisposition for psychosis did not show an increase in likelihood of cannabis use four years later. There has not currently been enough scientific study of the drug's effects to come to a definite conclusion.

Cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It might be a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis, or it might be a correlation without forward causality at all.

Tobacco smoking has well-established risks such as bronchitis, coughing, overproduction of mucus, and wheezing. Similar risks for smoking cannabis related to airway inflammation have been suggested in a study of healthy cannabis users who exhibited similar early characteristics to tobacco smoking.

The effects of tobacco and cannabis smoking differ, however, as they affect different parts of the respiratory tract: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, cannabis tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways. One consequence of this is that cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema. Also, unlike tobacco, regular cannabis use does not appear to cause Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ( COPD ), either.

Cancer Risk

Cannabis smoke contains numerous carcinogens, however scientific studies have failed to show higher cancer rates in cannabis smokers. A study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California , Los Angeles , the largest study of its kind, concluded there is no link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer.

A study published in 2006 on a large population sample (1,200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1,040 without cancer) failed to positively correlate a lung cancer risk, in fact the results indicated a slight negative correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, suggesting a possible therapeutic effect.

Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has "antitumor" properties, either by encouraging programmed cell death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous, or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors. Prior, a 1997 study examining the records of 64,855 Kaiser patients (14,033 of whom identified themselves as current smokers), also found no positive correlation between cannabis use and cancer.

A Research Triangle Institute study concluded that THC , a dilative agent, may help cleanse the lungs by dilating the bronchi, and could actively reduce the instance of tumors. Additionally, a study by Rosenblatt et al. found no association between marijuana use and the development of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Note:Cannabis smoking is not suggested to prevent cancer or lessen the carcinogenic effects of tobacco.

Retail Stores Are The Only Point Of Contact For Users.

The one opportunity we have to come into contact with drug users is at the place where they buy their LEGAL accessories and paraphernalia that might be associated with their drug of choice. This could be used as a conduit to supply real and true information to these people regarding:

• The effects of their drug of choice
• What to do in the case of an emergency
• What to expect long term with their drug of choice
• How they can self help themselves to quit their habit if they so desire
• Who else they can go to that might help them

This said, it is important to note that we can’t bullshit people any more. They will see through it. There has been so much false propaganda surrounding marijuana use and what it will do to you that no body listens any more. Most young people have either used marijuana recreationally for periods of time, or know people who have. They are aware that the scaremongering coming from “the oldies” and the authorities is rubbish.

The problem here is not with the marijuana though. It is like the boy who cried wolf. We do have a very real threat and problem with “ICE” and also with “Heroin”; however the authorities have lost their credibility with the consumers of these drugs. How do we expect people to believe a government who has spread false propaganda for decades? How can we say in the same breath, “Don’t use marijuana and don’t use ice or ecstasy”? Who will believe us now?

It is time as a society to cut our losses and come clean. Tell it like it is. To regain some credibility.

We seem to have drawn a line in the sand at alcohol. This is one of the recreational drugs of choice for most people. We drink it by the gallon as wine, beer and spirits. It comes in all sorts of colours, flavours and strengths. It constitutes by far the biggest problem in society and yet this is acceptable to almost everyone. Tell a politician that he/she can’t have a glass of wine... that alcohol should be banned and see what happens. How do you think the public will react if we try to ban say beer? It’s really dangerous stuff you know! I know, it’s been tried… didn’t work.

If alcohol is known to be a far more harmful drug than say marijuana, hashish and many other known drugs, and we have drawn the line at alcohol, who then has the RIGHT to tell me I can’t use a lesser drug for MY recreation?

Who Has The Credibility To Advise Government and Do they Listen

When ever a government comments on issues relating to drug use (or misuse) they always refer to “Expert Advice” that they have received, but has anyone stopped to question where this “Expert Advice” is coming from or who these “Experts” are? As has been seen time and time again in the court system, an “Expert Witness” can be brought in to testify on either side of an argument and will accordingly swear that what he/she says is the cold hard truth.

All governments we must remember have an agenda. They want to be seen to be doing the right thing even if they are not. Having said this, I don’t believe for a moment that MPs in this country act maliciously regardless of their persuasion. I do believe they actually “think” they are doing the right thing and fighting for the right cause, but also more importantly want to be seen to be doing this.

It stands to reason then, that governments will not be bringing in impartial “Experts” if they have a law that they want to pass or a point they want to make public. Especially if there are few or no opinions to oppose them, their “Expert Advisers” seem to have all the answers, but what sort of experts are they?

Here are some types of possible “Expert Advisers”. It is easy to see who a government might use:

Drug Dealers - Biased

• They are just interested in selling their products.
• Like all business people they will want to protect their investment and increase their turnover.
• For them it is a matter of Job Security.

Police & Law Enforcers - Biased

• They are engaged to uphold the law, not comment on it. If the items they are policing were legal, we would not seek their opinion. The only connection that they have is where the items are illegal. Whether they should or should not be legal is not for them to say.
• Also, the more laws to uphold, the more work for them… Job Security.

Judges, Lawyers, Prosecutors - Biased

• Again, they are engaged to defend or punish those breaking the law. They have no place to comment on it. They may say that drugs ruined a man’s life, but if those drugs were legal, that may not be the case.
• Same again with the Job Security issue.

Doctors and Medical Personnel – Usually Unbiased

• They should be consulted on the medical issues that result from using the various drugs in question keeping in mind that not all drugs are equal.
• They should also be heard on the medicinal uses of some drugs and the advantages of using those over others.

Drug Users and Consumers - Biased

• Consumers of any product will usually want the product readily available at all times regardless of consequences. There is no point in asking them.
  People selling Bongs and other Implements - Biased
• Of course, they want to sell their products too and are business people. They will be guided by what will happen to the market if laws change.
• Job Security again.

Independent Academics who have researched the Topic from ALL ANGLES - Usually Unbiased

• This is the only group of people who should be consulted, and then not superficially.
• An “Expert” is only someone who has looked at all sides of the equation and has weighed the pros and cons.
• In most cases this group of people will have consulted all of the others I have mentioned above and have taken all of their issues into consideration.
• This group will offer specific advice on specific issues rather than throw everything together into the two categories “Licit” and “Illicit”.
• They will separate alcohol from coffee, heroin from marijuana and potential death from potential headache.

It has happened time and time again not only in Australia but in many parts of the world. Governments have commissioned proper “Advisory Councils” that have consisted of respectable learned teams to research and investigate the drug issues properly over an extended period of time. These “Advisory Councils” have always painstakingly turned over every rock to see what lurks beneath. They have been impartial and not driven by any agenda whatsoever other than to see clearly what is what. They have spoken to users, enforcers, doctors, dealers, victims, everyone, so as to be able to view the entire picture.

No government has ever followed the advice of such “Advisory Councils”. Once their findings have been made public, governments have rejected them or taken only small parts of the advice offered because it just doesn’t suit their needs. It just does not reflect the mood of the people. It will get them thrown out of office. Here starts the propaganda.

The Pennington Report was commissioned in Victoria in the mid nineties. It took over a year to prepare and was very comprehensive covering pretty well every issue relating to drug use and abuse. In the report there were some areas where it was recommended that the authorities toughen up on offenders. Most of these recommendations were adopted.

There were also quite a few recommendations where it was suggested the authorities back off. One of these was specifically the recommendation that the use of Marijuana be decriminalised. These were not only ignored, but flagged as, “The advisory council got it wrong”. What is the point of commissioning a committee if you are going to ignore the advice you don’t like?

• People have a basic right to make choices for themselves as long as their actions do not harm others. Responsible individuals should be allowed to choose whether or not they use marijuana. We place a high value on the principles of individuality, liberty, and freedom of thought.
• The government is wasting our time and money by prohibiting marijuana.
  Taxpayers are forced to pay billions of dollars to persecute, prosecute, and incarcerate individuals while the government ignores more important issues.
• Nobody believes what the government has to say regarding drugs any more because they have fed the public too much bullshit. The exception to this rule is the gullible people who got sucked in in the first place.
• Prohibition is not an effective solution to the problems associated with marijuana use. We understand that marijuana, like tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs, can be abused. But the harms associated with marijuana are less than those associated with tobacco and alcohol, and they are not sufficient reason to justify making marijuana illegal. Education and regulation are better options than prohibition.
• We have learned a lesson from history. Alcohol prohibition did not work, and there is no logical reason to believe that marijuana prohibition is a better idea.
• The fact that Marijuana has been made illegal will result in offences being committed by people who are not criminals, but alas they will be considered criminals. A guy who grows a couple of plants in his back yard to provide smoke for his sick grandfather or uncle is not a criminal. Neither is the grandfather for smoking it… and why is it anyone’s business???

Dependence :
How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.

Withdrawal :
Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.

Tolerance :
How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.

Reinforcement :
A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.

Intoxication :
Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.

Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use."  See, http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm