Talk:Rizla

Pronunciation

It would be interesting to learn how "Rizla" is pronounced in various languages, at least in English, French and German. <KF> 14:16, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

[ˈɹɪzla] or [ˈɹɪzlɑ] to everyone I know (eastern US); I assume it'd be close to [ˈʁilä] in French. —alxndr ^(t) 06:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't know how to do it phonetically, but this is in dutch: R as is rice, I as in kitten, Z as in zoom, L as in a Lot, A as in ash

FWIW, it's also [ˈɹɪzlɑ] in Nigeria; at least that's how Professor Linkin says it on the song "Jogodo"; Omo Jesu pronounces it the same way when covering the song (both are on this disc). Heather 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rizz-luh in the UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.232 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there's only one UK accent... Rizz-la is how I pronounce it up here in one corner of North Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.81.102 (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual name for them is “Riz LaCroix” as you can see on the packaging. It says RIZLA+. “Riz” means rice (the papers are rice paper) and LaCroix is the man who invented them. It is pronounced “Riz La Cwah” but in English they are just called “rizla” pronounced “Riz-ler” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.112.105 (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, the French pronounce it "Riz LaCroix", the UK and US pronounciation is wrong, lazy, but it's too late to change! Rsaum (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Rizlas

"The popular green rizlas featuring the cut-out curved segments on each of the lower sides, are intended for blind smokers."

Can anyone give a source for this? According to the Rizla website, the cut corners are for ease of use in rolling-machines. Lawful Hippo 00:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, given that nobody has responed, having had a month to do so, I'm changing that section. Lawful Hippo 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippo, you are entirely correct in that Rizla Green is NOT meant necissairly for blind people, that's a silly idea. Cornered rolling papers aren't just for use in rolling machines however (although they're certainly best suited to them), as the cornered papers are slightly easier to roll by hand as well. The reason for this is because the lack of corners prevents what many call "catching", where the corner bends undiserably when it comes into contact with the "back wall" (as in, the inside half of the paper with the gum) when rolling the paper up. HOWEVER, this problem can easily be controlled by an experienced hand-roller, however, a rolling machine lacks the ability to comphensate for this, which is why this paper is 100% ideal for a rolling machine. Being blind has NOTHING to do with it, what-so-ever. Perfect Chaos Zero 09:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable 'Rizla and Cannabis' claim

I removed the line 'Another factor supporting the theory is the sheer amount of people who only ever buy rizla's along with a disposable lighter, normal cigarettes and an assortment of snack foods worth approximately £8.' from the article. It's unverifiable and just doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Darksun 19:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but its true :-p 83.105.37.55 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, agree ^ - what would anyone ever buy them for but that? They are -the- best

Just because you use something for a different purpose than was intended, does not mean the item was created for it. They are for rolling a cigarette so it is the same length as a “king size” one that you can buy. Hence the name...king size rolling paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.112.105 (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slims longer than king size standard

The article did say slims were the same length as king size standard, which is not true, so I edited it, however I do not currently have the measurements if someone is able to fill them in, otherwise I'll type them in later.

That seems to depend on which King Size series you have. The ones I have here in my collection are both 100mm (older ones) and 110mm (newer ones). The original king size for the uk was 100mm but now everything is 110mm. My 100's are from 1998 and my 110's are from 2004. So, I think they are all the same size really :)

--Mrtobacco 14:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that could be the case, although I bought a pack of each (Blue KS and silver slim) at the same time and they are definitely of different lengths. Although as you say, the blues could just have been shelved for a long time.

I could use a pack of the old Blue 100mm - wanna trade for a 110? I'm in Oregon USA and can mail you in advance if you want :) I'm a bit of a fanatic collector of papers & packs of cigarettes and like having doubles. --Mrtobacco 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard king size are wider and shorter than “king size slim”. Then you can get slim-fit (OCB xpert for example) which are the same length as king size slims, but narrower — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.112.105 (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

chlorine in silver rizla

I've heard that the rizla silver contains high amounts of chlorine. Is there any truth in this? (please sign this comment!!)

Anything is possible - you have to be extremely carefull nowadays. Read the articles on how the manufacturer of Smoking & Bambu Brand papers (the main competitor to Rizla Silver) was criminally charged with using illegal carcinogens in their rolling papers!! At this point any rumors relating to papers might turn out to be true! --Mrtobacco 14:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry i have no recent sources so the practice may have been discontinued)they did use chlorine to make the paper thinner and still hold together in all but RIZLA blue(It's sometimes used in other brands' products to bleach the paper, but the people at Rizla told me they don't do that). As silvers are slimmer than other RIZLA papers it's definately a possibility that the chlorine content would be higher. The packet used to say something about the percentage of chlorine, but now it doesn't so maybe they've cut it out of the manafacturing process entirely.. If you really want to know or think it would be good info for the article then you could always contact them (rizla@rizla.co.uk). 217.43.27.165 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Elmo[reply]

I know that on the inside of blues they make a big deal about them not having chlorine in, so maybe silvers do.

I don't see the point in the chlorine argument that some people have. You'll still get cancer from what's inside your rolled rizla! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.81.102 (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but with chlorine it's not just the health risk but the environmental cost. Now that Rizla are supplied with the tobacco, that becomes an issue because it adds up to a lot of wasted Rizla packets. I use the green but have more surplus packs than I know what to do with. Rsaum (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King Size Rizla

Regarding the line '(it also happens to be that many people enjoy smoking king size papers with tobacco so that you can actually fit a normal filter in the end of the cigarette)'. Surely this should be deleted. It is wholly un referenced, and I have never ever seen anyone smoke a regular cigarette using a king sized rizla. Ever. 86.133.62.245 01:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've smoked them like that all the time. And I've seen lots of others do it too. Sorry, I think you're incorrect there =P Perfect Chaos Zero 22:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially with Rizla's 100mm KS I have seen countless people smoke them as normal cigarettes. I think people you hang around are different then most consumers. The Rizla KS papers are perfect for adding a longer filter element and 1.5g of tobacco. --Mrtobacco 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing here, but I just read the Rizla article as part of research for a story I'm writing and I thought I'd offer an experience or two of my own. First, King Size Rizla are available in many places outside of the UK. I've seen them in Duty Free stores for example, and port stores IIRC in Thessaloniki, Ancona and Patras. I think this pretty much means they are widely available.

Also I've seen plenty of people, especially in Greece, smoke tobacco in a king size paper, both with the filter and without. I also knew an old college professor in America who did this so there. He smoked without a filter. But it was not regular tobacco, it was something he was very particular about. I don't know enough about this to say more but maybe somebody does?

As for the accusation that the article was written like an ad, IMHO certainly not. It was, however, clearly written by dedicated enthusiasts :)

One last thing - other brand names are a lot more unambiguous about the association of their larger papers with weed. Here in Croatia there is a brand which advertises the website www.enjoy-ziza.com. on the side of the box. "Ziza" is a slang term for weed like doobie or Nathan. (Z is like in azure)

Cheers

Johnny

Split, Croatia

On the revert

I reverted because of severe vandalism but do not know enough about the topic to know if any of the information was in fact useful, I do however know it was NOT wikipedia style AT all and thus I reverted, if anyone can glean the useful info from it and harmonize it with wikipedia style guidlines. GTMusashi 07:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folded vs. glued

The article stated: "The cardboard packaging for Red Rizla+ is glued and for Green Rizla it is folded under, as of 2007." This may be true for the UK, but here in Norway they are still folded, and as far as I know that's also the case in Denmark. I've deleted the sentence, and hope that is OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.113.159.156 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its both folded and glued here in the UK. 81.23.50.232 (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why is one colour folded and the other glued? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.60.176 (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History

The "History" section seems questionable until 1799 at the earliest. It seems to be a rehash of a lighthearted story told on the Rizla web site. I can believe that the Lacroix family made paper, but since cigarettes were not very commonly smoked until the 19th century, it seems doubtful that Lacroix was in the rolling paper business in 1660 or 1736. cf. Encyclopedia of Ephemera by Maurice Rickards et al. s.v. Cigarette Paper. --macrakis (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The date of 1981 given for liquorice papers is wrong. I was using them in 1975. Definitely Rizla+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.44.118 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rizla Black

no mention of rizla black ultra thin rolling papers(zero chlorine), or rizla 'originals'

cheers *Reaver* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.72.200.11 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rizla black king size are slightly thinner than rizla silver (in weight terms). They are the same width and length as silver king size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.200.60 (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I give up

I've tried to navigate the various links for this company to establish its validity, even though self-sourced, but for fag papers to throw unnecessary graphics at it audience doesn't help. So fuck them. They can rot. Rodhull andemu 23:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rizla King-Size Orange

"King Size Original Orange Slim are the most rare to find but are by far the least thick ones, with a water mark down the length of the paper and the words Original Rizla water marked on it as well." Silver are listed on the article as being the thinnest, while this brand (which does not appear anywhere online) is listed as 'least thick'. Poorly-written and unverifiable, I have removed it. !MNc99 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generic trademark

It may be worth including the fact(?) that Rizla seems to have become a generic trademark in the UK (and perhaps other places?)

It's not a generic trademark in the US, where IMO Zig Zag is more popular. M-1 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is in ex-Yugoslavia. Don't have a better source than the Slovene urbandictionary equivalent tho sadly: http://razvezanijezik.org/?page=rizla 93.103.223.236 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Back The Types of Rizla Papers

The edit that removed all the different Rizla types is by far the most unpopular edit to date (concerning this article anyway). I happen to be the person who wrote the first original version of this article, way back in 2005 and did so for a variety of reasons. One of which, was the fact that I noticed there were few resources that actually listed the details of every kind of Rizla with detailed information. As an avid fan of the papers and of "rolling your own", I found such information indispensable in determining what kind of paper I was "in the mood for" and what the company had to offer.

I fail to see how having more detailed, better information about all the different kinds of papers the company offers and what they're like is detrimental to the article. Having less information or detail is rarely a good thing in an encyclopedia I'd say, so long as this information is relevant, which it certainly is. Do we not list all the different Super Mario games in that franchise, because we're "not a sales catalog" and thus only have a generic article on the series? Of course not, that's stupid. To a hand rolling enthusiast the same holds true here. I suspect that the majority of people looking up Rizla on wikipedia are people like me, people interested in using the papers themselves. Since all of the papers give a vastly different smoking experience, I'd say that's highly relevant information to those folks.

The spirit and foundation of Wikipedia is that articles and their content are forged by consensus amongst editors, not the opinions of an individual. Since the edit that removed all this information has a massively negative rating of -2,354, it seems awfully clear that their is a consensus that most did not care for the removal of all that vital information. If no one has a decent reason as to why we shouldn't bring that info back in the next few days, I'll be restoring that info based on the most recent list of paper types. I know I sure worked hard on my original listing of the Rizla types when I first wrote the article on Rizla, which many wonderful people greatly improved and expanded upon. I see no reason to throw away all that hard work and research away, especially since it is absolutely relevant and important information sought after by those who actually use this product on a daily basis, simply because it's "too much information" in the opinion of a single individual. An opinion few if any seem to share. If you feel I am wrong, please say so here. Perfect Chaos Zero (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1865?1867?

fr. it. nl   wikipedia.org ,

paurolhom.be/RIZLA%20INDEX.htm, all 1867, rizla.co.uk is 1865.