so i was being a smartass the other day, and told my friend who vapes that even though its called "smoking", you never actually want to burn what you're trying to smoke, even cigarettes, marijuana, etc. he doesn't believe me at all, so i figured you guys could settle this.
my reasoning is that burning (ie combustion) will destroy nicotine/THC/cocaine/meth/opium or whatever youre trying to smoke, chemically, and that smoking a cigarette actually works by burning a small amount of material and paper in order to get the solid phase nicotine right next to it to vaporise into gaseous phase and go into your lungs. and vaporisers do the same thing, but they use electricity to heat it enough to vaporise, thus excluding smoke.
its seems like chemically sound reasoning to me, am i right or wrong?
>inb4 calling me autist/smartass/asshole for correcting someone
its just a fun fact chill
I had an argument over on 420chan a few years back with some idiot who thought that candle's don't burn, but rather, they vapourize
You're the first one in a few years to rival his stupidity
as far as I know, the THC does become a different chemical when being heated. It get's activated at a certain temperature which I'm guessing is the temperature for the reaction to occur, but then again I'm not 100% positive, I quit smoking awhile ago and I don't really care for smoker fun facts any more.
Ex-stoner here, the thc from raw weed won't get you high, only if the weed dried out for weeks and then process occurred naturally.
Fire usually forces the THC to turn into .. sorry I don't remember the terms but THC- something that actually gets you high.
You managed to look even stupidr..
The process is called decarboxylation I'm not an expert on chemistry to explain you the terms or the chemical process but research ;)...
There is also a reason we use butter in making cannabis food and don't just boil it up.
We have countered it:
The heat causes THCA (THC acid) to produce THC and CO2 gas. Even if you're vaping, you'll produce CO2. So it may not be considered combustion exactly, but you do need excess oxygen to make the CO2 and the THC acid forms its conjugate base THC so I'm also guessing a H atom is transferred most likely turned into H2O. Sounds a lot like combustion to me actually. Why can't you just accept that you're the retarded one and not us? If you're interested here:
I literally googled THC activation and it was in the top 3 links, next time have the decency to research before making assertions.
I know you're OP. holy shit you're retarded. You're saying that you never actually want to burn anything you smoke because that would change it's chemical structure, I'm telling you that vaporization (a physical change) is NOT the only process going on when you smoke or even when you vape. Why don't you click the link and actually read up on this before trying to argue?
it makes me cringe so much when you throw out so many insult, calling me retarded, when youre too stupid to manage even reading my post.
nobody EVER said that there was no combustion going on, you massive moron. this discussion is about the INTENDED GOAL of smoking, which is to transform solid nicotine into gaseous nicotine which can be inhaled and absorbed by the lungs.I mean I even said this right in my fucking post if you managed to read:
>it works by burning a small amount of material and paper in order to...
>it works by BURNING
there's no way you arent stoned right now. get a grip anon
Yes, you're right that's how it works with nicotine. But you can also get nicotine through a pouch with no heat or transformation (chemical or otherwise). But other drugs like THC require an activation, so the chemical reaction is the thing that causes the creation of gases. Rather than the burning of material around it to heat it into vaporization, the heat added is enough to overcome the activation energy of the reaction which produces the CO2, H2O, and THC gas out of THCA solid. Even without any plant matter, just straight up THCA crystals, this will occur, the THC produced will always be in gaseous form because of the nature of the reaction (unless you bind it to a fatty substance like butter). And no, I'm not high. As I said here >>7641147 I quit smoking a long time ago and I don't really give a fuck about your petty argument with your smoker friend. You're probably both wrong anyway.
> "You're probably both wrong anyway."
Look as an innocent bystander of this argument, this is an incredibly immature thing to assert when you were the one asking for answers in the first place.
He may be a smart ass in how he's explaining it to you, but that doesn't instantly make him wrong. Why not look it up for yourself?
Wtf are you talking about? I'm not OP I'm the one fucking explaining. This entire thread is full of retards, I expected better from /sci/ but then again it's almost 4 am so everyone is probably a little bit out of it.
at this point I think I was being trolled by everyone except this you, so at least there's that
THC seems to be the only compound chemically changed in smoking, which is why other ROA don't work as well. however my question still stands for nicotine, freebase cocaine, free base methamphetamine, etc. only opium may be different as i'm not sure how morphine and codeine are found in prepared opium, as alkaloids or salts
I'm not too sure about the other drugs either. You do need to vaporize it in order to inhale it, but you can also take all of these drugs without inhaling at all, so the extra "gunk" that you get from burning a portion of the material to vaporize the rest (along with any impurities that might be in it) is still horrible for your lungs even if it isn't the byproduct of combustion.
>all this projection
im sorry that im not as socially inept and autistic as you, and can tell fun facts to friends without sperging out and lecturing them about something they dont care about, lel
thanks for contributing nothing to this thread other than your own insecurities, tho :)