so i was being a smartass the other day, and told my friend who

>>7641098
>my reasoning is that burning (ie combustion) will destroy nicotine/THC/cocaine/meth/opium
That's wrong

>>7641098
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

>>7641106
>>7641108
where am I wrong?
I mean obviously it has to get from solid to gaseous form somehow, is this not what heating accomplishes? and obviously the chemicals are not combusted, or they would change into different chemicals.

???

>>7641129
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.

>>7641098

Right or wrong, you're being pedantic to the point of retardation. Cut it out!

>>7641150

I thought that OP was one of the densest motherfuckers I've ever seen on the internet but you actually managed to be STUPIDER THAN OP HOLY SHIT

>>7641150
Are you high?

>>7641171
he took 14 tabs of lsd and thinks it's been years since he last smoked.

>>7641167
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.

the bait is [math]
\mathbb{R}\mathbb{E}\mathbb{A}\mathbb{L}
[/math]

>>7641166
I'm not being pedantic, im just curious at this point.

everyone is saying its wrong, but not backing it up in anyway whatsoever.

why has no one countered this
>>7641129
?

am I just being trolled? or is this board really retarded

>>7641195
We have countered it:
>>7641147
>>7641150
>>7641180
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:
http://www.marijuanagrowershq.com/decarboxylating-cannabis-turning-thca-into-thc/
I literally googled THC activation and it was in the top 3 links, next time have the decency to research before making assertions.

>>7641233
you're countering the wrong person, mate... I'm OP. read that post again.

>>7641235
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?

>>7641246
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

>>7641252
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.

>>7641293
> "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?

>>7641324
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.

>>7641293
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

>>7641798
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.

>>7641166
Fucking this. OP is that faggot autist who starts lecturing people on the metabolism of ethanol at a drinking game. I was that guy, now I don't have any friends. Fix up OP.

>>7641847
>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 :)

>ashes are a product of combusting plant material
>cigarettes are best ingested through combustion


>but but but burnings not combustion

>>7641894
not sure what point youre even trying to make