From what I know, CO² does not cause a high, though. It can cause dizziness, headaches and nausea when being inhaled in high quantities (higher than what we inhale from a joint or the like), but it does not have the kind of psychoactive effects we look for.
That's not what I wrote--at least, it's certainly not what I intended to be understood from my post so I'll clarify.
Smoke inhalation causes a head change and those head changes are often associated with being "high." We can parse that by the dry language of researchers into causal, intervening, and correlative causes but
most people would just conclude they feel high after they smoke a bunch of weed without thinkging too much about how much should be attributed to the CO2 vs. the THC, etc.
EDIT
I did write CO2 causes part of the "couch lock" experience.
Upon re-reading my statement, it turns out I did
not write the above. Your persistent misstating of my positions is beyond frustrating. I wrote that a "couch lock" condition is interpreted as "more high" (than non-couch locked) because of the effects CO2 has on the brain and the social learning associated with being anchored to the couch.
Again, once you read what I wrote instead of what you'd prefer to argue over, that doesn't say CO2
causes couch lock. It argues that CO2 enhances/exacerbates the things that we tend to associate with being high (including couch lock).
/EDIT
Along with the effects you noted (dizziness, headaches, and nausea) CO2 inhalation, or asphyxiation, leads to euphoria and drowsiness. That's one of the reasons I pointed out some people induce this via non-pharmacological means by way of hyperventilation (cf. children huffing into bags of their own air while people press on their chests to obtain similar feelings).
You say CO2 doesn't cause a "high" and instead causes feelings of "dizziness, headaches, and nausea" but those are essential components of becoming "high" (and are discussed extensively in the article I posted and encouraged others to read before disputing the theory--I'm assuming from your response that you did not read it). Dizziness, headaches, nausea, drowsiness, and euphoria can all be caused by CO2 inhalation and are also associated with being "high." The point of the article is how one learns to associate those physiological responses, that are arguably not fun, with fun--we learn what being "high" means and how to respond to it (laugh).
If a first-timer happens across a joint and smokes it, they will arguably walk away thinking the experience wasn't very fun at all. Their airways will become inflamed, they'll cough, their thinking will become disoriented, they may become nauseas, and they may develop an insatiable urge to eat all the food nearby. Objectively, those things aren't generally considered "fun." Subjectively, however, via interactions with other users demonstrating how and why those things are fun novice users tend to learn how to become "high."
Becker, and I, are arguing that being "high" has as much, or more, to do with how we evaluate our body's response to bud and less to do with the pharmacology of it. Now, you're free to disagree but I'd suggest you do so only after reading the relevant research on the subject rather than rejecting it outright. To that end, I'd also point out that those physiological responses shouldn't be entirely attributed to the pharmacology of bud because, as you hopefully know, THC is a
hallucinogen.
The risks associated with conduction modalities vs. convention modalities aren't a debatable point to me. There already exists over a decade of discussions regarding this potential on the board so I won't belabor the point in this thread.
The claim that smoking a joint produces the same high as vaping of any modality is so far outside the boundaries of average reports and scientific literature I won't debate that with you, either.