Cream Gravy?
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 12,200
^Shit I didn't even notice he'd mentioned his age. Yeah OP, steer clear of drugs for a while, especially ones as under researched and dangerous as NBOMe tabs.
..........................a psychologist or psychiatrist would benifit (sic) you more at this age than going through psychedelic journey.
Ceremonial Ayahuasca use is far different to recreational 25i-NBOMe use however.
You could try taking half a blotter orally, to see if it might be a lysergamide.
dropped 300mics 25-c-nboh @ 5:30pm with a drink of gingerale
quite spaced out with some visuals by 6:00pm, not particularly slower than just chewing and sucking on the blotter.
I only miss the numbing of my tongue (really)
otherwise I would not dare to swallow a whole one or several
the idea that it is not orally (gut) active is a fallacy.
please remove the hope that you can swallow the blotters and wait to see if you have acid. NBOH or nbome will get you just as stoned if you swallow it as if you gum it, or chew it. or try not to swallow saliva (another myth)
I found the thread I was thinking of: NBOMe oral activity experiment.
I took 600ug of 25I about 1:30 ago, liquid dose added to some Gatorade. Holy moly was it bitter, but the taste went away pretty quickly. Nothing happened for the first hour (other than having to go poo), so then I started eating a roast-beef sandwich, and within 10 minutes I started to feel some stimulation and body tingles. I'm at a definite +2 now, and getting some mild visuals, so it's surely not placebo.
I'm pleasantly surprised, but also a little dismayed that a belief like "NBOMes are orally inactive" can persist for so long without anybody verifying it (myself included).
Evidence? Psychiatrists in the West are highly likely to prescribe more toxic and noxious substances than traditional psychedelics. Psychologists in my experience are usually pretty conventional people who follow the current orthodoxy as far a psychological theory goes.
A psychotherapist who uses an approach that appeals to your imagination may be a better bet - especially if you wish to explore the depths of your imagination and mind (e.g. Transpersonal, Jungian, psychodynamic, etc.)
In some South American countries such as Ecuador, Ayahuasca is given to very young children, so the warning about damaging or stunting "developing brains" does not necessarily hold true. I do accept that in these countries there is a whole tradition and culture in which these experiences are embedded and that they do not naturally exist in Western cultures and therefore a certain backdrop which gives meaning to the experience is missing. But why should an assumption be made that a psychedelic experience is deleterious to the younger person's brain/psyche or whatever.
I'm not saying there are not cautions that need to be observed, but just that risk-aversiveness itself needs to be cautioned against. Remember, the original pioneers (e.g. Huxley et al) of psychedelics cautioned against the "ordinary man" being given access to these substances - they were to be reserved for the "brightest and the best". That would have denied many of the people who frequent this forum and offer great wisdom on the subject.