• Select Your Topic Then Scroll Down
    Alcohol Bupe Benzos
    Cocaine Heroin Opioids
    RCs Stimulants Misc
    Harm Reduction All Topics Gabapentinoids
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums

Alcohol Alcohol Megathread

It will KILL your veins, as Mr B and CG said.
I know a lot of people are dense and need to hear something several times to understand it, so hopefully this third one will get across.
 
Yeah, seriously. Please consult a mortician of your thinking about shooting alcohol.
 
they use I.V alcohol to either induce labor or delay labor i cant remember, they dont do it much any more but when my mom gave birth to my sister (1987) she said a older doctor had that administered to a woman, and my mother said she was happy but totally shit faced.
 
I'd strongly recommend against this

You'd have to get pure ethanol, and even then, it's probably really bad for you

Just drink some Everclear if you're that incredibly desperate
 
johanneschimpo said:
Why the rolley eyes?

NSFW:
The history of tocolysis
Marc J.N.C. Keirse
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Flinders University of South Australia, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia
Correspondence: Professor M. Keirse, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Flinders University of South Australia Flinders Medical Centre, GPO Box 2100, Flinders Drive, Bedford Park, SA 4052, Adelaide, Australia.
Copyright RCOG 2003 BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
ABSTRACT

In 1950, the World Health Organisation (WHO) defined prematurity as a birthweight of 2500 g or less and in 1961 as a gestational age of less than 37 weeks. The time in between marks an era in which there was growing recognition of the importance of gestational age at birth and how to influence it. The latter was facilitated too by the development of tocography, which permitted some semi-objective measurement of uterine contractility. Along with it, came a growing interest in agents that could control uterine contractility beyond the earlier classical approaches of hormones and gastrointestinal spasmolytics. Hence, the early 1960s saw much research interest in agents, such as nylidrine, isoxsuprine, and orciprenaline that could suppress uterine contractility as one of their many beta-agonist properties. Subsequently, two approaches would be used to shift the balance towards uterine function over and above the influence on other bodily functions. One consisted of supplementing these drugs with agents, such as calcium antagonists and beta-receptor blockers that were hoped to suppress non-uterine actions. The other was a search for drugs in the same class with greater uterospecificity and more selective binding to uterine as opposed to other receptors. Neither of these approaches has ever fully fulfilled the hopes that were pinned on them, but they resulted in the availability of a large number of agents to suppress uterine contractility. The advent of prostaglandins as regulators of uterine contractility and the ability to suppress their biosynthesis saw another range of attempts to suppress uterine activity. They included aspirin, sodium salicylate, flufenamic acid, sulindac and indomethacin, but some were clearly based on a defective understanding of how uterine prostaglandin synthesis can be influenced. In the meantime, a flurry of other agents came and went, often more than once, testifying to the ingenuity of clinicians in trying to solve a problem that is poorly understood. Some, such as relaxin and ethanol, came and disappeared. Others, such as calcium antagonists, entered the scene as protectors against the non-uterine effects of other agents, went, and re-entered the scene in their own right. Still others, such as magnesium sulphate, came, lingered around, and became credited with effects in preterm labour that do not depend on affecting uterine contractility. Amidst this all arose the term tocolysis, coined in 1964 by Mosler from the Greek stems 'τκζ' and 'λυɛιν', to epitomise all of this ingenuity.
Emphasis mine.
 
Last edited:
OK, it was something they did in the 50s/60s. It sounds really ridiculous, thats all. We now have plenty of pharmaceuticals which can be used for whatever purpose it was used for then (suppressing uterine contractions, I guess), so I hope its not used anymore.
 
johanneschimpo said:
OK, it was something they did in the 50s/60s. It sounds really ridiculous, thats all. We now have plenty of pharmaceuticals which can be used for whatever purpose it was used for then (suppressing uterine contractions, I guess), so I hope its not used anymore.
I just wanted to bust your chops. ;)
 
although it's probably a really bad idea...
In terms of volume 18ml/cc of pure alcohol is one standard drink (In American drinks. In Australia that would be almost 2 drinks). So you'd have to inject quite a lot of liquid to get drunk (60+ ml, which while I don't inject sounds like quite a lot when people commonly use 1ml/cc syringes to inject).
And using anything less than lab grade pure ethanol would be bad because it will contain impurities (pure lab ethanol must also be used, some normal lab ethanol contains other dangerous chemicals specifically to avoid abuse)
 
No, this isn't the smartest thing to do, your veins are not going to like this.

But, I think it's a little hypocritical to go condemning IV alcohol, on the principle that it's bad for your body and there are other alternatives, when not many people here condemn cannabis smoking on the same principle.

Smoking cannabis isn't great for the lungs either, and you can eat it, but I don't see too many threads or posts saying "You're a fool for smoking cannabis, why don't you just eat it", or "You know that burning sensation when you smoke weed? That's your lungs being damaged, its wreaking havoc on them, don't do it, it's fucking pointless, just eat it please."

I remember when someone posted about plugging cannabis, and people laughed at them, saying just eat it or smoke it. In the interest of harm reduction, anybody saying "just smoke it" surely should have gotten censured, but no one did (at least not to my memory). Yet plugging is far better on the body than smoking.

Now I think what's at work here is people not taking well to forms of drug use which are not widely accepted. Plugging cannabis is not widely practiced, so people laugh and encourage them to smoke it, because smoking is widely accepted, yet it's much more harmful. Mainlining ethanol isn't widely practiced, so people criticise it as well.

Hell, I don't see much criticism aimed at people talking up the virtues of ecstasy, yet that stuff is quite potentially neurotoxic. Why isn't praising ecstasy slammed on the grounds that it could potentially do your brain some harm? Injecting alcohol is also potentially damaging, but people go after the second and not the first.

I mean if you're going to condemn IVing alcohol basis of it's bad for your body then lets condemn dropping a couple of pills and dancing all night, which is also bad for your body. How healthy is grinding your teeth down and pushing your body past its sober exhaustion limits? My veins aren't going to enjoy being saturated in an organic solvent, but how does my heart feel about dancing for ten fucking hours?

If we're going to bang on about how bad doing certain drugs in certain ways is to your body, then be consistent and start criticising everything which is bad or potentially bad for the body, including those things which are widespread and socially acceptable.

I'd like to see the people criticising IV alcohol on the grounds that it's bad for the body to get real and start criticising dancing on pills. If you're criticising shooting alcohol on the grounds that there are safer alternatives, then I'd like to see you harassing cannabis smokers. It's plain hypocrisy not to.

Also to those people who are saying it will 100% definitely destroy your veins, could I see some evidence? Even if it was definitely going to collapse the vein, the OP might think it's worth it, I mean a collapsed vein isn't good, but it's not like he's definitely going to die from it.

Now if you don't make a habit out of this, and by your post it seems you just want to try this as a once off to see what it's like, then I don't think it's the worst thing you can do.

Google "intravenous alcohol" and the first site is an academic journal that mentions three addicts who injected alcohol. The first case was an alcoholic and diazepam addict who " . . . mentioned that he had been injecting alcohol over the previous 9 years. He injected mainly vodka, sherry or whisky with approximately a twice-monthly frequency."

The second case was alcohol, opioid and benzodiazepine dependent. "When questioned about intravenous injection of alcohol, he said that he had been using this method for 10 years until 1 year before admission. He injected mainly vodka with a frequency of four times per week."

The third case was an alcohol and opioid addict who ". . . said that he had injected various alcoholic beverages, including beer, approximately once a week." He ". . . admitted having used this method over a period of 3 years."

All three mentioned that the only downside was a burning sensation at the site of injection. The article doesn't mention it, and maybe the three cases above got lucky, but I suspect that with frequent enough use, collapsed veins would result; ethanol isn't particularly kind to cell membranes.

Google "intravenous ethanol" and you'll get a whole bunch of scientific studies involving IV ethanol. I could only get the abstracts so I can't say how much ethanol was given, but I assume it wouldn't be as much as you're planning to take. Also IV ethanol seems to be used in the treatment of ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) poisoning, again, they would probably inject it over a longer period of time than you're planning.

So with the aid of a little google research you can establish that IV ethanol isn't that uncommon, and while it definitely isn't the healthiest route of administration, it doesn't seem to cause instant death like some of the people here make it out.

Now I understand the appeal, the come up would be under a minute, versus 5 to 10 minutes drinking on an empty stomach. Same rationale with cannabis, I want to get high now, so I'm going to smoke it as opposed to eating it. All three cases in the article I cited mentioned rapid onset of effects to be the main upside of shooting.

I doubt you'd get much of a "rush", but the come up would certainly be quite enjoyable. Even when I've drunk multiple shots of hard liquor on an empty stomach, it still takes about 5 minutes between first feeling it coming on and peak effects. I'd imagine that with IV, it'd take less than 30 seconds. It definitely should be pleasant.

The logistics are a bit tricky though, as your standard insulin syringe is going to hold at most a ml, which won't do much even if you're shooting everclear (96% ethanol).

You're going to need at least a 10ml syringe, which is about a fifth of a shot. If you've got access to everclear then 10cc (millilitres and cubic centimeters are identical) of that shit is equal to a little under a shot of regular 40% (80 proof) spirits.

If I was going to do this, I'd probably go for something like a 10cc or 20cc syringe, but I don't know how easy they are to come by (the internet?) as compared to the standard insulin syringes. I'd definitely use everclear so I wouldn't have to inject like 10 times (everclear is about two and a half times the potency of normal spirits).

I'd also inject quite slowly (like over a span of at least 15 seconds (although the faster you do it the quicker the come up)), so as to minimise the vein damage (I'm assuming a lower local concentration of ethanol in the veins equals less damage). The downside of this is the pain would get pretty intense I'd guess. If you have access to a local anaesthetic (cocaine if you've got any), maybe rub some down the vein (I don't know how much this would help though because it probably wouldn't penetrate down far enough).

If you don't have access to everclear, or can't find any fat syringes then you'd probably have to inject a couple of times. You'd definitely want to inject in different places so as to spread the damage, but the reality of repeated injections would negate a quick come up, which is the reason for this exercise in the first place. Maybe get your buddy to inject you at the same time but at a different site.

If you must do it without everclear, then your best bet would be vodka, because it would have the least impurities. Remember people, commercial alcohol is made with legal implications of having toxic impurities in it. The shit is meant to be drunk, meaning it's clean enough to consume by the oral route. I'm not saying that it's 100% safe to IV, but the makers of Grey Goose aren't like the local smack dealer who'll cut your dope with whatever shit in order to make a profit.

You can also rest easy knowing the shit you bang is pretty much guaranteed to be sterile. Microorganisms don't exactly thrive in 40% ethanol solutions.

Ideally you'd want to bang the equivalent of a least a shot, I'd go for two if I were doing it, but you'd probably not wanna push a whole lot more than that. Too little and you'd feel nothing, too much and you might OD/cause some brain damage, but I can't think of how this is much worse than people slamming down 5 shots in a row at the bar on an empty stomach, in terms of peak blood levels of ethanol.

There are other threads on how to shoot, so I won't go into it here, just make sure you know what you're doing by the time you've got the loaded syringe in your hand.

Obviously don't reuse or share needles, and if you don't have a lot of willpower I'd probably destroy the needle immediately after you've shot, so you won't be tempted to reuse it. Also make sure you don't have other needles lying around so you won't be tempted to shoot more.

Yeah, like you mentioned, definitely don't go shooting the amount you'd usually drink in a session, once you've shot, just kick back with a couple of beers and enjoy the knowledge of going where few people have gone before.

I don't want to encourage you to do this, but I'd be a hypocrite if I discouraged you and didn't discourage cannabis smokers.

If you do shoot, please tell us how it went.
 
Last edited:
2inchdolphin, there is a difference in harm reduction and harm elimination. This website is to help drug users be safe as possible. Honestly, comparing smoking weed and IV'ing alcohol are two totally different things. IV'ing anything is dangerous and potentially lethal if the proper precautions are not taken into effect.

As I said before, the point of this website is HARM REDUCTION. What is the point of IV'ing ethanol and taking all the risk involved with it when you could just drink it and get the same level of intoxication? If you want to rant about how we should "bang" on everything because all drugs are bad for us, then please go to another website and bother them.
 
FlowMotion said:
Honestly, comparing smoking weed and IV'ing alcohol are two totally different things.
I did NOT say IVing alcohol was the same as smoking weed. I said it is hypocritical to condemn IVing alcohol on the principle that it's dangerous and there are alternatives, when no one criticises smoking weed, even though it is dangerous and there are alternatives.

FlowMotion said:
What is the point of IV'ing ethanol and taking all the risk involved with it when you could just drink it and get the same level of intoxication?
What is the point of smoking weed with all the risk to your lungs when you can just eat it and get the same level of intoxication? I don't see anyone saying that.

I don't disagree that IVing alcohol is dangerous. Drinking alcohol is dangerous. Smoking weed is also dangerous, and so is eating it. I'm not denying that.

FlowMotion said:
IV'ing anything is dangerous and potentially lethal if the proper precautions are not taken into effect.
Yeah, and that's why I like this site, when someone wants to know how to IV heroin, then people here will point out the risks and also point out how to minimise the risks involved. Same thing in this case. You probably shouldn't IV heroin, but if you want to then here is how to minimise the risks. You probably shouldn't IV alcohol, but if you want to then here is how to minimise the risks.

FlowMotion said:
If you want to rant about how we should "bang" on everything because all drugs are bad for us, then please go to another website and bother them.
No, I don't want you to bang on about everything because all drugs are bad. I want you to apply the principle of harm minimisation consistently. If you are going to apply it to the case of IVing alcohol, then I want you to apply it in the case of smoking weed.
 
2inchdolphin said:
I did NOT say IVing alcohol was the same as smoking weed. I said it is hypocritical to condemn IVing alcohol on the principle that it's dangerous and there are alternatives, when no one criticises smoking weed, even though it is dangerous and there are alternatives.


We are condemning IV'ing alcohol because it could cause serious harm to the user and be potentially lethal. You constantly use weed as an example on how we shout critises it because there are safer routes than smoking it. Well this is a harm reduction website but there isn't much harm to reduce when it comes to weed. How many people die or are hospitalized a year from smoking weed? So stop using smoking weed as an example.

2inchdolphin said:
What is the point of smoking weed with all the risk to your lungs when you can just eat it and get the same level of intoxication? I don't see anyone saying that.

As I said before, weed is a safe drug. We don't worry about harm reduction on a drug that doesn't cause harm.

2inchdolphin said:
I don't disagree that IVing alcohol is dangerous. Drinking alcohol is dangerous. Smoking weed is also dangerous, and so is eating it. I'm not denying that.

Once again, where do you get that smoking weed is dangerous?

2inchdolphin said:
Yeah, and that's why I like this site, when someone wants to know how to IV heroin, then people here will point out the risks and also point out how to minimise the risks involved. Same thing in this case. You probably shouldn't IV heroin, but if you want to then here is how to minimise the risks. You probably shouldn't IV alcohol, but if you want to then here is how to minimise the risks.

Yeah, we tell them how to IV heroin because when IV'ed it has a higher bioavailabilty. There is no noticeable bioavailability between IVing and drinking alcohol. We are helping them minimize the risk by helping them not taking a pointless risk.

2inchdolphin said:
No, I don't want you to bang on about everything because all drugs are bad. I want you to apply the principle of harm minimisation consistently. If you are going to apply it to the case of IVing alcohol, then I want you to apply it in the case of smoking weed.

We do apply the principle of harm reduction consistently, and what you consider harm might vary from everyone else
 
Why would any one even think that shooting up alcohol could be a good idea?
Is the taste really that bad? lol
 
It's painful, damages the veins and completely impractical. I'd give it a miss myself :).
 
FlowMotion said:
We are condemning IV'ing alcohol because it could cause serious harm to the user and be potentially lethal.
I am not saying you shouldn't condemn IV alcohol. I don't think it is smart. I said in the first line of my first post that it's not smart. I agree that it could cause serious harm and could potentially be fatal. Off course it could. That's why I said it's not the smartest thing to do. I also point out how to minimise the risks if you are going to do it.

What I am saying is that you should condemn dangerous drug practices consistently.


FlowMotion said:
You constantly use weed as an example on how we shout critises it because there are safer routes than smoking it.
No, I didn't say criticise smoking weed because there are safer methods. I said that if you are going to criticise a method of administration on the principle that it is dangerous to you health and there are safer alternatives, then you should criticise all methods of administration that are dangerous to your health when there are safer alternatives. To not do so is the definition of hypocrisy.

FlowMotion said:
Well this is a harm reduction website but there isn't much harm to reduce when it comes to weed. How many people die or are hospitalized a year from smoking weed? So stop using smoking weed as an example.
It wouldn't matter if the difference between smoking weed and eating it was 1 second in average life expectancy. If there is a difference then the principle applies. That's what makes it a principle. You apply it to every and all cases equally. Not just the ones that you personally like or don't like, but ALL. If you're not going to apply it consistently then it's not principled. It's arbitrary. There's nothing wrong with it being arbitrary, but if you are going to claim that you apply harm reduction as a principle, then you have to apply it equally, or you're a hypocrite.

FlowMotion said:
As I said before, weed is a safe drug.
Yes, compared to alcohol, tobacco, heroin or meth, then yes it is pretty safe. Relatively it is one of the safest drugs out there . . .

FlowMotion said:
We don't worry about harm reduction on a drug that doesn't cause harm.
You can not be serious. Even caffeine causes harm. Why don't we give new born infants fucking joints to calm them down? Or what about pregnant mothers? Fuck, this is amazing, a drug that
FlowMotion said:
doesn't cause harm
Holy shit, why haven't I heard of this before??!! Obviously you're not a fucking retarded moron, of course smoking weed carries dangers.

FlowMotion said:
Once again, where do you get that smoking weed is dangerous?
OK, maybe you are a moron. I can't believe I'm actually posting this on a site whose members are supposed to be knowledgable about drugs. A site specifically about the harm minimisation of drug use.

Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction
Impact On Lungs Of One Cannabis Joint Equal To Up To Five Cigarettes

Jesus fucking christ, did you really think that inhaling burning hot smoke containing hundreds of toxins was harmless? No, it's not nearly as harmful as tobacco smoke. But harmless? Why do you think vaporisers were invented? Thank god I caught you in this thread, or you might have lived the rest of your life spreading the idiocy that smoking weed is harmless. I wouldn't be so harsh if this was any other forum, but on fucking Bluelight? This is ridiculous. Stop spreading that shit, this is a harm minimisation site.

FlowMotion said:
Yeah, we tell them how to IV heroin because when IV'ed it has a higher bioavailabilty.
While higher bioavailability might be one of the reasons to bang heroin and other drugs, a big reason is to achieve steep plasma concentration curves i.e. the rush . . .

FlowMotion said:
There is no noticeable bioavailability between IVing and drinking alcohol. We are helping them minimize the risk by helping them not taking a pointless risk.
Yeah, at this low a dose the negation of the first pass effect probably wouldn't be noticeable, but do you really think the OP is injecting fucking alcohol to increase its bioavailability? C'mon, that's not even funny.

I don't know him, but I'd hazard a guess and say that he's not that poor/desperate that the needs to inject such a dirt cheap drug. He's obviously doing it for the same reason lots of opiate users come to the needle; to see what a 15 second come up feels like. That's the rationale I was working under in my post, perhaps you didn't read it.

FlowMotion said:
We do apply the principle of harm reduction consistently
Well you couldn't before, seeing as you were under the delusion that cannabis smoking was harmless, but I look forward to seeing you apply it consistently in the future.

FlowMotion said:
and what you consider harm might vary from everyone else
Yeah, it varied from your dumb ass belief that cannabis smoking was harmless. And I've consistently said that IVing alcohol isn't the smartest thing to do.
 
Last edited:
2inchdolphin said:
No, this isn't the smartest thing to do, your veins are not going to like this.

But, I think it's a little hypocritical to go condemning IV alcohol, on the principle that it's bad for your body and there are other alternatives, when not many people here condemn cannabis smoking on the same principle.

Smoking cannabis isn't great for the lungs either, and you can eat it, but I don't see too many threads or posts saying "You're a fool for smoking cannabis, why don't you just eat it", or "You know that burning sensation when you smoke weed? That's your lungs being damaged, its wreaking havoc on them, don't do it, it's fucking pointless, just eat it please."

I remember when someone posted about plugging cannabis, and people laughed at them, saying just eat it or smoke it. In the interest of harm reduction, anybody saying "just smoke it" surely should have gotten censured, but no one did (at least not to my memory). Yet plugging is far better on the body than smoking.

Now I think what's at work here is people not taking well to forms of drug use which are not widely accepted. Plugging cannabis is not widely practiced, so people laugh and encourage them to smoke it, because smoking is widely accepted, yet it's much more harmful. Mainlining ethanol isn't widely practiced, so people criticise it as well.

Hell, I don't see much criticism aimed at people talking up the virtues of ecstasy, yet that stuff is quite potentially neurotoxic. Why isn't praising ecstasy slammed on the grounds that it could potentially do your brain some harm? Injecting alcohol is also potentially damaging, but people go after the second and not the first.

I mean if you're going to condemn IVing alcohol basis of it's bad for your body then lets condemn dropping a couple of pills and dancing all night, which is also bad for your body. How healthy is grinding your teeth down and pushing your body past its sober exhaustion limits? My veins aren't going to enjoy being saturated in an organic solvent, but how does my heart feel about dancing for ten fucking hours?

If we're going to bang on about how bad doing certain drugs in certain ways is to your body, then be consistent and start criticising everything which is bad or potentially bad for the body, including those things which are widespread and socially acceptable.

I'd like to see the people criticising IV alcohol on the grounds that it's bad for the body to get real and start criticising dancing on pills. If you're criticising shooting alcohol on the grounds that there are safer alternatives, then I'd like to see you harassing cannabis smokers. It's plain hypocrisy not to.

Also to those people who are saying it will 100% definitely destroy your veins, could I see some evidence? Even if it was definitely going to collapse the vein, the OP might think it's worth it, I mean a collapsed vein isn't good, but it's not like he's definitely going to die from it.

Now if you don't make a habit out of this, and by your post it seems you just want to try this as a once off to see what it's like, then I don't think it's the worst thing you can do.

Google "intravenous alcohol" and the first site is an academic journal that mentions three addicts who injected alcohol. The first case was an alcoholic and diazepam addict who " . . . mentioned that he had been injecting alcohol over the previous 9 years. He injected mainly vodka, sherry or whisky with approximately a twice-monthly frequency."

The second case was alcohol, opioid and benzodiazepine dependent. "When questioned about intravenous injection of alcohol, he said that he had been using this method for 10 years until 1 year before admission. He injected mainly vodka with a frequency of four times per week."

The third case was an alcohol and opioid addict who ". . . said that he had injected various alcoholic beverages, including beer, approximately once a week." He ". . . admitted having used this method over a period of 3 years."

All three mentioned that the only downside was a burning sensation at the site of injection. The article doesn't mention it, and maybe the three cases above got lucky, but I suspect that with frequent enough use, collapsed veins would result; ethanol isn't particularly kind to cell membranes.

Google "intravenous ethanol" and you'll get a whole bunch of scientific studies involving IV ethanol. I could only get the abstracts so I can't say how much ethanol was given, but I assume it wouldn't be as much as you planning to take. Also IV ethanol seems to be used in the treatment of ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) poisoning, again, they would probably inject it over a longer period of time than you're planning.

So with the aid of a little google research you can establish that IV ethanol isn't that uncommon, and while it definitely isn't the healthiest route of administration, it doesn't seem to cause instant death like some of the people here make it out.

Now I understand the appeal, the come up would be under a minute, versus 5 to 10 minutes drinking on an empty stomach. Same rationale with cannabis, I want to get high now, so I'm going to smoke it as opposed to eating it. All three cases in the article I cited mentioned rapid onset of effects to be the main upside of shooting.

I doubt you'd get much of a "rush", but the come up would certainly be quite enjoyable. Even when I've drunk multiple shots of hard liquor on an empty stomach, it still takes about 5 minutes between first feeling it coming on and peak effects. I'd imagine that with IV, it'd take less than 30 seconds. It definitely should be pleasant.

The logistics are a bit tricky though, as your standard insulin syringe is going to hold at most a ml, which won't do much even if you're shooting everclear (96% ethanol).

You're going to need at least a 10ml syringe, which is about a fifth of a shot. If you've got access to everclear then 10cc (millilitres and cubic centimeters are identical) of that shit is equal to a little under a shot of regular 40% (80 proof) spirits.

If I was going to do this, I'd probably go for something like a 10cc or 20cc syringe, but I don't know how easy they are to come by (the internet?) as compared to the standard insulin syringes. I'd definitely use everclear so I wouldn't have to inject like 10 times (everclear is about two and a half times the potency of normal spirits).

I'd also inject quite slowly (like over a span of at least 15 seconds (although the faster you do it the quicker the come up)), so as to minimise the vein damage (I'm assuming a lower local concentration of ethanol in the veins equals less damage). The downside of this is the pain would get pretty intense I'd guess. If you have access to a local anaesthetic (cocaine if you've got any), maybe rub some down the vein (I don't know how much this would help though because it probably wouldn't penetrate down far enough).

If you don't have access to everclear, or can't find any fat syringes then you'd probably have to inject a couple of times. You'd definitely want to inject in different places so as to spread the damage, but the reality of repeated injections would negate a quick come up, which is the reason for this exercise in the first place. Maybe get your buddy to inject you at the same time but at a different site.

If you must do it without everclear, then your best bet would be vodka, because it would have the least impurities. Remember people, commercial alcohol is made with legal implications of having toxic impurities in it. The shit is meant to be drunk, meaning it's clean enough to consume by the oral route. I'm not saying that it's 100% safe to IV, but the makers of Grey Goose aren't like the local smack dealer who'll cut your dope with whatever shit in order to make a profit.

You can also rest easy knowing the shit you bang is pretty much guaranteed to be sterile. Microorganisms don't exactly thrive in 40% ethanol solutions.

Ideally you'd want to bang the equivalent of a least a shot, I'd go for two if I were doing it, but you'd probably not wanna push a whole lot more than that. Too little and you'd feel nothing, too much and you might OD/cause some brain damage, but I can't think of how this is much worse than people slamming down 5 shots in a row at the bar on an empty stomach, in terms of peak blood levels of ethanol.

There are other threads on how to shoot, so I won't go into it here, just make sure you know what you're doing by the time you've got the loaded syringe in your hand.

Obviously don't reuse or share needles, and if you don't have a lot of willpower I'd probably destroy the needle immediately after you've shot, so you won't be tempted to reuse it. Also make sure you don't have other needles lying around so you won't be tempted to shoot more.

Yeah, like you mentioned, definitely don't go shooting the amount you'd usually drink in a session, once you've shot, just kick back with a couple of beers and enjoy the knowledge of going where few people have gone before.

I don't want to encourage you to do this, but I'd be a hypocrite if I discouraged you and didn't discourage cannabis smokers.

If you do shoot, please tell us how it went.

If your trolling please tell me, because that post was 10/10 if you are. Flawless.

If your being serious, you realize that he could die from the impurities in whatever he is going to inject right? That's what makes it dangerous.
 
Top