I find it rather odd that the comments I see here are insulting to those who have used snake venom to achieve a high. Why is it that we reject such an idea, when we accept without contest the idea of shooting up, insufflating substances, and smoking inorganics? What makes snake venom any different from the drugs we use today? Yes, snake venom is more times than none, deadly, but its not as if Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, etc arent deadly themselves.
While I do not agree with such a practice, and find it to be a very risky one at that, I do not feel the need to wholeheartedly reject it, as who is to say what is right or wrong?
Just my two cents.
"Dizziness and blurred vision" are side-effects of being poisoned, not side-effects of being high, although I'll admit the two are easy to confuse since the latter sometimes leads to the former.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt in my mind that every dope fiend with the sense to taste a new batch before prepping a rig is a lot better at eyeballing doses than the finger of a nomadic snake charmer trying to regulate the flow of venom.
The main problem I have with that is there is no standard for snake potency; meaning that even if the snake charmer knows exactly when 10mL has passed through the snake's fangs he/she still has no idea of the concentration of the neurotoxins being administered.
Keep in mind some of those neurotoxins work by the same mechanisms as nerve agents which are literally engineered to kill people more effectively than any other weapon.
If this thread were about someone who managed to get high from sarin gas without kicking the bucket, would you have the same attitude toward the practice? I mean, BL is a harm reduction forum, after all. There are safe ways to get high from cocaine, heroin, and meth; one guy getting poisoned and enjoying it does not a promising drug make.

