i'm not sure what you're suggesting above. are you saying he might as well try harder drugs because he's snorting ritalin? well thats just absurd and un-responsible. especially recommending the use of cocaine as an alternative to ritalin?! the only way that you can produce the same kind of high to a cocaine one is through IV use. i don't think the OP has gone that far - or should he because he's already "abusing a substance"?[/B]
Well, think about it... since I literally say "I'd recommend giving cocaine a try for effects similar to but much better than mph" in the post, then yes, I did recommend using "harder" drugs, but with, what you seem to have missed, harm reduction in mind. Let me explain everything to you in simple terms- Since the OP wants a high, I suggested a way to get a roughly similar if not better buz, without as many negative side effects, but wait, there's more... I'll go even further and spell it out for you.
To even get a reasonable high on mph from insufflation(most effective ROA with the least risk) one must snort a good bit of it. The binders/fillers that account for 90% of the pill can't be good for your nasal passages, the high isn't crazy awesome or notable in length, and it has a hard come down-essentially recreational use is wasteful both of the drug and your nasal tissue.
By saying "how much Ritalin to get me safely high" the OP essentially wants a safe dosage and/or ROA at which he can achieve the sought after, upper-like high (stimulating/euphoric effects)Ritalin provides when not used therapeutically. He should be asking "what is the most efficient/least damaging way to achieve a 'stimulant' high?"...stimulant highs (not to mention methylphenidate and cocaine especially, as opposed to mph and say "mdma" or another stimulant) share many effects, to the point that, for example, studies have shown that IV methylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate even more so was extremely hard if not impossible to discern from IV coke for most of the participants (evidence that a high is a high is a high, and that everything is related-in that to express the feelings being felt, one must have a point "of reference"[something under the same general topic to start at-in this case, the overall effect that a drug causes and therefore is classified as]...) Take, for example, how mushrooms at low doses feel like a really good marijuana high, and how lsd is often described as a more intense shroom trip with more visuals- point being all three are labeled psychedelics, they have feelings that are relatable with each other, stimulants relatable to stimulants, opiates to opiates, etc, no matter how different the substances may be...
The key to drug use of any kind without abuse is *******self control. Because as soon as it's lost, who's left, if you're unlucky enough to not have a close friend/parent who can help, to control you other than the drug itself? Self control/discipline, moderation, and responsibility will allow for most, even harder substances (excluding methamphetamine and pcp- phyncyclidine) out there, to be used safely, with little toll on your body/mind, and/or with substantial risk of addiction; also IME, heroin has shown me
(through this short trip report
ROA: insufflation
I made a gram and all half of basically pure, uncut, powder heroin last a whole weekend*3days* of continuous use every day after 6 P.M. Till I would pass out around roughly 2-3A.M. At the end of the bag I was expecting cravings or at least some mild withdrawals as heroin felt like an extremely potent roxicodone 30mg pill, in that the effects felt exactly the same, but duration was much longer with Heroin and the amount required to reach the same level of "fucked-upness" was much less than oxycodone [which gave me some withdrawal sickness the day after doing 3 in one night [90 mg oxycodone] . Surprisingly enough, I only had great memories, with which pondering on brought about only mild cravings, which were similar in intensity to craving food, yet put out of my mind with the same ease as food cravings are.)
as long as I knew when to quit, and actually did so when the time came, that I could keep myself under control; therefore resulting with it being, in my opinion, included in the group of "hard drugs" that can be used without necessarily leading to abuse, bodily harm, and addiction "Hard drugs" are simply labeled as such because they're more likely to result in regular abuse, bodily damage, and addiction-three areas where the line society has drawn between cocaine and mph seems to blur...
look at this from my perspective:
Regular abuse is easier with mph because of the stereotype that it's safer and therefore easier to obtain than street drugs(for example, a friend at school asks you for one and you have a script, of course you're going to give them one! Besides, he only wants it to study, everyone can(are) get(ting) them, and you're not selling him meth or crack, so no harm done right?). Cocaine is not a poor man's drug, making it harder to regularly use it with an empty bank account, and unless you're under extremely rare circumstances-like winning the lottery rare, the only place to find it other than you're always responsible,certified, honest, and reliable, friendly neighborhood drug dealer,*cough, sarcasm* is at a select few pharmacies after obtaining a prescription for said substance, as a result of some ear, nose, and/or throat problems.
Bodily harm for both includes erosion of mucus membrane/flesh lining in your nose, and vasoconstriction, eventually leading to a deviated septum if continued over long periods of time , but with the fact that even "cut" cocaine is a stronger vasoconstrictor than mph, I would think that all the extra junk you get along with the mph pill-unless you where able to single out the mph and extract it-when snorting is more detrimental to the nasal passages due to the increased risk of infection short term, and the extra erosion the binders/fillers cause as in the long term as they usually also end up being absorbed by the membrane which can only add to tissue damage caused. Any "large" or foreign particles, including the most crushed up powdered, and seemingly small a substance's molecules may look to your eye, that pass through a mucus membrane will tear and erode said membrane as they pass through.
In addiction potential, I think they are equal; cocaine has a much quicker more discernible effects,.which makes it easier to remember and therefore crave. Yet methylphenidate has effects with a rough come down which makes re-dosing seem like a great idea, causes bad cravings, and makes the binge(eventually habitual) pattern much easier to fall into. Tolerance builds too quickly in mph as well, with the amount of powder needed to maintain a high increasing exponentially if repeatedly/continuously abused; much more so than cocaine would ever cause.
In conclusion to this rant:
When I suggested using cocaine (responsibly,of course) as an alternative (if it could be obtained from a trustworthy source), I reasoned that less product(coke), both cut and uncut, usually ends up in your nose when snorted, as opposed to methylphenidate pills, resulting in much less damage to nasal tissue.. The high is relative to mph but better and different at the same time, and it's easier to judge how much cocaine you need based on its.discernible effects: it hits much faster( greater intensity = quicker onset, more numbness), greater intensity makes it more memorable-making it easier to compare various levels of purity. All of which only aids in the prevention of "re-dosing"too early thinking you didn't get enough. The logic above shows how intranasal use of cocaine could be safer, used at equal or lesser risk, and cause less damage while giving a better high than intranasal use of methylphenidate ...doesn't sound "absurd" or "un-responsible " to me-Why would you, if you're going to chase a high, use a drug weaker in its effects and more detrimental to your health, when you can use a different substance to get a similar even better high, while at the same time retaining a focus of harm reduction?
And because he's already "abusing a substance" for a high shows that he's more likely to take risks, and that he might be more likely to use another substance, leaving me (as I've experienced both "substances" and many others, and know how it all compares) to assume that my post would possibly be beneficial in that it could lead to greater knowledge, better health, or at least inspire him to think outside the box while experimenting with drugs. I simply suggested that harm reduction and efficiency in maintaining relatively similar high's could be achieved by using different drugs, as long as they were essentially the same in characteristics.
Therefore, to answer your question- whether or not OP should try IV as a ROA since "he's already abusing substances"-, I would firstly note how inconsistent the question is with what I wrote/believe. I simply argued the point that it's inefficient and that it is causing more harm to continue using mph, than to use a different substance to achieve basically the same effects. For you to go from insufflation to intravenous as a ROA, is an inconsistent analogy for one, and two, is also to assume a shit ton of unnecessary risk; not only does risk of over dose increase because a certain amount of knowledge/experience is required to inject safely, and also because the purity of the substances in question are not usually known, nor is there general knowledge of how much effect a certain dose will result with in the individual. Risk of death/amputation is increased by the binders/fillers of pharmaceutical pills which are shot up, as well as by the "other" things
I'm pretty sure if ritalin slows you down you actually need it, and if it speeds you up, you don't need it. since that is what it is used for, to slow adhd or add people down...
and i wouldn't go gettting addicted to cocaine, that was a pretty out there recomendation if you ask me! wowzers
and i would NOT
It may seem like an "out-there" recommendation if you think, as I once did, that cocaine is equal to methamphetamine on its addictive potential. Yet when I first tried it I was like "that's it?" Now that I have a history with both mph and coke, I can honestly say that the potential for addiction from using cocaine is much closer, if not equal to that of mph than to that of methamphetamine