Is Heroin Orally Active?

[qwe]

YES it is but i think even less so than morphine (which is 30% bio). id rather eat morphine. this makes me think tho... if morph's intranasal bio is even lower than oral, wouldnt that apply to diamorph? if so you would actually get more out of eating it.

the extra acetyl groups make heroin more lipid soluble. hence much better intranasal BA than morphine

also if you eat heroin, it is all converted to morphine in the liver before reaching the bloodstream, so eating heroin is basically equivalent to eating morphine

 

[delta_9]

oral heroin is the same as oral morphine.

 

[Khadijah]

You apparently get shit heroin. I've seen plenty of pure white H.

where exactly does the word "china white" come from?

No, actually i get some BAANGIN dope. But, it is light tan and greyish, it aint white. On a scale of color value, 10 bein dark and 1 bein light, it is definately a 2 or even a 1. but not white, off white. Regular heroin, on the east coast, which is high purity, is tan to light tan. It aint white. There is different kinds of heroin not all of it has to be white to be good purity.

China white aint heroin at least in any term i ever heard someone in real life use it.

 

[diacetyldeath]

Several responses here:

- RE: Different drugs being "most addictive:" This is a function of personal brain chemistry and cannot be stated as an objective property of any substance. None of us are the same with respect to "baseline" (which is another fairytale state, but let's assume it exists for now) levels of endorphins, dopamine, seratonin, norepinephrine, and every other neurotransmitter in the book. Different drugs cause different changes in the apparent/perceived levels of these neurotransmitters, and depending upon the "baseline" brain chemistry of the user, one class of drug (e.g. opioids, stimulants, dissociatives, hallucinogens) is going to feel the most pleasurable and therefore will become the most reinforcing over a period of frequent use. For example, before my opioid habit got out of control, I found (and others agreed; none but me knew a controlled substance was involved) that I was a much "better" person after having taken a dose of an opioid. I was more productive, motivated, energetic, outgoing, compassionate, and happy (obviously). It was certainly not the stereotypical image that comes to mind when one imagines a nodding junky -- barely able to speak, uncoordinated, lethargic, etc. Perhaps the opioid was correcting an endorphin deficiency in my brain chemistry? Whether I go so far to claim "deficiency" or I just say that my natural brain chemistry made it likely that I would prefer opioids to other drug classes is beyond my own level of expertise/knowledge -- however, I can also say that I do not find stimulants (e.g. Amphetamines, cocaine) or benzodiazepenes (clonazepam, alprozalam, etc.) recreational in the least; they occasionally serve a purpose, but I feel no desire or compulsion to take them more often than, say, monthly; in fact it's usually a much greater amount of time between doses of such substances. But it'd be a snowy day in hell before I could honestly say that I didn't desire the effects that opioids had upon me once upon a time, before my addiction got out of control.

- Relative bioavailabilities of morphine vs. heroin: This is basic chemistry (fortunately -- my level of knowledge doesn't go much beyond basic!). Morphine has a low bioavailability both orally (10%) and nasally (30%) due to its failure to easily cross the blood-brain barrier. In fact, this property of Morphine was the reason Heroin was originally conceived and patented. By adding two acetyl groups to the Morphine molecule, it becomes much more lipophilic, and will cross the blood-brain barrier ~95% of the time. However, heroin itself is not even psychoactive -- it breaks down within minutes of ingestion into Morphine (which is, obviously, psychoactive) and 6-monoacetylmorphine (which, later, also breaks down into Morphine). So, the closer one can put it to his blood-brain barrier during ingestion, the more will have CROSSED the blood-brain barrier before it breaks down into Morphine. Oral consumption of heroin will result in the breakdown of nearly 100% of the heroin into morphine before it begins entering the bloodstream from the stomach/small intestine -- thus, ingesting heroin orally would be (assuming 100% purity) equivalent to ingesting the same amount of Morphine orally. Insufflation of heroin is much more likely to get it across the blood-brain barrier before it breaks down, since A) Substances are absorbed directly into the bloodstream across the mucous membranes in the sinuses and B) Very little is happening to the heroin which has yet to be absorbed in the relatively inert/dry sinuses of a healthy individual, so it will not begin the breakdown as rapidly as it would during oral ingestion. Obviously, IV injection of heroin allows it to rush the blood-brain barrier at near-100% quantities -- indeed, the famous IV heroin "rush" is the result of all of those non-psychoactive molecules suddenly breaking down into potent opioid molecules and agonizing the mu opioid receptors in the brain virtually simultaneously. This is why the "rush" of heroin is often judged subjectively superior to the use (even IV) of many/all other opioids by some users.

- "Toxicity" of Morphine and other first-generation opioids: The generation that first started using/becoming addicted to opioids in their pharmaceutical form (e.g. Morphine, Diacetylmorphine/heroin, Oxymorphone, Hydromorphone, etc., and Methadone, a synthetic opioid) has provided us with a generation's worth of data as to the long-term effects of said substances. There is absolutely NO evidence of ANY negative long-term effects resulting from the short- or long-term use of these substances across a relatively huge variance of dosage levels. When compared to various other substances generally considered "safe" on the long-term, opioids are clearly incredibly safe to use (at the proper dosage, frequency, and at pharmaceutical purity, with proper associated hygenic procedures). For example -- all of the OTC NSAIDs cause some sort of long-term organ damage (Aspirin: stomach; Acetaminophen: liver; Ibuprofen: kidneys; Naproxen: heart/stomach). Caffeine can cause high blood-pressure and heart disease (to say nothing of the dopaminergenic effects on brain chemistry). Nicotine: obvious. Alcohol actually IS a toxin; it can lead to blindness, it causes liver damage, heart disease, and high blood pressure. Cocaine/Amphetamines: High blood pressure, heart disease. Etc., etc. There have been countless cases of members of the medical profession who got "hooked" before the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1917 making opioids scheduled/controlled narcotic substances, remained addicted to several hundred milligram IV doses through WWI and WWII, and died of natural causes totally unrelated to opioid ingestion at old age.

The dangers associated with opioid use are entirely a product of their legal status. Improper/unhygenic manufacturing processes, toxicity/safety of "cut" material, improper/unhygenic transportation processes (I shudder these days to think about how I would happily shove into a needle and inject the contents of a wax bag that had been sitting in a sweaty dealer's pocket most of the day), and low availability of proper quantities of sanitary dosing equipment (e.g. needles, saline, alcohol pads, filters) all contribute to the high incidence of disease and fatality among opioid users today, to say nothing of the failure of our education system to properly inform them of the psychoactive effects of opioids, proper dosage, emergency procedures, etc., instead favoring a celebrate-the-ignorance "JUST SAY NO" approach (at least in the US).

If opioids were deregulated, and dependent users who could demonstrate their dependence were given unrestricted/lightly supervised access to the pure opioid and dosing mechanism of their choice, not only would said users stabilize at a dose which would allow them quality of life and stable functionality within capitalist society (proven in countless studies -- one of which happens to be known as Methadone Maintenance Treatment), but the black market demand for such substances would disappear pretty much overnight, causing availability to drop drastically and street prices to skyrocket, which would make first-time use incidences incredibly rare. Furthermore, medical complications arising from impurity, poor hygenics, poison, dirty/shared needles, contaminated tap water, etc. would disappear; with proper education as to dosage and emergency procedures, medical complications relating to opioid use would disappear altogether.

Anyway, enough of that pipedream.

- Uniformly white heroin (colloquially "China White," although this slang term sometimes refers to fentanyl or a fentanyl/heroin mixture) availability in the northeast US: During two years of addiction culminating in a 4 gram/day IV habit, I came across completely white (no trace of beige) powder that actually was heroin for the duration of approximately one week; maybe a total of three consecutive scores. It remains the best opioid experience I've had to date. At the time, I required anywhere from 5-7 bags in a shot for a recreational dose -- this stuff was fun at 2 bags and a party at 3; I wouldn't have done 4 for the sake of my own safety. I've done plenty of fentanyl; this wasn't it, and if it was IN it, there was very little of it -- this stuff definitely had a ~4 hour half-life and exhibited A) the heroin "rush" and B) a total lack of histamine-related pruritis (to which I was subject whenever I got a batch that had either been cut with morphine or had not been completely acetylized to heroin and contained morphine). At the end of this week, the dealer responsible for having tracked this stuff down (I don't want to give precise locations; let's just say it was a big city within a 2-hour radius of New York City) was arrested and remains in jail to this day. At the time of his arrest, he was borrowing a friend's car to which we had a spare set of keys, knew where it was parked, and in which there was found 80 bundles of this stuff -- in fact, that was the evidence at his trial for possession with intent. Sometimes I still daydream about deciding to take a look through my friend's car that evening.

So "China White" does exist here in the US, at least sometimes, but I can say that after having blown a good $100k+ on my habit, it was only in 3 ~$500 scores apiece. I've never heard it called "China White" except on Internet forums and maybe on the propoganda distributed by anti-drug resources -- we just called it really good dope. Rare, to be sure. Mostly I got the gray stuff lacey_k describes; sometimes I got more of a beige/brownish powder; and sometimes I got a much darker brown powder (which was usually quite weak, but now and then surprised me by being pretty damn good).

There were a few other times I received pure white powder after a score -- but all the rest of the times it was 100% fake, usually some combination of powdered sugar, flour, salt, sugar, and the like. One time earlier on in my naivete I blew around $4k on 23 grams of what turned out to be this kind of mixture. *sigh* Oh well. Those days are gone.

Anywhom, all the best.
dd

 

[phr]

White or slightly off white dope is common in Philly if you know the right dealers, or dealers that are high enough on the chain. I've had it on more then several occasions. I've also had "uncut" dope straight off a slug which was white/off white. Best stuff I've ever had, even better than the "fentdope" that went around a year ago.

It's what (OD) dreams are made of.

 

[diacetyldeath]

White or slightly off white dope is common in Philly if you know the right dealers, or dealers that are high enough on the chain. I've had it on more then several occasions. I've also had "uncut" dope straight off a slug which was white/off white. Best stuff I've ever had, even better than the "fentdope" that went around a year ago.

It's what (OD) dreams are made of.

Due to my legendary bad luck, the few times I chose to invest the money required to buy a whole slug, it turned out to be mediocre-to-weak. Then again, due to my legal paranoia (I am grateful to enjoy a very lucrative and fun, to me, professional career; one felony on my record would destroy it forever), I was always dealing with at least two middlemen between me and a given "dealer," which definitely decreased quality significantly throughout my habit.

If I had the guts/street knowledge to survey the scene in Philly and the money I have today and/or the money I had when I first started getting involved, no doubt it would have changed my entire strategy -- I would have bought in much higher quantities (thus spending less money per unit volume), the stuff would have been much better, etc., etc. But alas, in the beginning I was a pussy, and these days there's simply no point in going back (it takes a solid 12-15 bag shot for me to feel anything on top of this methadone, and the reason I've stopped doing even that once every few months is because the "high" is nothing like the productive, happy, calm, compassionate euphoria of the early days -- instead it's forcibly noddy, itchy due to the high amount of morphine in such a huge shot which causes a violent histamine release, groggy, foggy, and the amount of cut in such a huge shot often makes me feverish or gives me other short-term flu symptoms for the duration of the effects).

Hopefully, "someday" when I have the money to afford it and the will/responsibility to respect it enough, I can either find a more honest go-between who DOESN'T use the stuff (that was often how I got screwed -- they saw me as a great opportunity) or grow some balls and get out there myself. Who knows.

 

[Ham-milton]

It's *absolutely* not true that the only issue of opio-toxicity is legal status.

there are opioids that *are* quite toxic on their own. Think of the pethidine- and propoxyphene-type opiates. With long term use they pose unique risks to the user (primarily cardiac risks). Propoxyphene, hitting the wrong mu-subtype is also way, way, way more dangerous because of inherently inflexible dosing. D-Propoxyphene shares lots in common with Barbiturates, high degrees of respiratory depression, and tolerance-insensitive resp. depression.

For the most part I'd agree- opiates are non-toxic and pose little risk of overdose in pharmaceutical form, and that the majority of risk comes from the illegality, that just isn't true as a blanket statement.

 

[phr]

Due to my legendary bad luck, the few times I chose to invest the money required to buy a whole slug, it turned out to be mediocre-to-weak.

Purity always varies, even at the higher levels. There are plenty of reports of dope being seized at the first point of entry into this country that were as low as 50%.

So, even getting dope straight off the boat(or rather straight out the an excrement filled tub!) doesn't guarantee high purity. But of course, the more hands it goes through, the higher the chance of it being less pure.

 

[diacetyldeath]

It's *absolutely* not true that the only issue of opio-toxicity is legal status.

there are opioids that *are* quite toxic on their own. Think of the pethidine- and propoxyphene-type opiates. With long term use they pose unique risks to the user (primarily cardiac risks). Propoxyphene, hitting the wrong mu-subtype is also way, way, way more dangerous because of inherently inflexible dosing. D-Propoxyphene shares lots in common with Barbiturates, high degrees of respiratory depression, and tolerance-insensitive resp. depression.

For the most part I'd agree- opiates are non-toxic and pose little risk of overdose in pharmaceutical form, and that the majority of risk comes from the illegality, that just isn't true as a blanket statement.

Agreed, but think about *why* opioids like Propoxyphene and Tramadol were originally conceived and marketed -- lower "abuse potential" DEFINITELY figured into their market analyses. Which goes back to my requirement for "proper education" in the case of the deregulation of narcotics. It's also a reason in support of requiring medical proof of an opioid dependency in order to be eligible, although even that requirement is not completely necessary in some (albeit even less unlikely) social circumstances.

In our current society as it exists today, the legalization/deregulation of opioids would not work. There are ways (I suggested a few) to make it an appealing prospect whose positive effects would far outweigh its negative effects, and whose positive effects would far outweigh the current negative effects of criminalization.

However, to truly make the case for proper legalization of controlled substances, one needs to concede the practical benefits of a society with far less government/law altogether, the total abolition of any ill-conceived notion that humanity is born with any overarching racial positive or negative ("good" or "evil") traits, and the total acceptance on the part of those allowed to bear children that the responsibility to instill a certain base moral character belongs entirely and completely to them and them alone (i.e. humans are neither "good" nor "evil" by nature). Which obviously is a far larger discussion that is entirely out-of-scope anywhere on this forum, and by merely mentioning it I do not expect anyone to agree or disagree with the basis for such a thought exercise. Since such a society is unlikely to ever exist on Earth, discussing the relative merits of social policy within is, while an entertaining intellectual exercise, a waste of time.

I only bring it up to reinforce the fact that I understand that legalization of narcotics is not a 100% positive solution that would decisively end all of the substance-, abuse-, and addiction-related problems plaguing our society. I do submit, however, that the alternative is very much worth consideration due to the fact that I am hard-pressed to think of any way in which such a policy change would make circumstances any worse. Yes, such a policy change would enable stupid people to more easily make stupid decisions that may result in their arguably tragic death or incapacitation -- that said, however, most stupid people tend to reach such ends regardless of the rules that happen to be in place, and at the risk of sounding cynical or calloused, there are *MUCH* worse ways to die than by full opioid agonist overdose.

In any case, I don't mean to incite rage or to go any further off-topic than I've already danced. It's a subject near and dear to my heart, though, because I've lived through the most positive and most negative effects of opioid use, and the people making the decisions that can or will radically alter the foundations of my lifestyle and quality of life A) Have no inkling of personal experience that could possibly inform them in a rational way to act in my best interest (which would be irrational to expect) and B) Neither express nor act upon any desire to acquire unbiased, rational, truthful data with which to inform themselves before attempting to act in my best interest (which is more than rational to expect, although unfortunately sort of hilarious at the same time when one considers the average intellectual competency of any given US politician).

Anyway. Enough ranting. Didn't mean to ramble.