Stimulants Sporadical usage of methamphetamine.

[MrHH]

Hi BLighters!

A friend gave me a sample of verified methamphetamine (very uncommon where I live). I never tried it yet due the uncommon fact, and also I never shown any interest about it since here it's a bit stigmatized due to its known chronic/long-term usage secondary effects on humans.

My question is: Does the "controlled" & weighted dosage (1-2 dosifications of 10-15-20mg within a single session, a session every 6 months, possibly combinated with Alcohol & Cannabis) will have any kind of (neuro)toxic/negative health effect on me in comparison with other traditional stimulants?

Thanks !

 

[Burnt Offerings]

I don't believe that methamphetamine is intrinsically neurotoxic but I could be wrong about that; I believe that when pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine is used medically it's relatively safe. Abuse of methamphetamine is most definitely neurotoxic, though, and I believe the threshold for abuse is relatively low. There are people who can and do use meth recreationally and don't suffer problems of addiction, but IMO it's hard to use meth just once in every six months IF you're already a fan of stimulant drugs, simply because it's one of the better ones in that family of drugs.

Regardless of that, I hardly think that one dosage every six months is going to have any lasting effect on your health.

 

[MrHH]

Then I guess that the problem becomes a reality when addiction develops, right? Otherwise, it's just like another substance.

I am thinking about give it a try with the safest ROA, that seems to be oral. Depending on the results I may also test very small dosages via nasal.

Thanks,

 

[Trying2Iso]

methamphetamine is neurotoxic and damaging
pretty obvious, given both the science and the reality of chronic users
just space out your use and don't use too often.
Keep good hygiene and diet and sleep a lot afterwards to recover

 

[MrHH]

Yeah... I know that's neurotoxic... the question is: is this aspect dose-dependent?

 

[SixBuckets]

Yes, neurotoxicity is dose dependent.

I'm not sure what is meant by 'the reality of chronic users', but if you're referring to health outcomes and/or chaotic lifestyles, I'd be really surprised if you could demonstrate that that was caused by neurotoxicity.

 

[LSDMDMA&AMP]

The entire point of methamp over amp is that
a. You can dose higher and be ok
b. Less physical stimulation
C. Highly soluble in water/able to be smoked, whereas even pure amphetamine is only soluble to 80mg/ml.
Imo at least, if youre only going to use microscopic doses (this isnt pharm pure. Its a street drug, most likely has been cut) then it defeats the purpose of using.
the entire point of MA is that its clean feeling so you can get out of your skull high without feeling too much discomfort.
imo it isnt significantly better than amphetamine if youre only going to use it orally in low doses.
Im not saying go out and do mad shots, but if thats how youre using it, dont expect anything too great.
i mean imo, it defeats the point of MA over amp to use it so cautiously and at such low doses that MAs enhanced absorbtion and all that, isnt even a factor.
it is a profoundly harmful and incredibly addictive drug when used like in pursuit of strong euphoric effects, but if taken at medical doses, it wouldnt be particularly more euphoric than d-amp, it would just be a bit smoother in effect. I kinda feel like that the real deal methamphetamine experience is almost inseparable from neurotoxicity/damage to your organs
you can take supplements, stay hydrated, all that, and thats great, but it is highly addictive and id argue that harm reduction shit still doesnt make it safe at all. At best you can minimize the harm caused by its use. If it isnt used often then you will have no problems, im just not too convinced that there are many people who can sustain controlled usage for a long period of time. Some people can, but a LOT of people cant, same with cocaine and heroin.

 

[SixBuckets]

id argue that harm reduction shit still doesnt make it safe at all. At best you can minimize the harm caused by its use.

Yes, but that's what harm reduction is? Safer use, not entirely safe. Guaranteeing 100% harm free use of almost anything is impossible. And I don't just mean things like meth - you can't even guarantee that biscuits or tap water or sex will be 100% safe for all people. Obviously risk of harm is higher with illicit substances, so the aim is to remove external harms and empower people to reduce the harms they can control as far as possible (when doing that thing they're going to do anyway).

I think the OP is asking a relatively sensible question about using a substance they clearly recognise as potentially dangerous.

 

[LSDMDMA&AMP]

I mean im basically arguing the point that the entire "mystique" that you use methamphetamine as a result of, basically isnt conducive to using it the way hes talking about.
saying basically that its not worth barking up that tree for that. That the intended/desired effect people use methamphetamine for is really just intensity. The effects are exactly the same as d-amp, but turned up to 11 if you use it the way it is used "on the street". The entire like properties that make it so desirable, esp compared to regular amphetamine, arent going to be achieved if it is used so like...
if youre so scared of it that you dont even feel comfortable snorting it, and are going to dose sub medical doses (cause the doses hes talking about, are the same as medicinal use, except he has street meth that can vary from 1%-99% methamphetamine content, and more than likely its been cut/recrystallized)
I am basically arguing to leave it alone if youre not willing to use it in a manner that will result in the quintessential "methamphetamine experience".

 

[SixBuckets]

*shrug* If they try it and it doesn't do enough because they only took a small amount, they'll probably find it boring and not do it again. I think that's a perfectly reasonable experience to have trying a novelty drug.

I don't think everyone has the same 'methamphetamine experience' anyway, even if they take relatively equivalent doses.

 

[pinpoint]

Don't be a giant pussy all your life OP just smoke dat shit!!!1111one

 

[onetwonine]

You're not going to be able to keep it to that.

Maybe I'm wrong and you have willpower I have never seen before.

 

[SixBuckets]

I don't know where the OP is or what the stats for other countries are, but one in ten Australians have ever used methamphetamine. Of these, only 10% of them (so 1% of Australians, or one in ten of people who have ever used meth) go on to use monthly or more. (figures from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre)

It's demonstrably not true that everyone who tries methamphetamine goes on to become a dependent or regular user.

 

[Trying2Iso]

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2001/bnlpr030101.htm

 

[MrHH]

Yes, but that's what harm reduction is? Safer use, not entirely safe. Guaranteeing 100% harm free use of almost anything is impossible. And I don't just mean things like meth - you can't even guarantee that biscuits or tap water or sex will be 100% safe for all people. Obviously risk of harm is higher with illicit substances, so the aim is to remove external harms and empower people to reduce the harms they can control as far as possible (when doing that thing they're going to do anyway).

I think the OP is asking a relatively sensible question about using a substance they clearly recognise as potentially dangerous.

Of course I am not looking for such kind of warranty... I just try to compare the damage to something like common Amphetamine sulphate (street 'speed') or Cocaine. Of course I think it's a completely dangerous substance, but I think it's dangerousness resides on its ability to create addiction (I've experienced heavy cravings with MDPV years ago, and I managed to handle the stimulants in such way that they don't create addiction since I try to use them not very frequently and -trying- to not abusing them...

Anyway my question is also focused on the perspective of having 'the best methamphetamine available', without impurities. I want this since I would like to understand the risk of the compound itself, being completely aware that it can be completely cut if purchased to a non trustworthy/illegal provider.

 

[MrHH]

imo it isnt significantly better than amphetamine if youre only going to use it orally in low doses.
Im not saying go out and do mad shots, but if thats how youre using it, dont expect anything too great.

I am going to try different ROAs but always thinking about harm reduction... For instance; I love the feeling MDMA gives me nasally, but I don't do it since I love my nose... anyway, it's something that I consider good to experience once.

I kinda feel like that the real deal methamphetamine experience is almost inseparable from neurotoxicity/damage to your organs
you can take supplements, stay hydrated, all that, and thats great, but it is highly addictive and id argue that harm reduction shit still doesnt make it safe at all. At best you can minimize the harm caused by its use. If it isnt used often then you will have no problems, im just not too convinced that there are many people who can sustain controlled usage for a long period of time. Some people can, but a LOT of people cant, same with cocaine and heroin.

This is a really good point, since that was exactly my question. To get the 'real' meth experience, in order to have a 'common recreational' session, the common dose must be exceeded, thus, exposing the subjects to negative effects, including neurotoxicity...

I will experiment and will let you know... It's interesting since I tend to see stimulants as something objetive... My main area is the psychedelics, but I also use/enjoy sometimes other kind of substances.

 

[MrHH]

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2001/bnlpr030101.htm

Here I continue seeing that everything is about 'abuse'. I speak about very sporadical usage, never exceeding... let's say, 50 mg per session via oral or its equivalent on alternative ROAs? do you consider that a neurotoxic dosage already if for example split in two takes spaced by X hours?

Is there any -scientific- literature describing the relationship between dose-per-session / frequency of usage and permanent physical/psycological damage from the usage of Methamphetamine? For example, most of us, we know that MDMA should not exceeded 2mg/kg on every session, having a maximum of 1 session per every month... Is there any study/rule about Meth like that?

Enjoy your weekeeeeeeend!

 

[Trying2Iso]

Here I continue seeing that everything is about 'abuse'. I speak about very sporadical usage, never exceeding... let's say, 50 mg per session via oral or its equivalent on alternative ROAs? do you consider that a neurotoxic dosage already if for example split in two takes spaced by X hours?

Is there any -scientific- literature describing the relationship between dose-per-session / frequency of usage and permanent physical/psycological damage from the usage of Methamphetamine? For example, most of us, we know that MDMA should not exceeded 2mg/kg on every session, having a maximum of 1 session per every month... Is there any study/rule about Meth like that?

Enjoy your weekeeeeeeend!

Yes, but methamphetamine is highly addictive and very binge-prone, and obviously very difficult to keep that rigid "sporadical" usage that you speak of. If you can handle it great, but spreading the message that sporadic use of meth is not harmful could be itself, harmful.
Thus leading to the article i posted.

I do believe that even one-time meth use can cause psychological damage tho, getting that high is never good. I've been getting cravings for cocaine and i only did it 5 times, it's been a year and i can still taste it in my mouth sometimes, euphoria to that level is something many can't handle.
Not to mention many are more susceptible than others to Stimulant Psychosis, some people can get it after just a couple of hits.

 

[LSDMDMA&AMP]

You gotta stay up to get stimulant psychosis.
sleep deprivation and at that it depends on how high you are
you can go 5 days on speed but if youre just maintaining so you can stay awake, you might not have it too bad, but if youre gettin real wrecked, by day 3 youll start seeing things.

 

[Trying2Iso]

You gotta stay up to get stimulant psychosis.
sleep deprivation and at that it depends on how high you are
you can go 5 days on speed but if youre just maintaining so you can stay awake, you might not have it too bad, but if youre gettin real wrecked, by day 3 youll start seeing things.

that's actually not true, i have a friend who smoked some meth and only hours later fired his shotgun THROUGH his window, didn't even bother to open it first. when cops arrived at the scene, he claimed little people were spying on him in trees in his yard.
He had no psychiatric history, and was sent to the dual diagnosis unit of a psychiatric hospital after getting his arraignment, and placed on meds. He quit taking his meds the day he got out, and it's been 2 years and he's never had another incident like that. So ya, i'm guessing it was stimulant psychosis...