• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

[AMT Subthread] Injecting AMT

god, i can't believe i'm seeing this post.. course after all the Rchem deaths thus far, maybe i shouldn't be surprised.
 
I think this is a valid question. AMT lasts so damn long so cutting the trip short (as IV administration tends to do) might be a good idea for those who don't enjoy/can't handle longer trips.
 
^
|
|
|
|
AMT works fine orally and lasts 16+ hours. If someone doesn't want to trip that long then they shouldn't take AMT. I truly believe there is just no reason to take things that work fine orally any other way.
 
God damn. I was just wondering about a different means of taking it. Fairnymph is right. It is a valid question. I have no problem with the duration of an amt trip. Can you blame a guy considering different means of taking it? And what does research chem deaths have to do with any of this. Why the hell do you think im asking about it?!
[ 01 May 2002: Message edited by: i_luv_chemicals ]
 
Originally posted by morninggloryseed:

I truly believe there is just no reason to take things that work fine orally any other way.
Ketamine works just fine orally, so how come you choose to IM it?
While I don't think I personally would ever want to IV AMT, I don't think it's hard to see the logic behind the question. Besides people are already shooting research chemicals, it's not as if by denying them information we are going to stop any problems, so isn't it better to practice some good old fashioned harm reduction and offer some advice?
I myself haven't run into any reports of IV admin with AMT, but if I'm not mistaken, in the 60's there were quite a few clinical studies done on AMT researching it's possible use as an anti-depressant.
Perhaps you could look in that direction and see if some basic info could be found, like the method of admin used during the tests, etc etc...
It might give you some answers...
Click to expand...
 
> Ketamine works just fine orally, so how come you choose to
> IM it?
Actually, not quite true. When its taken orally or snorted, its metabolized differently from when its injected, and you get quite different results because you end up with a different chemical reaching your brain. This is certainly not an endorsement of shooting K though!!!
> Besides people are already shooting research chemicals,
> it's not as if by denying them information we are going to
> stop any problems, so isn't it better to practice some good
> old fashioned harm reduction and offer some advice?
The best good old fashioned harm reduction and advice that you can offer here is "Don't fucking inject it, take AMT orally." This is an experimental drug and its being purchased from grey market companies with no quality controls. You've got somewhat better chances of getting reasonably pure material than if you're buying street heroin, but you're still at the mercy of strangers with questionable motives and chemistry skills. If you must inject your research chemicals, here is some harm reduction advice. Follow proper injection protocols for sterility... dont share needles, use a bacterial filter, etc... look on heroin harm reduction sites for details. Use super low doses, since the injected doses for these chemicals arent well known. Most important of all, make sure that you chant the following mantra out loud over and over from the time you start preparing the drugs until you come down from the trip: "I am sofa king we Todd did." This is crucial, repeat it over and over and discover the truth within.
> but if I'm not mistaken, in the 60's there were quite a few
> clinical studies done on AMT researching it's possible use
> as an anti-depressant.
You are mistaken. There was some preliminary research done, but this is nowhere near "quite a few clinical studies" nor does it establish AMT's safety. In fact, its probably more telling that AMT never became an accepted mainstream medication. It did get used for a while in the Soviet Union, true, but Soviet psychiatry wasn't known for its brilliance or its compassion for the mentally ill.
 
Originally posted by Murple:
> Ketamine works just fine orally, so how come you choose to
> IM it?
Actually, not quite true. When its taken orally or snorted, its metabolized differently from when its injected, and you get quite different results because you end up with a different chemical reaching your brain.
You are mistaken. There was some preliminary research done, but this is nowhere near "quite a few clinical studies" nor does it establish AMT's safety. In fact, its probably more telling that AMT never became an accepted mainstream medication. It did get used for a while in the Soviet Union, true, but Soviet psychiatry wasn't known for its brilliance or its compassion for the mentally ill.
Sigh...
Of course ketamine is metabolized differently when taken orally or snorted, and of course you will get different results accordingly, but are you actually saying ketamine isn't effective orally and doesn't work fine that way?
Erowid seems to back up the idea that oral use of ketamine is effective. I've heard and read a quite few reports of ketamine working just fine orally. I personally found oral ketamine to work, even though I don't prefer it...
So for right now, going on all of that I am not denying ketamine is metabolized differently in the body via oral admin, but I WILL say that it does work fine when taken orally and THAT was the issue, NOT the pharmacological particulars of ketamine, try not to stray from the point...
Also, inadvertently you helped to support the idea I was trying to convey when I posed that question to morningglory...
The idea that the method of administration used with a drug can have definite and substantial impact on the drugs effects, including pros and cons, and thus no method of adminsitration should be frowned or discounted upon simply becuase of personal beliefs or issues...
The original poster's question WAS a valid one, and it was NOT treated as such, that needed to be adressed...
And for your other point, as quoted from Alexander Shulgin's, TiHKAL:
"In the 1960's there was quite a bit of interest in a couple of pharmaceutical houses with the indole analogues of amphetamine. Both the alpha-methylated tryptamine (this compound, a-MT) and the alpha-ethylated homologue (a-ET, see its separate recipe) were found to be effective monoamine oxidase inhibitors, and both were CLINICALLY STUDIED as potential antidepressants."
Also, from TiHKAL:
"I have always been intrigued by a fascinating bit of speculation. Ken Kesey, of "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" fame, had his own nest in a log cabin down in La Honda, back in the '60's. This was given fame mostly by Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" where it was well described. At that time, Kesey served as an experimental subject for a number of studies involving psilocybin, Ditran, and a-MT."
Well, Dr. Shulgin seems to think there was quite a bit of intest in AMT and that it was indeed clinically studied. Also, it seems that Ken Kesey might have actually particiapted in some of these studies, oh, and is human testing of a drug simply, "preliminary research" to you?
Now granted I don't know the exact amount of clincal testing done on AMT, I doubt you do either, and if you do, please share with us rather than just be a critic...
Call me a cynic, but unless you can offer anything to the contrary other than your own conjecture, I'm going to side with Dr. Shulgin in assuming there HAS at LEAST been clinical testing done on AMT, and what looks to be a fair amount...
Click to expand...
 
to think that oral ingestion is always the best option is completely twisted.
there's a human tendency toward that of course, because that's how we ingest most everything else. but it's really very inefficient.
our digestive systems are designed to do just that, digest, break down. obviously the best way to ingest a drug should not involve some of it being broken down.
 
Originally posted by morninggloryseed:
I truly believe there is just no reason to take things that work fine orally any other way.
If it works fine orally, it will prolly work better if u IV it. Not saying IVing AMT is a good idea, alot of other chemicals that work fine orally are alot better when you bang em morphine, oxycodone, coke, etc.
Click to expand...
 
> Of course ketamine is metabolized differently when taken
> orally or snorted, and of course you will get different results
> accordingly, but are you actually saying ketamine isn't
> effective orally and doesn't work fine that way?
Well, in a sense I am saying that. My understanding (and I need to stress I am not an expert on ketamine) is that ketamine taken orally gets metabolized into nor-ketamine before it reaches your brain. Injected ketamine reaches your brain as ketamine. So it depends what you mean by "working fine"... If you want to define that as "taking ketamine and getting effects" then ketamine does work fine orally. If you define it as "having ketamine reach your brain to produce a ketamine trip" then no, it doesn't really work fine orally.
> The idea that the method of administration used with a drug
> can have definite and substantial impact on the drugs
> effects, including pros and cons, and thus no method of
> adminsitration should be frowned or discounted upon simply
> becuase of personal beliefs or issues...
No, they should be frowned on for more solid reasons, such as not giving enough pros to compensate for the cons. In the case of AMT, the stuff is not (known to be) metabolized differently when injected or taken orally. The subjective effects are not significantly different other than in intensity. The risks, however, are significantly greater. Injecting AMT increases cons, without really increasing pros proportionately. Therefore, the cost benefit ratio comes out in a way that makes injecting AMT not a wise move. This isn't simply an "I don't like needles!" issue... injecting an experimental drug of uncertain purity is just not smart, when similar results can be obtained by simply eating a higher quantity. This may cost more financially, but I'd think someone's life is worth having to spend a few more bucks.
> The original poster's question WAS a valid one, and it was
> NOT treated as such, that needed to be adressed
It was treated as a valid question and it got valid responses, even if the responses may not have been what some people hoped.
> Well, Dr. Shulgin seems to think there was quite a bit of
> intest in AMT and that it was indeed clinically studied.
I was discussing the amount of AMT research with Shulgin a few weeks back, and he sent me a list of references. It was quite short, and he was not of the opinion that AMT has been studied all that much.
> oh, and is human testing of a drug simply, "preliminary
> research" to you?
Yes, when the sample size is so small, and when the research happened in the 1950s-60s. Government regulations on testing new drugs back then were nowhere near like what we have now.
> Now granted I don't know the exact amount of clincal testing
> done on AMT, I doubt you do either, and if you do, please
> share with us rather than just be a critic...
From Shulgin:

Reference to the LD-50's:
38 mg/Kg/ip/mouse, 22 mg/Kg/po/rat , both in Gray, J.E.
et al., Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 4, 547 (1962).
20 mg/Kg/ip/mouse, in Ho, B.T. et al. Psychopharmacol. 16,
385 (1970)
Action as an psychoenergizer:
Grieg, M.M, et al., J.P.E.T., 127, 110 (1959).
Action in man as a hallucinogenic:
At 0.4-0.8 mg/Kg: Hollister L.E. et al. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis.
131, 428 (1960)
At 20 mg oral dose: Murphree, H.B., et al. Pharmacologist
2, 64 (1960).
And from a paper in my files:
The (+) isomer is four time more active in mice than the
(-) isomer (just as with (+) methamphetmaine) Repke,
D.B. et al., J. Heterocyclic Chem. 13, 775 (1976).

This is in addition to the proprietary research conducted by Upjohn and Sandoz and the Soviet research. There's really very little. You are vastly overestimating the quantity of research that's been done on AMT.
 
the only liquid worth fukn with shooting up is water-based (saline, ringers soln, etc...) sterile, maybe autoclaved, micropore filter... and if you can't figure out out to prepare a water-soluble salt for injection from a sample of a freebase alkaloid, you really shouldn't be shooting up
(ex: sample of f.b material suspended in warm dH2O with magnetic stirring bar agitiation, 0.1 M HCl added dropwise until alkaloid enters solution, pH re-adjusted to 6.0 - 6.5, the sterilized solution then added to saline for injection... how many mg/ml, rate of injection, max dose IV we must leave as an exercise for the student...)
again, ymmv...
 
I truly believe there is just no reason to take things that work fine orally any other way.
I disagree profusely! I believe all methods of administration have their merits and advantages. Albeit, with some drugs it might be unwise to do so, but that generalization just doesn't apply.
SWIM has smoked heroin, eaten marijuana, shot-up coke, railed 4aco and plugged mdma, and thought all of those were perfectly valid ways of getting high. (Admittedly, shooting up coke was the stupidest of the aforementioned).
This obviously doesn't mean that I think its a great idea to shoot up AMT (but it does beg the question if its possible).
Click to expand...
 
Injecting AMT increases cons, without really increasing pros proportionately.
I dont think you know all that much about IVing AMT . I get the impression that you have never IVed AMT, so how could you say?
Potential pros: lasts shorter (and this is a pro for many, I'd bet...and no I dont want to 'just suck up' the fact that the oral AMT trip lasts 16 hours), more cost effective, quicker onset.
Presuming you know what you are doing, and you use a low dose of the stuff, I think the potential pros of AMT could outweigh the cons for some people.
In any case, I am curious (and I sure as hell don't want to trip for 16 hours), so I'll experiment and let you all know. Keep your eye on Trip Reports.
We need to get over this "IVing drugs is bad mmmmkay" stereotype.
Click to expand...
 
We need to get over this "IVing drugs is bad mmmmkay" stereotype.
Nobodies expressing that sentiment here. What we are saying is that IV drug use IS much more dangerous than oral ingestion. There are a million reasons for this. You bypass your bodies natural filters (ie. the digestive system). You decrease the range between the size of a recreational dose and lethal dose significantly. AND since this is an experimental drug, there may be other complications we are completely unaware of.
In exchange for a shorter trip and using a smaller amount of material and a quicker come-up, these risks aren't just being adventurous, taking these risks is downright foolhardy. There are good reasons to inject SOME drugs, AMT just is not one of them.
Pure
Click to expand...
 
It's bad enough "joe glowstick" has to know about R.C.s in the first place. Do we really need to talk about this on a board full of people with more money than sense?
I'm not opposed to the spirit of the question. IVing is a viable means of getting a drug into you, and I think its no different with psychedelics. However, IVing is risky business; I would trust a Phreex to it, but not just any C_c.
So IV away, and If you want to discuss this, I think it would be wiser to do it on the IRC channel, where you can single out the people who have snese, and discuss it with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top