i_luv_chemicals
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2001
- Messages
- 115
Is it possible? I know its not soluable in water but is there something else you could use?
[AMT Subthread] Injecting AMT
- Thread starter i_luv_chemicals
- Start date
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2001
- Messages
- 16,750
God, I hope not.
I can't imagine it being soluble enough in a dilute alcohol to work IVed.
Just eat it.
I can't imagine it being soluble enough in a dilute alcohol to work IVed.
Just eat it.
PuristLove
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2000
- Messages
- 1,694
Why?
Morninggloryseed
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2000
- Messages
- 13,773
^
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
i_luv_chemicals
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2001
- Messages
- 115
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 ]
[ 01 May 2002: Message edited by: i_luv_chemicals ]
> 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.
> 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.
I'm On Drugs
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2002
- Messages
- 108
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
i_luv_chemicals
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2001
- Messages
- 115
Ok what would amt be soluable in that can be shot up? If i can find something i guess ill be the guinea pig.
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...
(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...
PuristLove
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2000
- Messages
- 1,694
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2001
- Messages
- 16,750
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.
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.