Talk:A-PVP

From PsychonautWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

So, I found this one Erowid report of a person stating this:

-Insufflated (10mg): I find this route to be the longest lasting, but the least rewarding and most dangerous. It's hard to determine how high you are about to get because unlike vaporization, when redosing, you start at the bottom and climb up to a peak rather than starting near the peak and making a short jog to the top. This is why other users report 'severe tachycardia,' and why this ROA seems to be the most dangerous.

At the end of the report, he claims it to be addictive, yet totally, safe, manageable, and actually beneficial for him.
Now, with his first claim about snorting, notice how the reports that are "trainwrecks" or "bad trips" are all...insufflated.
Perhaps he's right?
Now, this is just one person's thoughts on the issue/claim. I'd honestly agree with him (sadly, A-PVP is schedule I in the United States and even if it were unscheduled it would be illegal in my state) and try it myself, at least under his guidelines. Looks totally rational. Don't snort it. Same thing with other compounds. 2C-T-7; never snort it. Any powdered NBOMe or such; never snort it. Sound familiar?


https://erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=99718

I think it is important to distinguish between a likelihood to produce bad experiences as it is experienced subjectively from how safe a substance is or not, according to what we know or can predict about its pharmacological and toxicological profile. For example, vaping this substance could produce "better" experiences in the short term but this gain could be outstripped by an increase in desire to use it, leading to more frequent use, leading to a pathological addictive state that ends up causing more harm to one's life than a bad one-off experience that convinces one to avoid a dangerous substance altogether.
I would not take this one person's report as a substitute for a valid data set. Also, I disagree with the conclusion you arrive at that there is some unique property to insufflation that makes it more dangerous than vaporization, which is established to be a more extreme, habit-forming and dangerous way of intaking most substances due to a) the direct access to the bloodstream, and the bypassing of the "first-pass effect" that comes with oral administration and b) the increased rate at which blood plasma concentrations spike and drop off, which can, for instance, increase a substance's toxic effects on the heart or brain relative to it being absorbed in a more controlled rate.
Yes, 2C-T-7 and NBOMe are more dangerous when they are insufflated than when they are orally or sublingually administered. However, this does not mean vaporization is somehow safer than either insufflation or oral administration! All the science indicates this is not the case. NBOMe is considered to be more dangerous when it is vaporized than when it is taken orally and insufflated. And while I don't know if 2C-T-7 can be vaporized, the reasons that make insufflating it dangerous would be amplified even moreso and should be avoided for the same reasons.
If you are operating under the frameworks of do's and don't's, what reason dictates is that some substances simply are not 'safe' to take past a certain RoA threshold, going from oral/sublingual > insufflated > rectal > vaporized > injected in terms of the net harm they can cause. So I'd be wary about following this one person's "guidelines" or using that as a reason to experiment with one of the most addictive substances and ways of administrating them that are currently available. Also, I find his claim that it helps him manage his ADHD pretty dubious. It is like hearing someone saying crack helps them with their ADHD. They may believe this, and it may actually relieve some of their symptoms in the short term, but all the evidence suggests it simply is not something that can be sustained as a viable treatment over an extended timescale. --Clarity (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2017 (CEST)