This is an unofficial archive of PsychonautWiki as of 2025-08-11T15:14:44Z. Content on this page may be outdated, incomplete, or inaccurate. Please refer to the original page for the most up-to-date information.
Talk:Routes of administration: Difference between revisions
>Oskykins No edit summary |
>BronzeManul Replied to rectal administration queries from user 'Summer'. |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
--[[User:Oskykins|Oskykins]] ([[User talk:Oskykins|talk]]) 15:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC) | --[[User:Oskykins|Oskykins]] ([[User talk:Oskykins|talk]]) 15:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
== Rewording the rectal administration summary == | |||
So both examples in the rectal admin section are problematic. | |||
Methamphetamine HCl is NOT a caustic substance (I spend too much time at certain fora trying to explain to tweakers that it is not battery acid) and is perfectly fine for rectal use; in fact it's a great substitute for IV administration. | |||
No reference is given for why phenibut would "burn" your rectum, chemically it's no different from phenylalanine really, and I haven't found any evidence of problems with that ROA. | |||
If I wasn't so shy, I'd delete them myself, but it does leave a problem of substituting good examples. | |||
:Methamphetamine HCl not being 'battery acid' is not fair evidence for a lack of causticity; however, if you have evidence in support of this claim then sharing it would be greatly appreciated. In regard to your phenibut statement, there is a difference between phenibut and phenylalanine 'chemically', they are different chemicals.--[[User:BronzeManul|BronzeManul]] ([[User talk:BronzeManul|talk]]) 11:17, 16 July 2017 (CEST) | |||