If oxycodone hydrochloride were meant for intravenous use then it would
be manufactured that way. For many reasons it is not. #1) there are many
other IV opiates that are more efficacious when given IV, #2) Oxycodone
Hcl as such is pretty damned acidic and if not buffered it is going to be
very nasty on the veins and cause damage if not maybe even a clot.
If you want to die of a pulmonary embolism, go ahead, not a fun way to
die btw.
--
Patrick H. Mason M.S. OHST, EMT-I
> The solvent isn't the issue, the issue is the particulate matter that is
> going to be present when you crush this pill up. Make this a habit and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> > and do not think any of these solvents are safe for intravenous
> > injection. (ie. vinegar, alcohol ect...)
Matt Beckwith - 29 Jan 2005 02:43 GMT
computernewby wrote:
> I find many oxymorons in your question.
Lead with an insult. That's a good tactic if you have nothing to say.
Way to go.
> First of all if you are going to
> experiment illegally with this drug which is obviously what is
going to
> happen then there is no safe way to inject this drug.
Follow up the insult with a sentence with no subject and no verb. Now
your audience is totally confused. I presume that's exactly where you
wanted him, right?
> That is why it comes
> as a tablet so that it can be swallowed whole without crushing,
chewing,
> snorting or injecting which can lead to overdose or death.
Follow the sentence fragment with a run-on sentence. The reader is
reeling from the dizziness, totally in awe of your syntactical
brilliance. Furthermore, he's waiting in breathless anticipation of
the "many oxymorons" you found, not one of which has yet been
mentioned.
> Oxycontin (oxycodone) comes in tablets, oral liquid and
suppositories.
Now you switch gears entirely and state the obvious. The reader is now
wondering whether you've led him on by mentioning the oxymorons. But
at least he's comforted by a sentence which is actually grammatically
correct.
> So to answer your question, there is no answer since it is a moot
point.
And here's the coup de grace. You had nothing to say to begin with!
What a finish!
Matt Beckwith - 29 Jan 2005 02:51 GMT
> If oxycodone hydrochloride were meant for intravenous use then it would
> be manufactured that way. For many reasons it is not. #1) there are many
> other IV opiates that are more efficacious when given IV...
Patrick, perhaps you failed to infer that the original poster is a drug
abuser and doesn't have legal access to intravenous narcotics.
Not that all drug abusers do not have access to intravenous narcotics.
I once knew an IV dilaudid-using pharmacist, who needless to say had no
supply problem.
The Internet is such an interesting place, not least because it brings
together people who would normally have no opportunity to communicate.
I don't think someone who is addicted to narcotics is going to let the
risk to his own life stop him from using an unsafe preparation. After
all, addicts are not in control of their actions by definition. The
drug is in charge, not the drug addict. That's why they can't quit
without help.
Patrick - 29 Jan 2005 15:51 GMT
Well put!
--
Patrick H. Mason M.S. OHST, EMT-I
> > If oxycodone hydrochloride were meant for intravenous use then it
> would
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> drug is in charge, not the drug addict. That's why they can't quit
> without help.