I always did shots of 151 Rum when I intended to simply “get drunk.” Seemed to get the job done.
Why take either, when you can get a Vesper? (which I have yet to find a bartender that knows how to do… 
)
But I can’t argue with you on waiting, that takes up valuable drinking time, which no one can afford to loose.
Your last variable is immaterial. Previous drinking experience has no effect on your body’s ability to process alcohol. It helps you mask the effects of intoxication, but doesn’t make any difference as to how quickly you actually become intoxicated.
To answer the OP: the quickest way to get drunk is to take shots of high-alcohol-content liquor. Everclear, Bacardi 151, etc.
Purple Jesus! A classic! The great thing about Everclear is that all the impurities have been boiled off, leaving just alcohol and the last few percent of water that is nearly impossible to remove. Fewer impurities means lighter hangover, if you ever wake up.
Even though I’m a person who does not fit any of the criteria of “a cheap date” (thin, inexperienced, empty stomach) I can still say a LIIT will do you wrong, especially if followed by several more. It slips down your throat WAY too easily.
Not an actual answer, but where I used to live the local 12-14 year olds used to pass out on White-Lightning on the basis that it has the highest cost/get drunk quickly ratio.
They have Diet Rum? hmm, interesting.
When people talk about being drunk, they’re talking about the subjective effects of alcohol. Legally, you’re right, intoxication is defined as BAC. But that’s not what this thread is about. Unless we’ve got something to measure the BAC, it doesn’t make any difference what it is. In practice, I can guarantee you people are getting served at .16% BAC, while others are getting cut off at .04%.
Which, if done by a person not used to drinking, will quickly lead to puking. Especially if it’s a double of 151 on an empty stomach. Double especially if it’s your first night working at the bar, and you’re taking your shift drink at the end of the night. Taking shots of even 80 proof alcohol without any beer first is not particularly enjoyable to me, while I admit it may be for others. It may be technically the fastest way, if you can keep them down. However, when completely sober, it is much, much easier to drink an entire LIIT than it is to try and down each of the five shots that are in it.
Why?
I think I’m the first to mention that donating a pint of blood to the Red Cross during the day leads to a quicker drunk that evening.
I’ve never tried it, but in the Army it was common knowledge. It makes sense, too, that if BAC is the percentage of alcohol in the blood, you can raise it by either drinking more alcohol or having less blood.
It’s taken as common knowledge at my college that there are a few ways to get very drunk and to mask alcohol. The taste of alcohol can be easily masked by sugar, carbonation, ice, or other strong artificial flavors (that’s why jello shots don’t taste especially alcoholic even though they’re mostly vodka, and why many college parties use mostly vodka, 7-up or Mountain Dew, and Kool-Aid mix for a punch bowl, with dry ice smoking at the bottom).
Ways to get really drunk include carbonation (it aids the uptake of alcohol into your bloodstream, and is why people get bombed on champagne when it’s not much stronger than wine), drinking on an empty stomach, drinking while intoxicated by something else (commonly weed, but I suppose that other things would also work, and some claim that caffiene helps, because it works to cancel out any subduing effect of the alcohol, leaving only the stupid part of the drunk), drinking while sick or otherwise weaker, and of course, the old standby, not realizing how strong your drink is. Long Island Ice Tea, I’m looking at you.
Many of these can be combined in mixed drinks, like a chilled Red Bull mixed with high-proof rum.
DrCube, I’m fascinated by that idea, and it seems to me like it would work. I wonder if we could get someone in the medical field to weigh in?
Anecdotal, but IMHO certain medicines can affect this. Since I’ve been taking Paxil (paroxetine) I find that after one drink I’m tipsy, after two I’m sloshed. Within an hour after I stop, I get a hangover. I used to process alcohol much more slowly.
Please serve the following items:
1 Long Island Iced Tea.
1 Zombie.
1 Kamikaze.
1 shot of Jagermeister.
My work here is done.
Yeah, in my experience, it makes no difference whether you mix or not, though a lot of people seem to believe mixing drinks somehow makes you drunk faster or give you a worse hangover. I drink regularly and beer before liquor, liquor before beer, stay beer only, stay liquor only, mix 'em up with out any regard – they all have the same net effect. For some reason, this reminds me of this Onion piece.
If I’m drinking liquor (usually some type of vodka drink,) I have no problem finishing off the night with a beer or two; but, if I’ve started on beer, that’s what I’ve got to stick with or I will be very ill.
The old, “Liquor before beer and you’re in the clear; beer before liquor, never sicker quicker,” is absolutely true for me and I have no idea why!
:dubious: I’m pretty sure alcohol tolerance has not yet been declared an urban legend.
It’s because when you’re drinking, you can generally pace yourself for the drink you’re drinking. If you’re taking shots, you’ll mentally slow yourself down and not take them as often once your drunk starts ramping up. Same with beer, you’ll start drinking them more slowly. But if you’re drinking beer all night, and all of a sudden have a shot, you’re going to have a .02% spike to your BAC, while drinking another beer will take 10 -15 minutes for that .02% spike. IMHO.
I think it’s because when people are mixing is when people are drinking a lot; usually more than they think they are.
He was being pedantic.
That’s what I’ve always assumed, too. It’s a bit harder to keep track of alcohol and the pace in which you’re introducing it into your body when you’re mixing.
I hope not, because it’s doubly irritating when someone is both pedantic and incorrect.
I take it he meant that being an alcoholic won’t keep your actual BAC from rising, just your perception of it’s effects. Even an alcoholic has the same amount of blood in his body and would absorb at the same rate, yes? Of course, I’m not speaking for him, but that’s my interpretation of it, at any rate.
Whether it’s true or not - no idea.
To the OP, you’re getting the general gist of it from the thread, but it depends on whether you’re looking for anecdotes, facts or literary angles. I’d advise you to come back when you decide on a character’s drinking level (novice to Finnish is the approved scale) and his poison of choice, the outcome and so forth. We can proof it for errors.
As a quick-drunk vehicle, sitting while shotting is a big favourite. (It’s the classical 14-year-old error) Some friends of mine have calibrated it as a buzz delivery mechanism through years of fine-tuning.
take a pair of twins, one a heavy drinker and the other not, same body weight, same food in stomach and give them each the same time to drink the same amount of alcohol and you will have two people with identical BAC levels…the drinker will simply show it less. it seems like you think tolerance has some magical ability to keep your system from absorbing alcohol.
high tolerance drinkers are the ones who finish a case of beer solo in a few hours and keep on going, low tolerance drinkers usually burn out after a six pack or less.