I’m not asking whether it is more lethal - here’s SD’s Medical Staff’s answer
but seriously I’m quite convinced that consuming less alcohol in IV theraphy makes it less harmful. I’m waiting for a lot of opinions here (also non-staff posts). Primarily I meant very pure alcohol, but has anyone had an IV beer?
Beer contains lots of sediment and carbonation. NOT a good idea to infuse that directly into your circulation, unless embolisms are your idea of a good time.
Same for wines, as far as sediment goes.
Dilute IV ethanol (without sediment, carbonation, or congener molecules) is a legitimate treatment for a few disorders (acute methanol poisoning, premature labor) and a side-effect is acute intoxication. Other side-effects include acute alcohol-induced hepatitis, gastritis (yes, IV ethanol still causes stomach irritation), and pancreatitis.
Overdose is a problem too, as the lethal dose of ethanol can be achieved much more quickly than with oral ethanol. Passing out and thus losing the ability to drink more doesn’t stop the IV from flowing.
So no, IV ethanol is not a safe (or even safer) way to intoxicate oneself.
Ethanol infusion is also the treatment for acute ethylene glycol (antifreeze) poisoning.
Although ethanol is used for some medical treatments as described upthread, that doesn’t mean it’s harmless. Like other drugs, it has side effects, one of the big long-term ones being liver damage. Since the liver deals with alcohol in the bloodstream, it doesn’t matter whether the alcohol gets into the blood via the stomach or the IV, either way the effect on the liver (and any other organ affected by blood alcohol levels, e.g. the brain) should be the same.
… but the total amount consumpted is far less. It’s either more economical or healthier or both that way.
Why would the total amount consumed be less? If you want a particular level of intoxication, you need X amount of alcohol in the bloodstream, regardless of how it gets there.
Before I respond, may I ask why you are convinced it is less harmful?
My apologies for asking, but I find that giving logical reasons against a position doesn’t usually work when the person has emotional reasons for wanting it to be true.
How illogical is it when I assume that consuming less is less dangerous? Am I suspected to get cancers in the upper part of my digestive tract?
We’re saying that there’s no correlation between delivery method and amount absorbed into the bloodstream.
Personally, using an IV to get drunk reminds me of what I think Adam Carolla once said about using a noose when you masturbate – you’re adding a lot of effort and danger to something that’s already the best part of your day. Why not put that energy to use improving things that actually need it? :dubious:
Why are you saying that?
I destroyed my stomach via drinking, and I asked my doctor this very question. She thought I had a serious problem, but I was just trying to get information to respond to my niece the AJehovah’s Witness, who insists that a blood transfusion is the same as eating it, and odten uses the example of “You’ve been told not to drink alcohol. Wouldn’t taking it as a transfusion be doing the same thing?”
My doctor said it’s not the same as ingesting it, but it’s still a very bad idea for the reasons stated above.
In that case I am 99.9% sure that what you are saying is incorrect.
Material absorbed from the gut passes through the liver before it enters the heart. The liver detoxifies whatever it can. As a result drugs taken orally result in significantly lower blood levels than drugs taken in other ways.
Why else do you think people inject heroin, smoke crack and snort cocaine? Why do you think they don’t just swallow the stuff?
I haven’t got any evidence that this is the case for alcohol, but given that excess alcohol is *primarily * metabolised by the liver I would be astounded if it were not true.
Most beers also contain measurable quantities of protein. Injecting large amounts of whole proteins into the bloodstream is pretty much guaranteed to produce nasty immune reactions. Repeated immune reactions of that kind are almost certain to lead to severe allergies.
So, inject beer often enough, and one day you will have a very nasty and terminal shock reaction.
Good fun.
One can drink a little bit, and get a little bit drunk, or one can drink a lot, and get very drunk. One can IV inject a little bit, and get a little bit drunk, or one can IV inject a lot, and get very drunk. (And one can achieve lethal levels by either method, although that’s certainly easier by IV).
That’s all I’m saying. komolono seems to keep arguing that using an IV necessarily leads to less alcohol consumption, and there’s just no reason to think so. Any low level that one can achieve by IV can also be achieved per os.*
*or per anum, but that’s a whole nother thread.
I only asked if anyone had tried it. What you meant was foreign protein to human, because you cannot state the same what comes to insulin etc. One reason for this OP is my medical record - I’m pretty mad at those who are against legalizing cannabis.
Yeesh - I’m impressed (and slightly appalled) that you can give yourself pancreatitis with IV alcohol. Isn’t that really, really painful?
Also - doesn’t alcohol + pregnancy = bad? That is, wouldn’t administering IV alcohol to treat premature labor harm the fetus?
Yep.
Fetal alcohol syndrome is more of a problem of chronic exposure to alcohol early in development. And significant premature labor would be a much more clear and present danger to the fetus than an episode or two alcohol exposure.
Besides, they use other meds for premature labor now. Not that they work much better, but they are felt to have fewer side effects.
Yeah, there is: the reason I already gave.
Because the liver detoxifies orally ingested alcohol before it reaches the brain, you need to consume more of it before you can reach the same level of drunk, at least if alcohol is the same as all other drugs.
I’m inclined to agree with the OP to the extent that IV alcohol should result in less liver damage than oral alcohol for the same level of intoxication. The caveat being, of course, that trying to achieve and maintain that level intravenously is pretty dicey.
You understand that blood, um, circulates? Blood going through the brain will reach the liver about a quarter of a minute or so (given a total round trip of half a minute), and vice versa. You may have noticed that your liver can’t remove alcohol fast enough to get you from drunk to sober in 15 seconds, so it’s not going to remove enough alcohol in one pass to make a difference. It doesn’t matter where alcohol enters the bloodstream; it gets through the body so quickly that it’s only about the total amount.
Now, the gut absorbs things relatively slowly, so injecting alcohol will certainly get you drunk faster than drinking it (which is probably the main reason cocaine is snorted rather than eaten. I understand cocaine-using personalities aren’t generally about delayed gratification). The gut isn’t perfectly efficient, either (depending on the substance), so you might need to drink a little more alcohol than you inject for the same effects. BUT this extra alcohol you drink is never absorbed by the body, so it doesn’t harm you.
The only possible benefit to injecting alcohol is avoiding some stomach and throat irritation. Which is a pretty small benefit compared to the risks of injecting anything.
I disagree.
First pass metabolism of ethanol by the liver is really pretty miniscule. The liver is only capable of detoxing approximately a half ounce of the stuff per hour, so I would not expect to see a clinically significant reduction in blood alcohol levels based on that. A few seconds in the liver before the alcohol crosses the blood-brain barrier will not make much of a difference.
Now, with many drugs which are effective in quite miniscule amounts, that first-pass metabolism can make a tremendous difference, especially if the liver’s detoxing abilities are already ramped up from regular drug/alcohol use.