I’m sensing a possible Mythbusters experiment.
Well, I can definitely see some dumbass trying it – I mean, you can’t underestimate just how fucking stupid people can be. I’m guessing though it’s only really hardcore drunks, not your average teenager.
Another thing is, if you have cops warning kids about stuff like this, you’re only going to give them ideas.
Kids these days.
In my day you’d just earn bracelets by giving BJs at parties and that’s the way we liked it!
Put this in your pipe and stroke it? 
In addition to all the other reasons this is a stupid idea, it also means that you can’t vomit it out. That reflex is there for a reason-- It’s supposed to get rid of a potentially-lethal dose before it can get absorbed by the body. If these practices were as prevalent as the scare stories make them out to be, you’d also be hearing all kinds of reports of stupid teenagers dead from alcohol poisoning.
This was all over the news and made The Colbert Report tonight, so whichever kids tricked Chris Thomas into thinking this is real have probably died laughing by now. They will be missed.
The prevalence–and indeed, the existence–of any given phenomenon X is generally in inverse proportion to how often and luridly it is featured in police seminars. Consider the Satanic Panic, BADD (Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons), and more recently the “video games cause violence” lie. All featured police officers sternly lecturing about the “danger” and pushing articles about it in police publications.
Bad cops (incompetent ones as well as corrupt ones) have a vested interest in presenting the world as a nightmarish hellhole. Convincing people that they’re in danger and that you represent the only source of safety is a classic scam, and one that cops are well-placed to exploit. If they can keep people panicked, most won’t look too closely at their screwups and abuses.
In short - cardboard applicators fall apart, plastic applicators, the tampon won’t come out after it’s been soaked, without the applicator…good luck getting it up your hoohah. Also, if you did, somehow, manage to shove the damned thing up there, it’ll be rather less comfortable than if you just stuck the bottle up there…
Okay, I have spilled my cocktail in my lap. Alcohol burns. I have also gotten booze in my eye. Also hurts like hell. I doubt anyone would try this twice. And I can’t imagine, if I had access to booze, why I would bother soaking a tampon in it. Why not just drink it?
A much better and safer idea: those little mini bottles of booze. Lube up, shove it up the orifice of choice, then have your friend take a Louisville slugger to the area. The bottle should shatter after a swing or three, then the glass will lacerate your insides, allowing the alcohol to enter the bloodstream easily, and you should be so drunk to not feel the pain, or realize you’re bleeding out, and feel your lifeforce drain away.
PARTY!
That’s why ‘they’ say “Don’t stick your dick in the crazy”. If you had followed ‘their’ advice you’d have avoided the vodka dick-burn, as well as the clap dick-burn. Helpful hint. Avoid dick-burn. Listen to ‘them’. Don’t stick your dick in the crazy.
Will you marry me?
Please, don’t answer that. 
You could coat a dildo in 90 proof or something?
There’s a " I burning your vagina" internet joke somewhere in here…
Re: Butt-chugging, I wonder if this idea gained popularity via Bear Grylls (That extreme survival TV-show guy). In one episode he was floating on a makeshift raft in the ocean with nothing but foul water to drink. But drinking it would have made him vomit thereby losing more precious fluids. So he stuck a tube up his butt and poured the filthy water in. shudder
SNORT
.
.
.
.
.
(no, I’m not snorting vodka, for the record.)
So when’s the next Dopefest? Sounds like this could be a good ice breaker.
“Hold still damn it, I don’t want to spill any on you.”
Either to bypass the stomach and thus get higher faster and with less alcohol, or to be able to be getting drunk covertly, i.e. stick it in then go hang out with the parents or school or whatever. The theory being because you don’t smell like alcohol and aren’t visibly imbibing, you can’t be drunk, even though you’re stumbling around and making dumb jokes and whatnot. Or something.
Wow. That might be true, but it is not the only motivation possible. Good cops have a vested interest in tracking methods teenagers use to abuse alcohol and drugs, and informing parents of the methods that the teens are sharing among themselves. Now can misinformation get incorporated? Sure. That hardly means the misinformation is necessarily intentionally spread because it is incorrect. Sometimes the cops can be misinformed or misdirected. Cops aren’t any more immune to urban legends than anyone else.
Nor did I say that it was the only possible motivation. I said that it was a motivation for bad cops to spread misinformation. Unfortunately, even decent cops can get taken in pretty easily, probably because they are inclined to believe other cops, and end up spreading the misinformation as well. It’s a virus, and cops have reduced immunity to it–they should fact-check, but it’s easier to just accept whatever they read in bulletins and newsletters.
What I’m getting at is that one should not assign substantially higher credibility to a claim just because a police officer is involved in spreading the claim. (Especially lurid claims about illicit or allegedly dangerous activities.) If you find the claim plausible, the sensible thing to do is to look for independent confirmation.
If ever there was a time to consult Wickipedia.
Too many stupid teenagers on youtube are doing the eye-shot thing.
