Opioid Megathread & Overview

[Romanticize]

Hello everyone, I use the translator to write because I know little English. I was leaning towards mixing oxycodone tablets with some benzodiazepines and swallowing everything orally. Swallow it all together without feeling any taste. But the initial post pretty much demolished my beliefs.

I've never had a shot, I hardly know how to do it, and being a woman I've never stuck anything through my anus. Here, I don't even want to have to do it since I already know I would make a mess.

So, is it possible that, for example, a handful of 80mg oxycodone pills are so ineffective? Then I've never taken a drug in my life so I shouldn't have any resistance.

If you can crush a few 80mg Oxys, and swallow them with water, you are 95% likely to deliver CTB, and it will be painless. Remember to mix it with some benzos, it should be somewhat peaceful, like nodding off. Without any tolerance, I heard of two recent stories from my country, that even one oxy 80mg killed a well built dude. You don't have to insert it rectally (and if you wanted, you just mix it with water, take it up the syringe, and use the syringe - without the needle obv - to place the liquid into your rectum).

 

[AspiranteSuicida]

If you can crush a few 80mg Oxys, and swallow them with water, you are 95% likely to deliver CTB, and it will be painless. Remember to mix it with some benzos, it should be somewhat peaceful, like nodding off. Without any tolerance, I heard of two recent stories from my country, that even one oxy 80mg killed a well built dude. You don't have to insert it rectally (and if you wanted, you just mix it with water, take it up the syringe, and use the syringe - without the needle obv - to place the liquid into your rectum).

Even a 95 per cent chance of a gentle death ??? Where I come from, someone recently died and they even made a news case out of it. He basically mixed oxycodone with xanax.

 

[Romanticize]

Even a 95 per cent chance of a gentle death ??? Where I come from, someone recently died and they even made a news case out of it. He basically mixed oxycodone with xanax.

Yes, Oxycodone is a strong opioid, 1.5x as strong as Morphine.
If you never did opioids (or never abused them) it means your tolerance is zero. If that's the case, even a single OC 80mg would be a strong dose. Some people can even fall asleep and stop breathing on such dose (mechanism is breathing reflex suppression, but when unconscious, so you don't feel anything). To maximize your chances, I'd go for at least 400mg [5 80mg tablets] or 800mg [10]. But before CTBing, I would advise you to get to know that opioid high... awesome feeling, like someone lifted your depression in an instant. Of course it's dangerous over long run, because you may get addicted, but when you want to CTB, then what do you have to lose?
Oxy is awesome orally, believe me. Morphine is better IV, but orally, oxy is king.

Edit: what country are you from? May I know how you got your hands onto Oxy? Darknet, friend or old and sick family member?

 

[quietbird]

Preamble

I wanted to write something similar to Stan's guide to SN but I hesitate to call this a guide because I can't in good conscience make a guide for something so unreliable in terms of access, lethality, and risk of permanent injury. I.e., traumatic brain injury from hypoxia. SN is a far more reliable and lower-risk alternative in this regard.

Indeed, the PPH strongly recommends against opioids for these reasons.

However, many will still seek to ctb using opioids due to reasons of accessibility, their notoriety for taking lives in the current overdose epidemic, and/or their well-known status as euphoriants and painkillers. The PPH does not go into details about how to ctb with opioids and overlooks different routes of administration and available drug checking services that can inform people on what is in their drugs.

The major benefit of opioids is that if successfully performed, death will be guaranteed to be peaceful, and perhaps even enjoyable for some. At face-value opioids would seem like an attractive method for this reason alone. But, I encourage spending some time forming an unbiased/neutral assessment of both the risks and benefits of this method, before making a decision.

The goal of this thread is twofold:

1. Help some to reconsider this method due to its poor reliability and risks of permanent injury/disability.
2. Provide information to improve reliability and minimize risk for permanent injury/disability for those who choose this method anyways.
   1. **Even following the methods in this thread, opioid poisoning remains very unreliable due to variability in personal tolerance and uncontrollable factors related to drug quality.

Introduction

This thread is dedicated to compiling and discussing information on the method of opioid poisoning. Please feel free to comment with any additional information or recommended edits/criticisms to this post.

What are Opioids?

Opioids are analgesic (pain-relieving) drugs that, in high enough doses, result in death via respiratory depression. Examples include morphine, heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone (AKA Percocet or Oxycontin), hydrocodone, hydromorphone (AKA Dilaudid), codeine (AKA T3s), tramadol, and many others.

Pros and Cons

Pros

• Nearly guaranteed to be peaceful, if successful
• Accessible for people with pre-existing sources/dealers
• Non-violent
• Can easily be portrayed as "accidental", especially if one already uses drugs

Cons

• Low to moderate reliability
• Risk of permanent damage; traumatic injury, organ failure, etc.
• Non-accessible for people without pre-existing sources/dealers or access to dark net
• Reduced reliability for people with tolerance to opioids (e.g., from pre-existing opioid use)
• Unpredictable: significant variance in effects from person to person (genetic/etc.-related tolerance & sensitivity)

How Do Opioids Work to Induce Death? What Does it Feel Like?

Opioid drugs bind to the opioid receptors in the brain which are the brain's primary pain-killing receptors. At high enough doses, this causes the nervous system to become depressed to a point where the brain stops sending signals to the lungs to breathe. This results in hypoxic death from lack of oxygenated blood to the brain and body. By the time of fatal respiratory depression, the person's brain will have been flooded with pain-killing signals and will also be completely unconscious (likened to a state of general anaesthesia); they will not experience any suffering.

Prior to losing consciousness, opioids can cause feelings of contentment, relaxation, euphoria, a warm and pleasurable feeling in the body, and has generally been described as being cozied up in a blanket beside a fire. Many people experience a cold flush and/or nausea and vomiting, especially their first time using opioids. Vomiting is not an issue for the effectiveness of ctb if the opioids were not consumed orally, but may be uncomfortable for some. Notably, the pleasurable opioid effects often make people indifferent to nausea. In some cases, intravenous injection may result in such rapid onset of effects that blackout occurs almost immediately, bypassing the pleasurable effects.

Which Opioids are Considered Best For CTB?

In short, heroin or fentanyl are ideal.

Stronger opioids such as heroin, fentanyl, or oxycodone are generally preferable as other types of opioids require much larger doses and thus have higher risk of failure. For example, heroin is about 10x as strong as morphine.

Pharmaceutical-grade opioids might be considered preferable by some given that their dosages are accurately labelled and they are not potentially contaminated or sold as different drugs entirely like with illegal markets. However, many pharmaceutical opioids also contain high concentrations of anti-inflammatory drugs such as paracetamol, acetaminophen, or ibuprofen (e.g., Percocet) that are likely to cause significant stomach pain and damage organs in the doses required to ctb. They also often contain fillers (e.g., Oxycontin) that make them unsuitable for injection or other routes of administration. Eating these medications is also not recommended as it is very likely to fail due to vomiting and oral bioavailability is low.

I highly recommend against using weak opioids like codeine, tramadol, or hydromorphone (dilaudid) as they are far too weak to reliably ctb.

I also recommend against research chemical opioids as too little is known about them to reliably ctb and the risk for pain, adverse effects, etc. is high.

Where Can I Get Opioids?

As mentioned above, some people get them by prescription, but most people will opt for heroin or fentanyl which are rarely prescribed. Illicit opioids can be found by contacting a dealer on the street or sourcing them via the dark net. See: How to Access Dark Net Markets for Ctb Resources or download tor browser and look up the Dark Net Market Buyer's Bible which you can find a .onion link for on the https://tor.taxi/ directory (.onion links in this directory can only be accessed using the tor browser).

Street drugs may be more accessible for some, but tend to be much more contaminated with other drugs and have significant variability in concentrations. Fentanyl, for example, tends to vary from around 5-25% concentration in a given sample. It is often cut with caffeine, benzodiazepines, cocaine, heroin, paint thinners, even concrete, and a range of other drugs. This webpage shows data on common cuts and buffs in the opioid supply, demonstrating how unreliable quality sourcing is off the street.

Dark net markets tend to have higher quality drugs due to their review system which adds some (but far from perfect) level of accountability. The gold star method would involve sourcing from a vendor with a long track record of positive reviews combined with utilizing drug-checking services (see below). China white #4 heroin is advisable.

The Importance of Checking Your Drugs

Because the drug supply on the street and dark net markets are heavily contaminated and inconsistently dosed, it is important to get your drugs checked using harm reduction services such as Energy Control (EU; possibly worldwide) or Get Your Drugs Tested (Canada) to determine approximate concentrations, to confirm the presence of your expected opioid, and to rule out the presence of other drugs. Some jurisdictions have local services where you can get your drugs checked legally, anonymously, and confidentially in-person.

*Energy Control has confirmatory chromatography testing meaning they can tell you more precise information without the limitations below. They should be able to tell you the exact concentration. Try to figure out if the service you use utilizes confirmatory/chromatography testing or an FTIR machine.

*Important: The FTIR spectroscopy technology used by Get Your Drugs Tested and many similar organizations has some limitations:

1. It can only detect concentrations within a margin of error that is around 10%. I.e., Results will usually say, for example "between 40-50% heroin". Some organizations prefer not to share concentrations unless explicitly asked.
2. It can only detect the presence of drugs that are above 5% concentration within the sample. There could be multiple other drugs present in a given sample below the 5% detection limit.
3. The "chocolate chip cookie effect": it can only detect what is in the portion of the sample you send them; just like in a cookie if you break off a chunk, there may or may not be chocolate chips in the chunk. Some drugs tend to clump together and won't be present in the "chunk" you send for testing. Grinding your sample to ensure it is a homogeneous mixture before mailing a portion may reduce this risk.

Fentanyl test strips can also be accessed online and via many pharmacies. However, they will only detect the presence of fentanyl and provide no information on concentrations. Plenty of fentanyl samples are massively under-dosed so fentanyl test strips alone are insufficient.

The Method

Now that you have sourced your opioid of choice, determined its relative concentration and ruled out the presence of other drugs, you need to ensure the right amount enters your body the right way.

Dose​

A lethal dose of heroin for a person without any tolerance is technically 30mg. For fentanyl, it is considered 3mg. However, it is unlikely your sample will be 100% pure or even close to it. These doses are also on the lower end of the spectrum and will only be lethal in a proportion of people. A more conservative/reliable aim is at least 150mg for heroin and 15mg for fentanyl.

You will need to do some math based on the relative concentrations provided by the drug checking services you accessed previously. If you have a gram (1,000mg) of powder with a concentration/purity of 10-20% fentanyl, this means there is between 100-200mg of fentanyl in the gram of powder.

Here's an example of the math for a 500mg sample that has a concentration of 30-40% heroin:

500mg x 0.3 (30%) = 150
500mg x 0.4 (40%) = 200

Therefore, 500mg of 30-40% heroin will contain between 150-200mg of heroin. It is recommended to dose conservatively to ensure that the lower end of the range includes the lethal dose.

If you have any tolerance to opioids, this will also reduce the method's reliability further as you will have to do some guesswork to increase your dose accordingly. Erring on the side of caution by taking a larger dose will improve reliability.

Regarding Polydrug Poisoning & Potentiation

Some may wish to combine their opioid with other depressants which can potentiate the effects of opioids, making them more lethal. This is not necessary if you have a large enough dose of opioids but doesn't hurt to improve reliability or if the dose of opioids itself is too small to ctb on its own. The drugs below potentiate the effects of opioids meaning each individual drug has its own effect, but there is an additional effect due to the interaction between these drugs (almost like a 3rd effect on top of the individual effects of the 2 drugs). Potentiation will make the opioid more lethal by causing respitatory failure with a lower dose.

*Important: Although potentiating small doses of opioids with depressants will increase its reliability, it is still very unreliable compared to just using a high dose of opioids. Ideally one would use a sufficiently large dose of opioids in the first place and the addition of sedatives will only be included as a fail-safe.

Potentiating drugs that can be included are below:

- Benzodiazepines (e.g., Xanax (alprazolam), Klonopin (clonazepam), etizolam, Ativan (lorazepam), Valium (diazepam), etc. Benzodiazepines are drugs that reduce anxiety and cause sedation and relaxation. The combination has become increasingly associated with overdose deaths as dealers are cutting the fentanyl supply with benzodiazepines to make them feel stronger. The current supply of fentanyl in Canada witnesses around half of samples containing benzodiazepines. Check your drugs with the services above so you know whether yours contains benzodiazepines.

- Alcohol

- Z-drugs such as zolpidem (ambien) or zopiclone. Z-drugs are commonly prescribed for insomnia/as sleeping pills.

Route of administration (ROA)​

The two ideal ROAs are intravenous injection and rectal administration. Other options are less ideal for the reasons described below.

Injections are preferable for anyone who has experience using needles or those willing to learn. Just make sure you draw visible blood into the syringe before pushing the plunger down, and don't hit an artery. Use sterile needles. 30-31 gauge syringes are provided no-questions-asked at most pharmacies or can be obtained online. More detailed instructions on preparing your shot can be found with a quick google search. I recommend following all harm reduction protocols (except "start low, go slow - for obvious reasons) such as sanitary procedure, in case of ctb failure or abort. I know the risk may seem trivial, but you don't want to fail ctb only to be hospitalized and in pain due to a serious blood infection.

Rectal administration is the second most effective method as it has high bioavailability and is suitable for those who wish to skip the stress (or potential phobia) of needles. All you need is a small oral syringe, some water, and some lube for your bum hole. It is marginally less reliable as absorption will be slightly slower. This guide is great for detailing how to do it.

*Note: regarding the homophobia/stigma of men penetrating their butts with a syringe, it does make you gay. That's the best part! Jokes aside, straight men all over the world insert things in their butts to consume drugs (recreational, suppositories, to die), and sexual pleasure. There would be a lot less of us on this forum if not for homophobia… Show your support for us queer folk by dying with heroin up your arse <3

Oral administration is not suitable as it has a low bioavailability and vomiting is incredibly likely. Anti-emetics can be used, but this ROA is still inadvisable due to slow absorption/poor bioavailability. Snorting is also not recommended as absorption can be slow and is effected by the amount of powder in your nostrils; the more powder, the slower the absorption. It is also less bioavailable than injection or rectal administration.

Regarding Naloxone/Suicide Reversal

I feel compelled to advise people on how naloxone works in case anyone should want it by their side. Although most of us aim to ctb without potential for hesitation or reversal, cases where people will consume their lethal dose by whatever means and regret it or contact help are not out of the question.

Should you wish to have a means of reversal (up until the point where you cannot move your body or notify others for help; this will occur very quickly in most cases), naloxone is an effective reversal agent. Naloxone kits usually come with 3 vials and 3 syringes. You may wish to prepare the naloxone by drawing it into the syringes in advance in case you change your mind last minute. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind.

*Injection use of opioids will provide less/potentially no opportunity for reversal as the onset is so quick one may blackout immediately. Rectal administration will take place in approximately 5 minutes after adminstration.

You should dose yourself with at least 2 or more doses as you will have taken a dose that is likely considerably larger than what most people overdose on. If comfortable, contact emergency services after dosing the naloxone as it has a short half-life and when it wears off the opioid effects can cause you to collapse and die later on. If you aren't comfortable contacting emergency services, consider getting 2 or more naloxone kits so you can dose yourself repeatedly until certain the opioid effects have worn off.

Naloxone works by kicking the opioid off your brain's opioid receptor. You can access naloxone kits legally and confidentially at most local pharmacies. It is relatively intuitive to use and will not harm you in any way; it has virtually no interactions with other drugs. You will feel sober afterwards and that is about it.

Final words

I figured I would write this post while I wait my SN to be delivered. I hope this post serves as a way of giving back to this community for what it has provided for me. Thank you to those operating this site, the mods, and contributing members. I'll stick around for a bit to edit this post as needed.

Thanks to @zel for inspiring me to write this.

With love in finding peace in living or dying,
Rhizo

You are so well-versed, thank you for this info. Are you a still around to answer a couple questions?

 

[Rhizomorph1]

You are so well-versed, thank you for this info. Are you a still around to answer a couple questions?

I pop in occasionally

 

[quietbird]

I pop in occasionally

Oh, thank you so much for responding. I know this isn't a method that's suggested too strongly. And I understand all other medications to overdose never work...

Do you think 40 count of 5 mg oxycodone tablets (immediate release) would be enough? Or does that (200 mg in total) already seem too risky for a chance of surviving with a messed up brain?

This is assuming no tolerance has built up, the listed expiration is this year, but it's crushed and administered rectally as to not vomit.

 

[Kali_Yuga13]

I don't now if anyone's done it but I think a high dose of oxys and a low dose of SN like 5-10 grams would deliver a peaceful exit. The depressed breathing from the opiates coupled with the cells not not taking oxygen from the SN.

 

[Rhizomorph1]

I don't now if anyone's done it but I think a high dose of oxys and a low dose of SN like 5-10 grams would deliver a peaceful exit. The depressed breathing from the opiates coupled with the cells not not taking oxygen from the SN.

This could be a peaceful way to go but I would recommend taking the regular stat dose of SN as the theoretical underpinning here would be that SN should be primarily responsible for dying.

The addition of the opioid would simply be an analgesic in this case in which case a regular/low dose of the opioid is best to facilitate analgesia and as an axiolytic (anti-anxiety).

The obvious risk which would reduce the overall effectiveness is that opioids are far more reliable at inducing vomiting and bypassing the effects of antiemetics, so the stat SN protocol will still be more reliable.

There are a plethora of suggested regimens people have asked about and they're all a bit inferential or overlook key pharmacokinetic factors that could lead to reduces reliability, higher risk of injury, etc.

I strongly encourage folks to simply follow the medically-informed regimens outlined by the SN protocol or PPH and only consider opioids if you don't have access to SN, have thoroughly informed yourself, have access to high quality gear + lab testing of the gear, and are able to use an effective ROA that bypasses loss of absorption from vomiting (IV or rectal).

I know we are desperate on this forum, but we are risking a lot by spontaneously thinking up regimens with little evidence based while at face value they "seem" like they "could" be beneficial.

Follow the SN regimen if you're serious about dying and have psycho spiritually and otherwise considered/prepared for dying.

Oh, thank you so much for responding. I know this isn't a method that's suggested too strongly. And I understand all other medications to overdose never work...

Do you think 40 count of 5 mg oxycodone tablets (immediate release) would be enough? Or does that (200 mg in total) already seem too risky for a chance of surviving with a messed up brain?

This is assuming no tolerance has built up, the listed expiration is this year, but it's crushed and administered rectally as to not vomit.

I think I would want to be at a considerably higher dose and be sure to crush the tablets as fine as possible so the binding agents don't slow absorption. Oxy is about half as strong as heroin so one should be aiming for closer to 300-400mg. 40 x 5mg will situate the dose at 200mg.

I can't tell you whether it will work or not; I can only tell you the statistical probability is approximately moderate; not high, not low.

SN stat regimen or a *properly configured* exit bag remains some of the few drug-related methods with high reliability and generally lower risk of injury or adverse effects.

 

[Caribbean Sky]

I'm looking into SN and exit bag as alternate methods but I have my nitazene with me and I researched and understand the risks so I'm gonna do that.

but I have a few important questions:
(WARNING: Longer comment, only because my questions need to be detailed for clarity and importance.)

1. Can Energy Control test for nitazene concentrations?
I'll email them to ask too. and if anyone reading this has sent a sample to them to be tested, where did you send it from and how long did it take?

2. I learned the solubility in powder-form nitazenes is extremely low for mixing with water/saline (like 1mg per 2ml of water IF the nitazene was 100% pure) so there were two solvents I considered instead:
Hydroxypropyl-Beta-Cyclodextrin (HP-β-CD)
and
Propylene Glycol (PG)
these greatly increase the solubility from <0.1mg/ml to 20-40mg/ml for PG or even 50-150mg/ml for HP-β-CD.
I'm not sure what rhizomorph recommends for heroin/fentanyl injectable but I assumed it was saline so these were the liquid I considered instead to mix with the nitazene. Which one should I use? if that's crazy or won't work, definitely tell me what I should dissolve the nitazene powder in instead.

3. Unreliable is used to refer to individual tolerance is here as well. In an opioid-naïve individual this is negligible, no? so long as you air on the side of caution with the size of a dose I don't see how this is something you should be scratching your head over, but again, absolutely correct me.
Edit: I don't know if this means anything in this case, but I didn't enzyme test and it showed. I have a very fast metabolism for opioids.

4. This is very important personally to me: how much time do you need alone and undiscovered so that no one is able to revive you with Naloxone?
and is nine hours enough or overkill?

I don't even remember what created this fear in me from last year, but something made me dread failure from simply not being given long enough to die. that EVEN AFTER HOURS, I could be found unconscious, somehow revived with Naloxone and be made to face the consequences.

Something tells me that fear might be utterly silly now though and here's why:
from what I know and from what Rhizomorph said, most of the risks from opiate suicide (like brain damage) are not caused by too little time.
and from my knowledge of the fatality and speed of opioid overdose deaths if you were able to be revived after 1-2 hours unconscious you had already failed before you even started.
Like your drug was fake/impure, you did the IV procedure wrong, or your tolerance was too high for the dose you injected.
and Rhizomorph keeps using the term "black out" in this megathread - which might not mean death, but I think they're using it to talk about the speed of a successful attempt.

so by that logic, 9 hours is extremely overkill.
But I just want to know for sure, cause it makes things so much easier for me to know this: Rhizomorph or someone else knowledgeable, is 9 hours enough and is there a minimum time you need alone for this to work?

it is probably not hours; it's probably something more like minutes.
I have just brainwashed myself from past events and a failed attempt where I used IM to inject something that probably wasn't even fentanyl.

but if you tell me that 9 hours or even less is more than enough time alone, the peace of mind you will be giving me is profound.

 

[JayJay]

I'm curious if 7OH could be a viable option. It acts as a partial opioid receptor agonist and is legal in most places.

 

[Caribbean Sky]

Hello,

I'm looking into SN and exit bag as alternate methods but I have my nitazene with me and I researched and understand the risks so I'm gonna do that.

but I have a few important questions:
(WARNING: Longer comment, only because my questions need to be detailed for clarity and importance.)

1. Can Energy Control test for nitazene concentrations?
I'll email them to ask too. and if anyone reading this has sent a sample to them to be tested, where did you send it from and how long did it take?

2. I learned the solubility in powder-form nitazenes is extremely low for mixing with water/saline (like 1mg per 2ml of water IF the nitazene was 100% pure) so there were two solvents I considered instead:
Hydroxypropyl-Beta-Cyclodextrin (HP-β-CD)
and
Propylene Glycol (PG)
these greatly increase the solubility from <0.1mg/ml to 20-40mg/ml for PG or even 50-150mg/ml for HP-β-CD.
I'm not sure what rhizomorph recommends for heroin/fentanyl injectable but I assumed it was saline so these were the liquid I considered instead to mix with the nitazene. Which one should I use? if that's crazy or won't work, definitely tell me what I should dissolve the nitazene powder in instead.

3. Unreliable is used to refer to individual tolerance is here as well. In an opioid-naïve individual this is negligible, no? so long as you air on the side of caution with the size of a dose I don't see how this is something you should be scratching your head over, but again, absolutely correct me.
Edit: I don't know if this means anything in this case, but I didn't enzyme test and it showed. I have a very fast metabolism for opioids.

4. This is very important personally to me: how much time do you need alone and undiscovered so that no one is able to revive you with Naloxone?
and is nine hours enough or overkill?

I don't even remember what created this fear in me from last year, but something made me dread failure from simply not being given long enough to die. that EVEN AFTER HOURS, I could be found unconscious, somehow revived with Naloxone and be made to face the consequences.

Something tells me that fear might be utterly silly now though and here's why:
from what I know and from what Rhizomorph said, most of the risks from opiate suicide (like brain damage) are not caused by too little time.
and from my knowledge of the fatality and speed of opioid overdose deaths if you were able to be revived after 1-2 hours unconscious you had already failed before you even started.
Like your drug was fake/impure, you did the IV procedure wrong, or your tolerance was too high for the dose you injected.
and Rhizomorph keeps using the term "black out" in this megathread - which might not mean death, but I think they're using it to talk about the speed of a successful attempt.

so by that logic, 9 hours is extremely overkill.
But I just want to know for sure, cause it makes things so much easier for me to know this: Rhizomorph or someone else knowledgeable, is 9 hours enough and is there a minimum time you need alone for this to work?

it is probably not hours; it's probably something more like minutes.
I have just brainwashed myself from past events and a failed attempt where I used IM to inject something that probably wasn't even fentanyl.

but if you tell me that 9 hours or even less is more than enough time alone, the peace of mind you will be giving me is profound.

Just bumping my questions. if rhizo or someone similarly knowledgeable could answer them, please, I would appreciate it :)

 

[quietbird]

T

This could be a peaceful way to go but I would recommend taking the regular stat dose of SN as the theoretical underpinning here would be that SN should be primarily responsible for dying.

The addition of the opioid would simply be an analgesic in this case in which case a regular/low dose of the opioid is best to facilitate analgesia and as an axiolytic (anti-anxiety).

The obvious risk which would reduce the overall effectiveness is that opioids are far more reliable at inducing vomiting and bypassing the effects of antiemetics, so the stat SN protocol will still be more reliable.

There are a plethora of suggested regimens people have asked about and they're all a bit inferential or overlook key pharmacokinetic factors that could lead to reduces reliability, higher risk of injury, etc.

I strongly encourage folks to simply follow the medically-informed regimens outlined by the SN protocol or PPH and only consider opioids if you don't have access to SN, have thoroughly informed yourself, have access to high quality gear + lab testing of the gear, and are able to use an effective ROA that bypasses loss of absorption from vomiting (IV or rectal).

I know we are desperate on this forum, but we are risking a lot by spontaneously thinking up regimens with little evidence based while at face value they "seem" like they "could" be beneficial.

Follow the SN regimen if you're serious about dying and have psycho spiritually and otherwise considered/prepared for dying.

I think I would want to be at a considerably higher dose and be sure to crush the tablets as fine as possible so the binding agents don't slow absorption. Oxy is about half as strong as heroin so one should be aiming for closer to 300-400mg. 40 x 5mg will situate the dose at 200mg.

I can't tell you whether it will work or not; I can only tell you the statistical probability is approximately moderate; not high, not low.

SN stat regimen or a *properly configured* exit bag remains some of the few drug-related methods with high reliability and generally lower risk of injury or adverse effects.

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. I like the idea that it's moderate success... But I'm also not a risk taker, and I know that 50/50 is actually a big risk. I'm also not sure if I'd mess up a rectal admin and affect potency further. So I don't think this particular method/dose is for me. I wish exit bag didn't confuse me so much, even with all the guides. Sn would be ideal.

 

[Caribbean Sky]

T

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. I like the idea that it's moderate success... But I'm also not a risk taker, and I know that 50/50 is actually a big risk. I'm also not sure if I'd mess up a rectal admin and affect potency further. So I don't think this particular method/dose is for me. I wish exit bag didn't confuse me so much, even with all the guides. Sn would be ideal.

in my experience, the unreliability comes with not being knowledgeable or educating yourself on it. For some reason, choosing opioids as a way to die suddenly makes learning a lot harder. It took me months to learn all of my knowledge, but I'm glad I did, because now I'm certain I have a near 100% success rate.

also, people's experiences vary.

 

[tbh2023]

in my experience, the unreliability comes with not being knowledgeable or educating yourself on it. For some reason, choosing opioids as a way to die suddenly makes learning a lot harder. It took me months to learn all of my knowledge, but I'm glad I did, because now I'm certain I have a near 100% success rate.

also, people's experiences vary.

Is it ok to ask you about doxepin? I'm getting it for my depression. I just want to know how much I should use to CTB? Appreciate your help

 

[Caribbean Sky]

Is it ok to ask you about doxepin? I'm getting it for my depression. I just want to know how much I should use to CTB? Appreciate your help

Me?
I don't know anything about doxepin. I do know however it is a bad idea to try to ctb with mental health medications. Look up the post "non-methods that should not be attempted" you should be able to find it pretty easily.

I would say for sure do not use your depression medication to ctb. Lots of other methods on here for you to choose from.

 

[tbh2023]

Me?
I don't know anything about doxepin. I do know however it is a bad idea to try to ctb with mental health medications. Look up the post "non-methods that should not be attempted" you should be able to find it pretty easily.

I would say for sure do not use your depression medication to ctb. Lots of other methods on here for you to choose from.

Thank you so much for your response

 

[wham311]

Opioids have made me nauseous the few times I've done them, is there anythng I can do to prevent this

Can someone help me? I'm desperate, I need assistance fixing my suicide method since it failed.

I had 700mg of F mixed in 24mL of water, applied in 7 IM syringes (23a gauge 3ml) intramuscular injection through my leg with 2-3 hours alone. I stuck in all 7 syringes in my vastus lateralis thigh muscle and pushed all the plunger's at once. to my surprise i wasn't immediately unconscious. in fact it took 5 minutes to be hit like a brick, and probably about 5 more to fall asleep.
I was found and awakened 2 hours later, but naturally, and with no narcan. I was brought only to the er for vomiting a lot suddenly, being very tired and not being able to stand up. I was asked questions, but still no one has any idea I tried to use fentanyl to kill myself.
How did I not die? I almost wonder to the 2 times I tested very very small amounts of F + water in a syringes through IM on my leg. It took more to feel something though than expected.

Please, does anybody have any idea what went wrong, and how I can adjust my method so it works? If you're knowledgeable about this, please PM me...

Sorry how is this possible

 

[wham311]

Is it safe to order from the dark web? Saw a review stating people locally were getting popped but his arrived and hadnt had issues at the time he wrote it

 

[Caribbean Sky]

Opioids have made me nauseous the few times I've done them, is there anythng I can do to prevent this

Sorry how is this possible

don't worry about that. There were many many things wrong with that method. The fentanyl was fake, I had a terrible ROA, so I basically didn't inject really anything at all. don't worry about that post I made. it's not relevant.

 

[Rhizomorph1]

Is it safe to order from the dark web? Saw a review stating people locally were getting popped but his arrived and hadnt had issues at the time he wrote it

It is generally low-risk to order from any vendors with well-established reviews so long as they have escrow only. Triple check the address is right (tor.taxi is good for this) so it is not a phishing site.

Don't sign for any packages and law enforcement won't have any reason to waste their time or resources on you. At worst they will confiscate the package during transport and send you a vague letter in the mail stating they took it.

They can't prove you intentionally ordered it.

Always test your drugs with reagents or better yet a drug checking service like the one in the OP.

 

[Caribbean Sky]

It is generally low-risk to order from any vendors with well-established reviews so long as they have escrow only. Triple check the address is right (tor.taxi is good for this) so it is not a phishing site.

Don't sign for any packages and law enforcement won't have any reason to waste their time or resources on you. At worst they will confiscate the package during transport and send you a vague letter in the mail stating they took it.

They can't prove you intentionally ordered it.

Always test your drugs with reagents or better yet a drug checking service like the one in the OP.

Hey Rhizo, do you mind checking the dm I sent you? Thanks

 

[Rhizomorph1]

Hey Rhizo, do you mind checking the dm I sent you? Thanks

Hey there. I responded via DM but will cross post my response here for other users/informational purposes:

I could walk through the pharmacokinetic variability of opioids to explain why the reliability is low, but to save time I will simply chalk that up to variance in tolerance and genetics.

A simpler way to understand it (detailing not the "why" but merely the epidemiology of risk per actual outcomes accounted for) is to look at the aggregate data by various coroners services on drug-related suicides and overdoses. We see reliably that suicides with opioids, even massive doses of them fail. Comparably, a substantial number of both regular opioids users and opioid naive users experience traumatic brain injuries of different scale.

The prevalence of deaths under the overdose crisis concerns mostly regular users, many whom have already experienced traumatic brain injuries. Let's say the risk of death is low (2-6% per research I've cited elsewhere on this forum) for suicides, or potentially lower for regular opioids users, all we have to do is multiply this number by times taken to get a hypothetical risk profile. There are 365 days in a year so 365 multiplied by the relative proportion of risk (2-6%) gives you a relative idea of risk per daily use across a year; you see why regular opioids users have a mean 7-year mortality rate.

So regardless of the "why", we do know the reliability to be low-moderate based on coroners report data. If you're curious to learn more I'd invite you to study a bit on pharmacology; pharmacokinetics (absorption-excretion curves, lipid solubility coefficients, metabolic pathways & rates, genetic protein encoding for these metabolic pathways, etc.) as well as pharmacodynamics (dose-response curves, neurochemical or structural pathways of action, receptor binding affinities, and transcription factors related to epigenetic programming/tolerance factors).

------

As for nitazenes, there is too little research base for me to speak confidently to matters regarding their solubility, effectiveness, risk of adverse effects, etc.

I would gather their pharmacological profiles are comparable to other opioids with simply a greater theoretical risk of injury, failure, or adverse effects considering this gap in knowledge; potential unknown factors that could contribute to issues. I cannot in good faith advise on or recommend them to anyone in any dose for these reasons.

 

[Caribbean Sky]

Hey there. I responded via DM but will cross post my response here for other users/informational purposes:

I could walk through the pharmacokinetic variability of opioids to explain why the reliability is low, but to save time I will simply chalk that up to variance in tolerance and genetics.

A simpler way to understand it (detailing not the "why" but merely the epidemiology of risk per actual outcomes accounted for) is to look at the aggregate data by various coroners services on drug-related suicides and overdoses. We see reliably that suicides with opioids, even massive doses of them fail. Comparably, a substantial number of both regular opioids users and opioid naive users experience traumatic brain injuries of different scale.

The prevalence of deaths under the overdose crisis concerns mostly regular users, many whom have already experienced traumatic brain injuries. Let's say the risk of death is low (2-6% per research I've cited elsewhere on this forum) for suicides, or potentially lower for regular opioids users, all we have to do is multiply this number by times taken to get a hypothetical risk profile. There are 365 days in a year so 365 multiplied by the relative proportion of risk (2-6%) gives you a relative idea of risk per daily use across a year; you see why regular opioids users have a mean 7-year mortality rate.

So regardless of the "why", we do know the reliability to be low-moderate based on coroners report data. If you're curious to learn more I'd invite you to study a bit on pharmacology; pharmacokinetics (absorption-excretion curves, lipid solubility coefficients, metabolic pathways & rates, genetic protein encoding for these metabolic pathways, etc.) as well as pharmacodynamics (dose-response curves, neurochemical or structural pathways of action, receptor binding affinities, and transcription factors related to epigenetic programming/tolerance factors).

------

As for nitazenes, there is too little research base for me to speak confidently to matters regarding their solubility, effectiveness, risk of adverse effects, etc.

I would gather their pharmacological profiles are comparable to other opioids with simply a greater theoretical risk of injury, failure, or adverse effects considering this gap in knowledge; potential unknown factors that could contribute to issues. I cannot in good faith advise on or recommend them to anyone in any dose for these reasons.

I see. Though, I think it's a little strange to say the risk of failure is higher with nitazenes simply because so much is unknown about them. It's completely sensible that you cannot advise anybody on the reliability of them because you do not know. but then you cannot say that the risk of failure is higher; rather that, you do not know.

i'm still a little lost on why you would say the chance of death is 2 to 6%. Unless I'm reading your reply wrong? Can you explain that to me further, possibly citing other threads you've made about your research like you mentioned?

Is that really just due to tolerance and genetics? Opioids are powerful drugs. I feel as though genetic variability without some kind of metabolic disorder is obsolete in comparison to the potency of opioids. As in, with a high enough dose, any sort of genetic trait would not stop an overdose death at all.

Individual tolerances is a different story, but aside from genetic variability I'm going to assume by "individual tolerance" you mean the tolerance that is built up with continued to use of opioids/anything that has a cross tolerance with opioids.
i'm not refuting your 365 days example of course.
What I'm trying to say is, aside from possible genetic tolerances, if individual tolerance just means tolerance from use, doesn't that mean for an opioid naïve person (a person who has never used them or anything similar ever) the fatality of opioids as a method is very high, even nearing 100%?

That is if they follow all the guidelines in your OP. They use the correct ROA, they test their sample to see the priority, and dose correctly.
I'm not trying to argue that I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just trying to see if I missed anything or if there was anything I wasn't aware of that lowers the "reliability" for an opioid naïve person.

so long as you execute the method correctly, and you're an opioid naïve person, unless there's some specific genetic variability (and you can point out if I'm wrong in a genetic variable is enough to make this method unreliable)
I don't see why this message should not work for you.

(and I'm not talking about nitazenes anymore; with what I just wrote we're assuming a definite opioid just like fentanyl or heroin.)


edit: I just did some research of my own. Rhizo, would you say the reason for low reliability in people who take opioids for suicide, even if it's a super massive dose, is a lack of knowledge, research and understanding?
unless I've missed something about the inherent pharmacology of opioids themselves, even super massive opioid doses can fail because the person uses an improper ROA (like oral instead) their drug is impure (and they didn't test the purity to see how they should adjust like you recommended) they underestimate the dose, or even just stupidly doing it where people can find them. The research I've done (you can correct me if I'm wrong) shows a lower percentage of opioid overdose attempters that succeed because of premeditated planning.

edit 2: i've got another question for you. After testing a opioid with energy control, do you just a dose up accordingly? Or would you recommend trying to chemically remove any fillers? I'm going to pretty certain say that you recommend just to dose up rather than try and chemically remove the fillers because most people are not skilled enough to do that, but I thought I would check anyway.

 

[Rhizomorph1]

I see. Though, I think it's a little strange to say the risk of failure is higher with nitazenes simply because so much is unknown about them. It's completely sensible that you cannot advise anybody on the reliability of them because you do not know. but then you cannot say that the risk of failure is higher; rather that, you do not know.

i'm still a little lost on why you would say the chance of death is 2 to 6%. Unless I'm reading your reply wrong? Can you explain that to me further, possibly citing other threads you've made about your research like you mentioned?

Is that really just due to tolerance and genetics? Opioids are powerful drugs. I feel as though genetic variability without some kind of metabolic disorder is obsolete in comparison to the potency of opioids. As in, with a high enough dose, any sort of genetic trait would not stop an overdose death at all.

Individual tolerances is a different story, but aside from genetic variability I'm going to assume by "individual tolerance" you mean the tolerance that is built up with continued to use of opioids/anything that has a cross tolerance with opioids.
i'm not refuting your 365 days example of course.
What I'm trying to say is, aside from possible genetic tolerances, if individual tolerance just means tolerance from use, doesn't that mean for an opioid naïve person (a person who has never used them or anything similar ever) the fatality of opioids as a method is very high, even nearing 100%?

That is if they follow all the guidelines in your OP. They use the correct ROA, they test their sample to see the priority, and dose correctly.
I'm not trying to argue that I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just trying to see if I missed anything or if there was anything I wasn't aware of that lowers the "reliability" for an opioid naïve person.

so long as you execute the method correctly, and you're an opioid naïve person, unless there's some specific genetic variability (and you can point out if I'm wrong in a genetic variable is enough to make this method unreliable)
I don't see why this message should not work for you.

(and I'm not talking about nitazenes anymore; with what I just wrote we're assuming a definite opioid just like fentanyl or heroin.)


edit: I just did some research of my own. Rhizo, would you say the reason for low reliability in people who take opioids for suicide, even if it's a super massive dose, is a lack of knowledge, research and understanding?
unless I've missed something about the inherent pharmacology of opioids themselves, even super massive opioid doses can fail because the person uses an improper ROA (like oral instead) their drug is impure (and they didn't test the purity to see how they should adjust like you recommended) they underestimate the dose, or even just stupidly doing it where people can find them. The research I've done (you can correct me if I'm wrong) shows a lower percentage of opioid overdose attempters that succeed because of premeditated planning.

edit 2: i've got another question for you. After testing a opioid with energy control, do you just a dose up accordingly? Or would you recommend trying to chemically remove any fillers? I'm going to pretty certain say that you recommend just to dose up rather than try and chemically remove the fillers because most people are not skilled enough to do that, but I thought I would check anyway.

I'm not saying it is higher in an absolute sense (a-posteriori AKA post-measurement); I'm saying that a-priori (pre-measurement) the risk is higher.

Risk modeling is not just about the decisions we make re: what we know, but an epistemological framework for estimating potentials we don't know.

If we were omniscient, sure, we could say what the risk was in this conclusive, a-posteriori sense. But we don't know, so the unknown parameter simply becomes another risk factor in the information model.

Thus, scientifically, we can accurately deduce that the risk is indeed, higher. Or at the very least if we'd like to be a touch pedantic (which as a nerd I love fyi), the risk model has greater likelihood for two-tailed (bi-direcrional) variance error. Hypothesis testing would be needed to fully understand the relationship.

Science, and especially medical science (which I'm drawing my principles from) tends to er on the conservative side of caution when making estimates, in accordance with the Hippocratic oath. Thus why I am advising towards the riskier side of the model and choosing not to advise on methodology or unknown pharmacological outcomes regarding nitazenes. *Note: I'm not a medical doctor and despite these principles I draw from I don't intend to represent myself as a doctor.

Hope this helps explain the underpinning philosophy.

Re: the 2-6% statistic, look up my thread "caution on drug poisonings and cutting" thread. There are 2 separate manuscripts cited there. I'm happy to share and answer questions, but I write quite lengthy responses as you can tell and much of the evidence comes from hours I spent in the library performing the laborious task of literature review during my undergrad; there comes a time when I invite others to do some legwork on their own to find statistics or research if they are skeptical of sources, kindly of course

Genetic tolerance is not the same as use tolerance. There are also acute tolerance, behavioural tolerance, epigenetic tolerance, and more than I don't have the time to explain here. YouTube is your friend if you'd like formal educators to teach you the difference. Otherwise, you'll have to take my word for it that they're different and not related to use alone, but the genetic transcription factors I mentioned before.

At the end of the day, our best estimate is the aggregate data. Even accounting for ROA in hypothetical models, the likelihood of failure is moderate to high.

Is it possible that some people could be outliers because they accounted for all these variables? (I.e., reducing to user error as you suggest). Sure. Hypothesis testing is rarely perfect; we can't really say anything for certain about inferential datasets like these.

But we can say for certain that out of 100 randomly simulated datasets, the incidence of the percentages of failure measure occur in e.g., less than 5% of the random datasets.

And as with all data, the smaller the proportion/effect, the more it regresses towards the mean, thus the more massive of an alternative effect is needed to contradict how statistically "stable" this 2-6% figure is. Scientifically, we can reason that given how small this number is, it is very unlikely to be this small due to user error alone.

Say it is 50% of the reason why people fail, then that still leaves a proportion equivalent to 47% unaccounted for. This is merely speculative and all in all these are all just thought experiments but it goes to show just how resistant these numbers are to our own control; especially without further aggregations of research data to give detailed insight as to how to control (e.g., path analysis, AKA SEM under the general linear model).

A reliable research metric we do have in cognitive & behavioural psychology is that relying on our own intuitive or face-value appraisals of risk is very ineffective; look into behavioural economics if you want to learn more about these cognitive biases inherent to everyone alive. The only way to truly resist these biases is with machine-algorithmic learning that accounts for error variance in a linear operationalized method.

 

[Caribbean Sky]

I'm not saying it is higher in an absolute sense (a-posteriori AKA post-measurement); I'm saying that a-priori (pre-measurement) the risk is higher.

Risk modeling is not just about the decisions we make re: what we know, but an epistemological framework for estimating potentials we don't know.

If we were omniscient, sure, we could say what the risk was in this conclusive, a-posteriori sense. But we don't know, so the unknown parameter simply becomes another risk factor in the information model.

Thus, scientifically, we can accurately deduce that the risk is indeed, higher. Or at the very least if we'd like to be a touch pedantic (which as a nerd I love fyi), the risk model has greater likelihood for two-tailed (bi-direcrional) variance error. Hypothesis testing would be needed to fully understand the relationship.

Science, and especially medical science (which I'm drawing my principles from) tends to er on the conservative side of caution when making estimates, in accordance with the Hippocratic oath. Thus why I am advising towards the riskier side of the model and choosing not to advise on methodology or unknown pharmacological outcomes regarding nitazenes. *Note: I'm not a medical doctor and despite these principles I draw from I don't intend to represent myself as a doctor.

Hope this helps explain the underpinning philosophy.

Re: the 2-6% statistic, look up my thread "caution on drug poisonings and cutting" thread. There are 2 separate manuscripts cited there. I'm happy to share and answer questions, but I write quite lengthy responses as you can tell and much of the evidence comes from hours I spent in the library performing the laborious task of literature review during my undergrad; there comes a time when I invite others to do some legwork on their own to find statistics or research if they are skeptical of sources, kindly of course

Genetic tolerance is not the same as use tolerance. There are also acute tolerance, behavioural tolerance, epigenetic tolerance, and more than I don't have the time to explain here. YouTube is your friend if you'd like formal educators to teach you the difference. Otherwise, you'll have to take my word for it that they're different and not related to use alone, but the genetic transcription factors I mentioned before.

At the end of the day, our best estimate is the aggregate data. Even accounting for ROA in hypothetical models, the likelihood of failure is moderate to high.

Is it possible that some people could be outliers because they accounted for all these variables? (I.e., reducing to user error as you suggest). Sure. Hypothesis testing is rarely perfect; we can't really say anything for certain about inferential datasets like these.

But we can say for certain that out of 100 randomly simulated datasets, the incidence of the percentages of failure measure occur in e.g., less than 5% of the random datasets.

And as with all data, the smaller the proportion/effect, the more it regresses towards the mean, thus the more massive of an alternative effect is needed to contradict how statistically "stable" this 2-6% figure is. Scientifically, we can reason that given how small this number is, it is very unlikely to be this small due to user error alone.

Say it is 50% of the reason why people fail, then that still leaves a proportion equivalent to 47% unaccounted for. This is merely speculative and all in all these are all just thought experiments but it goes to show just how resistant these numbers are to our own control; especially without further aggregations of research data to give detailed insight as to how to control (e.g., path analysis, AKA SEM under the general linear model).

A reliable research metric we do have in cognitive & behavioural psychology is that relying on our own intuitive or face-value appraisals of risk is very ineffective; look into behavioural economics if you want to learn more about these cognitive biases inherent to everyone alive. The only way to truly resist these biases is with machine-algorithmic learning that accounts for error variance in a linear operationalized method.

thank you for the insight. I thought a lot about what you wrote here.

You're right about all of this, but it hasn't made me shy away from the method. In fact, it's actually helpful, as I can now finally tweak the very last variables in this method to avoid risk of failure.
it makes a lot of sense now why you tell people to avoid this method – it's too complicated, and I read your linked thread about drug poisoning and cutting: a lot of people will attempt this without proper planning, with a still – high risk of brain injury.
and you don't tell people that research and planning for an opiate suicide can drastically increase their success chances because as you said you "can't in good conscience" recommend this.
(I do feel there is a line to cross there between "not recommending" and making sure people are well informed to give them more options that align with their preferences. At least there is SN, like you recommended in your OP.)

I have 4 more questions for you:

1. The first thing I'll "ask" (cause it's sort of not a question but instead of asking for a confirmation ) you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of what you said here can still be avoided if variables are accounted for (I think you did say "sure" though, agreeing with me.)
Any sort of tolerance (so long as it is not use tolerance) can be accounted for with a supermassive dose, so long as you check for purity/drug concentration and check the other boxes. Use tolerance is the strongest kind, but although the other kinds do inject a little bit of unreliability, they are not impossible to overcome. And they are not your biggest problems.
2. factors beyond user error that can make an opioid suicide fail are:

• Variability in Drug Potency: Illicit opioids often have inconsistent potency, making it challenging to predict the exact effect of a given dose.
• Individual Metabolic Differences: Genetic factors can influence how quickly a person metabolizes opioids, affecting the drug's efficacy and toxicity.
• Unexpected Interventions: Even with plans to be alone, unforeseen circumstances can lead to timely medical intervention.
• Presence of Tolerance: Regular users may have developed a high tolerance, requiring larger doses to achieve the same effect, which can complicate dosing calculations.

but all of these can be overcome, right? I've made sure how to.
variability in drug potency can be fixed by testing the drug.
Individual genetic tolerance can be overcome with a higher dose – probably the easiest thing to work around
The chance of unexpected interventions can be drastically lowered by ensuring you know where people might be at all times and giving yourself more time alone.
and the presence of tolerance is only most dangerous when you don't check the other boxes and/or your a regular user taking a supermassive dose.


3. I'm sorry you feel you cannot give advice on nitazenes and soluability. I have a better question, though that more suits your expertise and allows for a more complete answer:
One of your two recommended ROAs is IV injection. But isn't the solubility of heroin and fentanyl (which you recommend both) very very low? If you're injecting it, what do you use as a solvent so that you're not injecting amounts too little?
One of the questions I sent to your DMs was about a possible solvent made of a combination of food-grade injectable liquids. You said you couldn't answer because it related to nitazenes.
Now I'm rephrasing that question: what do you recommend as a solvent if not saline so that you're not injecting too little?
I trust your answer to that more than mine. You could look at my question about the solvent I came up with that I sent to your DM's and answer it more completely if you look at it under the lens of heroin/fentanyl (which you recommend) rather than nitazenes.
But whatever your answer is about the liquid to dissolve heroin/fentanyl powder in there is also OK to inject, I trusted more than my hypothesis lol.

4. how much time do you need to be alone? I'm pretty sure I have the answer to this one. I'm pretty sure if you've done your method correctly, you only need an hour most. If you need more than an hour, you've already failed. but I just wanted sort of your confirmation on that. How much time do you need to be alone so that no one finds you to use naloxone on you?

thanks for your advice and expertise!

 

[wham311]

"I've never heard of genetic tolerance, but it's definitely interesting and I looked it up. It's definitely a thing you'd need to look out for if you eventually choose this path.

It's worrying, but for me I don't really believe that it'll be much of a problem. I've gotten really skinny overtime and the less weight the better in my opinion because there will a higher concentration of the drug in your blood floating around to your brain.





Take a look at this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21003-y



You can summarize it using some random AI tool because it's a lot to go through.

Here's what I got from it:



CYP3A4: Gene that makes enzymes breaking down fentanyl faster.
CYP3A5: Gene similar to CYP3A4, also breaks down fentanyl faster.
ABCB1 (MDR1): Gene that pumps fentanyl out of the brain.
OPRM1 A118G: Variant of the mu-opioid receptor gene that reduces receptor response to fentanyl.






Even if you're unlucky enough to have a genetic tolerance to opioids. A large amount of fentanyl will still most likely be effective if you do it in a place where you know people won't come checking in at for a while.



Screenshot 2025-05-31 141805.png

Screenshot 2025-05-31 141638.png



This is a recent 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment released by the DEA.



(https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/2025 National Drug Threat Assessment_Web 5-12-2025.pdf)





The average has dropped in a couple of years, but it hasn't reached single digits yet. So getting fentanyl that is 1% pure isn't always a common occurrence.



It's always best to test before using. If the purity is very low I'd assume that the test will most likely turn back negative for fentanyl on the first test (Please correct me if I'm wrong). If the purity is average then first test will probably turn out positive. Again this is just an assumption. There's companies out there that have a service for testing the purity of a certain drug and what that substance actually contains. They use Gas Chromatography to test out the purity. It's similar to the one they used in breaking bad if you ever watched the show (https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=6EU-EfKHwY4).





There's a company called energy control based in Spain that lets you send out a sample of 50mg in powder for 120€ to test out both the substance and the purity. Of course, this is very expensive and I think it's not necessary but it's there if you're wondering (https://energycontrol-international.org/drug-testing-service/submitting-a-sample/)."

 

[Rhizomorph1]

thank you for the insight. I thought a lot about what you wrote here.

You're right about all of this, but it hasn't made me shy away from the method. In fact, it's actually helpful, as I can now finally tweak the very last variables in this method to avoid risk of failure.
it makes a lot of sense now why you tell people to avoid this method – it's too complicated, and I read your linked thread about drug poisoning and cutting: a lot of people will attempt this without proper planning, with a still – high risk of brain injury.
and you don't tell people that research and planning for an opiate suicide can drastically increase their success chances because as you said you "can't in good conscience" recommend this.
(I do feel there is a line to cross there between "not recommending" and making sure people are well informed to give them more options that align with their preferences. At least there is SN, like you recommended in your OP.)

I have 4 more questions for you:

1. The first thing I'll "ask" (cause it's sort of not a question but instead of asking for a confirmation ) you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of what you said here can still be avoided if variables are accounted for (I think you did say "sure" though, agreeing with me.)
Any sort of tolerance (so long as it is not use tolerance) can be accounted for with a supermassive dose, so long as you check for purity/drug concentration and check the other boxes. Use tolerance is the strongest kind, but although the other kinds do inject a little bit of unreliability, they are not impossible to overcome. And they are not your biggest problems.
2. factors beyond user error that can make an opioid suicide fail are:

• Variability in Drug Potency: Illicit opioids often have inconsistent potency, making it challenging to predict the exact effect of a given dose.
• Individual Metabolic Differences: Genetic factors can influence how quickly a person metabolizes opioids, affecting the drug's efficacy and toxicity.
• Unexpected Interventions: Even with plans to be alone, unforeseen circumstances can lead to timely medical intervention.
• Presence of Tolerance: Regular users may have developed a high tolerance, requiring larger doses to achieve the same effect, which can complicate dosing calculations.

but all of these can be overcome, right? I've made sure how to.
variability in drug potency can be fixed by testing the drug.
Individual genetic tolerance can be overcome with a higher dose – probably the easiest thing to work around
The chance of unexpected interventions can be drastically lowered by ensuring you know where people might be at all times and giving yourself more time alone.
and the presence of tolerance is only most dangerous when you don't check the other boxes and/or your a regular user taking a supermassive dose.


3. I'm sorry you feel you cannot give advice on nitazenes and soluability. I have a better question, though that more suits your expertise and allows for a more complete answer:
One of your two recommended ROAs is IV injection. But isn't the solubility of heroin and fentanyl (which you recommend both) very very low? If you're injecting it, what do you use as a solvent so that you're not injecting amounts too little?
One of the questions I sent to your DMs was about a possible solvent made of a combination of food-grade injectable liquids. You said you couldn't answer because it related to nitazenes.
Now I'm rephrasing that question: what do you recommend as a solvent if not saline so that you're not injecting too little?
I trust your answer to that more than mine. You could look at my question about the solvent I came up with that I sent to your DM's and answer it more completely if you look at it under the lens of heroin/fentanyl (which you recommend) rather than nitazenes.
But whatever your answer is about the liquid to dissolve heroin/fentanyl powder in there is also OK to inject, I trusted more than my hypothesis lol.

4. how much time do you need to be alone? I'm pretty sure I have the answer to this one. I'm pretty sure if you've done your method correctly, you only need an hour most. If you need more than an hour, you've already failed. but I just wanted sort of your confirmation on that. How much time do you need to be alone so that no one finds you to use naloxone on you?

thanks for your advice and expertise!

I think you're misunderstanding the rhetoric; I didn't write "sure" to agree with you outright, I wrote that to agree with the principle. But the principle lacks specificity in terms of real-world outcomes or material and pharmacological fact. So the principle is not going to actually result in what you are aiming for. There's an absent implicit referent between what you've interpreted and what I said; I will avoid speculating too much on the source of that referent, but at face value it seems deeply personal to you and risking confirmation bias.

Dose-response curves are not immediately solved by dosage alone because of non-linear absorption curves and non-linear metabolic curves even as you upscale the dose. Absorption works on the principle of diffusion, which accounts for how much of the drug is on either side of a membrane but also how much volume is on each side of the membrane. There is a threshold volume, threshold clearance or excretion from a container, etc. that also plays a role, where the absorption of higher doses simply cannot keep up with the volume, so diffusion may actually attract the drug away from relevant sites of action. Where this theshold lies depends on the drug itself, it's solubility, the ROA and so many other factors. So no, upping the dose alone is not a solution, without research data corroborating the pharmacokinetic relationships with dose.

I hesitate to write much else because it *deeply* sounds like you are fishing for confirmation and emotional reassurance of your method, which I can't provide. Not just out of food conscience but because I truly do think it is a high risk method and I'm concerned for your safety.

The only way I can support you with the choice is if you are okay with the fact of being harmed or risking brain injury (part of informed consent; consenting to the reality of the method), and you are fully cognizant that this risk is substantial (moderate at best which in this context is morally tremendous and substantial considering everything moral to a person; our life, self, freedom from pain, etc. is literally on the line)

I cannot support the rhetoric you continue to put forth that you can control for error variance, despite ubiquitous evidence (both epidemiological AKA outcome based AND pharmacological data, combined with the lack of data on nitazenes) pointing to the inherent dangers.

You can do with this information what you will, but I can't in good conscience entertain the "ifs" and "whys" if they will continue to be interpreted through the lens of confirmation bias.

At the end of the day, you are your own person, and my thread has provided the evidence in the only sound form I can provide. Beyond that, you will need to take some courses to actually understand the "why's" beyond just dogma ("I said so") or beyond assumptions that it "must be user error". It is neither of these but I don't have time to provide a comprehensive psychopharmacologt lesson on here regarding transcription factors or the 1,000 page data sets on the drug supply or the micro scale pharmacological differences in binding dynamics even for drugs within the same class (the same reason why e.g., d-meth is a toxic drug fueling a drug crisis and l-meth is a pretty harmless cough suppressant yet they're stereoscopic images of one another; the same analogy applies to nitazenes vs. traditional opioids)

Respectfully, of course; I say all this with only good faith in, and compassion/respect for you as a lovely person who deserves peace. As well as aprofound respect for information and *informed* consent in dying

TL;DR: if you want a less dogmatic response that is comprehensive, you'll need to take a degree in psychopharm. But I stand by the statistics I originally put forth and disagree with your claim that users can control for it by modifying the parameters on their own; the parameters are inherent to the pharmacology/uncontrollable.

Take care

 

[Caribbean Sky]

I think you're misunderstanding the rhetoric; I didn't write "sure" to agree with you outright, I wrote that to agree with the principle. But the principle lacks specificity in terms of real-world outcomes or material and pharmacological fact. So the principle is not going to actually result in what you are aiming for. There's an absent implicit referent between what you've interpreted and what I said; I will avoid speculating too much on the source of that referent, but at face value it seems deeply personal to you and risking confirmation bias.

Dose-response curves are not immediately solved by dosage alone because of non-linear absorption curves and non-linear metabolic curves even as you upscale the dose. Absorption works on the principle of diffusion, which accounts for how much of the drug is on either side of a membrane but also how much volume is on each side of the membrane. There is a threshold volume, threshold clearance or excretion from a container, etc. that also plays a role, where the absorption of higher doses simply cannot keep up with the volume, so diffusion may actually attract the drug away from relevant sites of action. Where this theshold lies depends on the drug itself, it's solubility, the ROA and so many other factors. So no, upping the dose alone is not a solution, without research data corroborating the pharmacokinetic relationships with dose.

I hesitate to write much else because it *deeply* sounds like you are fishing for confirmation and emotional reassurance of your method, which I can't provide. Not just out of food conscience but because I truly do think it is a high risk method and I'm concerned for your safety.

The only way I can support you with the choice is if you are okay with the fact of being harmed or risking brain injury (part of informed consent; consenting to the reality of the method), and you are fully cognizant that this risk is substantial (moderate at best which in this context is morally tremendous and substantial considering everything moral to a person; our life, self, freedom from pain, etc. is literally on the line)

I cannot support the rhetoric you continue to put forth that you can control for error variance, despite ubiquitous evidence (both epidemiological AKA outcome based AND pharmacological data, combined with the lack of data on nitazenes) pointing to the inherent dangers.

You can do with this information what you will, but I can't in good conscience entertain the "ifs" and "whys" if they will continue to be interpreted through the lens of confirmation bias.

At the end of the day, you are your own person, and my thread has provided the evidence in the only sound form I can provide. Beyond that, you will need to take some courses to actually understand the "why's" beyond just dogma ("I said so") or beyond assumptions that it "must be user error". It is neither of these but I don't have time to provide a comprehensive psychopharmacologt lesson on here regarding transcription factors or the 1,000 page data sets on the drug supply or the micro scale pharmacological differences in binding dynamics even for drugs within the same class (the same reason why e.g., d-meth is a toxic drug fueling a drug crisis and l-meth is a pretty harmless cough suppressant yet they're stereoscopic images of one another; the same analogy applies to nitazenes vs. traditional opioids)

Respectfully, of course; I say all this with only good faith in, and compassion/respect for you as a lovely person who deserves peace. As well as aprofound respect for information and *informed* consent in dying

TL;DR: if you want a less dogmatic response that is comprehensive, you'll need to take a degree in psychopharm. But I stand by the statistics I originally put forth and disagree with your claim that users can control for it by modifying the parameters on their own; the parameters are inherent to the pharmacology/uncontrollable.

Take care

do you notice how someone keeps reacting to your messages with the emoji? People are looking for reassurance, you can't act surprised or affronted when people do. That is the entire point of a site like this.

Not to mention, your language is still very advanced for most regular users of this site.
I'm sorry, but you is the only source I've seen saying these dangers of an opioid suicide method compared with every other resource documenting the lethality of them is just confusing me. I'm not saying you're wrong – I'm saying I'm just confused and I can't put two and two together.

Long ago, I had to cope with the possible danger of suffering injury.
so you don't need to worry about me understanding/accepting that.

I also never pushed a rhetoric of complete and total control.

also, for this method to be 'high-risk' there has to be both risk of failure and of serious injury.

but one question sits in my mind above all others, and I will hope you reply one more time, even to only answer this particular one, but -

If you equate such high risk for this method of ctb, why make a megathread guide for it at all?
Why not add it into the "non-methods that should not be attempted"?
people will inevitably seek out this method, but so will some people who try to cut themselves even though that counts as a 'non-method'
If you believe the risk to be that high, you can at least stop a larger number of people by doing it by adding it as a "non-method."
You say "control" over the factors that make this a high risk method is an illusion, yet your OP aims to help people successfully accomplish this method (so a high/er success rate) if you can't dissuade them that is, by providing informational guidelines to bypass those risks and result in a successful CTB.
such as ROA, and even moreso testing your drugs.

just answer that one question for me if you will. Just that one. If this is such a high risk method – why give people information on how to accomplish it at all? And people have successfully..without reading this forum. Why not push for it to be considered a "non-method?" it's not like trying to influence that on SaSu is pointless. It works, and people listen. you could save a lot more people that risk.
so you obviously don't do that for a reason. If it doesn't work, why make a megathread for it at all?

 

[AshClouds]

I've been researching this method and it seems like 2mg is the lethal dose (assuming whoever takes it doesn't have any tolerance for it). I'm planning on getting at least 10mg of the substance, but I'm also thinking a lot about the method of delivery. If I take it orally, it would take minutes for me to go unconscious, and I'd rather have it happen more instantly. I don't trust myself to inject it properly into my veins, so I wondering how fast would it act if inhale or snort it instead?