Slashdot Mirror


Star Trek's Synthehol Now Possible?

[TheBORG] writes "Professor David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Bristol in the UK, believes that there is no scientific reason why 'synthehol' (a science-fictional substitute for alcohol that appears in Star Trek:The Next Generation television series) cannot be created now. It will allow drinkers to experience all of the enjoyable, intoxicating effects of alcohol without unpleasant side-effects like hangovers." Of course, there's still the real deal, Romulan Ale, for when you want a splitting headache in the morning.

509 comments

  1. Drugs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Synthehol is my anti-drug.

    1. Re:Drugs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alchohol is my Auntie's drug.

    2. Re:Drugs. by bmgoau · · Score: 1

      FYI a replacement has for alcohol has been known for a very very long time. It is called Kava.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kava. You could probly find it if you looked hard enough in your local area. It has the same effects as alcohol, without the possibility of a hangover.

      It's lack of popularity however stems from The liquor companies reliance on the taste of alcohole and its addictive properties.

    3. Re:Drugs. by krewemaynard · · Score: 1

      It's lack of popularity however stems from The liquor companies reliance on the taste of alcohole and its addictive properties.

      So, it tastes like crap (Wikipedia calls it "slightly pungent," which is a polite way of saying "like feet"), and it's the liquor companies fault for making drinks that taste good? What nerve!
      --
      I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
    4. Re:Drugs. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      FYI a replacement has for alcohol has been known for a very very long time. It is called Kava.

      Kava is fine stuff, but very different than alcohol. Somewhat more cannabis-like (though much less powerful); it can even be smoked and is the main active component of a smoking mix called "Buddha's Blend".

      There was some fuss a while back about kava and liver damage; turned out that some some unscrupulous companies sold bark as root. Then add the usual exagerated FUD from the usual "if it feels good it must be bad" crowd, and suddenly the poor kava plant was supposed to be the next Threat To Our Children. The FUD seems to have dried up, at least in the US.

      Avoid kava if you have an allergy to pepper. Use in moderation. Do not drive or operate heavy machinery under its influence.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:Drugs. by shawb · · Score: 1

      I just love how several of the ingredients are poppy. Sure, they may not be using parts that have quite the concentration of opiods, but they're still there.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    6. Re:Drugs. by Decneps · · Score: 1

      Yea, but will it have CAFFEINE?

    7. Re:Drugs. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Well, you do brew it from a sock. What did you expect it to taste like?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Drugs. by Crussy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My only experience with kava comes from using it as an anti-anxiety supplement. As a high school senior worrying about SATs, I decided I would take a supplement of kava twice daily to see if it's effects really work. The wikipedia article notes:

      "Other interesting uses of kava include dispensation to military personnel (Fiji) to aid in vigilance and anxiety reduction; to provide concentration, focus, and muscle control before sports and music performances; to reduce the anxiety associated with public speaking and other public performances; use in corporate board rooms to aid in mental clarity, sociability and improved decision making."

      Whether it was placebo effect or not, the ~month I took kava provided unmatched sleep and a decent boost in mental clarity and concentration. My math SAT scores finally hit 790, not quite perfect, but a number I definitely should have reached earlier, and I felt fine.

      I stopped taking Kava because of the precautions of liver damage. Reading now that it is mainly FUD intrigues me, mainly because I remember feeling all in all better taking kava as a supplement.

      On a totally unrelated note, I have been intrigued by organic and drug chemistry for a long while, and noticed the following simularity between MDMA (ectasy) and methysticin (one of the active ingredients in kava). The active group on many phenethylamines tends to be the 4 position of the phenyl ring and on MDMA there is a methylenedioxy on the 3 and 4 positions. This same structure occurs on methysticin, and I have long wondered if kava's narcotic effect comes from this similarity. However my highschool chemistry is far from enough to seriously evaluate this and I would love to hear if anyone has any idea.

    9. Re:Drugs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever had a Belgian Trappist Ale?

    10. Re:Drugs. by plunge · · Score: 1

      No. Is it urinated directly out of a Belgian Trappist?

    11. Re:Drugs. by s0l0m0n · · Score: 1

      I get my Kava from a farmer in Fiji, directly imported waka (root hairs). It's good stuff, some of the best that the Fijian's grow. I enjoy it with friends. Kava is calming, and helps deal with depression.

      However, it's no replacement for alcohol. I've never once been to a wild Kava party. Never have I seen clothes and inhibitions fly to the wind with kava. It's just not the same kind of drug. Additionally, Kava tastes like dirt.

    12. Re:Drugs. by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Can you say "Prune Juice"?

      I knew you could...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    13. Re:Drugs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Synthehol has "all the taste of alcohol without any of the debilitating effects" - i.e. you don't get drunk but still have the nasty taste of alcohol.

    14. Re:Drugs. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      To be fair, alcohol isn't that nice either. That's why people drink either low-strength beer without a strong alcohol taste, or wine with enough rancid grape juice to mask the alcohol.

      When you get a drink that lets you taste the alchohol (like Special Brew), it tastes sickly.

  2. Actually by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually Sinthehole just had the taste and none of the side-effects (like feeling happy, having impaired judgement, etc).

    1. Re:Actually by jpardey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some nerds know about biochemistry and how to make alcohol have a lower toxicity... and some nerds know about star trek.

      --
      I have freaks! I did something right...
    2. Re:Actually by cyborg_zx · · Score: 1

      Well there was that TNG episode where they had super-alcohol and Tasha Yar boned Data...

    3. Re:Actually by LithiumX · · Score: 5, Informative

      Synthahol got you drunk in Star Trek, but it was described as something that could be shaken off more easily than true alchohol (ie you can actually get sober quickly, as opposed to just thinking you're sober) and having "less" hangover afterwards. It was also suggested multiple times that it was primarily a shipboard/on-base beverage meant for off-duty Starfleet and other personell... with the real thing being in common consumption for civilians.

      As for taste, I get the feeling it didn't simulate it all that well (considering Scotty's reaction to it on that TNG episode. I'm a geek, but not geek enough to know the episode number).

      --
      Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
    4. Re:Actually by Alarash · · Score: 1

      Some nerds know about biochemistry and how to make alcohol have a lower toxicity... and some nerds know about star trek. And some know both.

    5. Re:Actually by cp.tar · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Tasha Yar killed (i.e. kicked from the series) because of her alcohol problem?

      And did it all start with that episode?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    6. Re:Actually by Burning+Plastic · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've been drinking Scotch since before your great-grandfather was in diapers... And this is not scotch...

      Synthetic scotch... Synthetic Commanders...

      --
      [All Your Fish Are Belong To Us]
    7. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Open Source Development: The irrational belief that a group of script kiddies can produce a working program.

      Fool.

    8. Re:Actually by Dark_Lord_Prime · · Score: 1

      They did not "have super-alcohol". They were exposed to a virus/substance that had alcohol-like effects on a person.

    9. Re:Actually by Cyanara · · Score: 1

      So did "New Duff Lite" and how long did that last?

    10. Re:Actually by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sinthehol = synthesized alcohol replacement

      Sinthehole = personal entertainment device for Slashdot geeks.

      One may lead to the other, but I don't think they're the same thing. :)

      MadCow

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    11. Re:Actually by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1
      Tasha Yar boned Data

      Ouch! Did she use his auxilliary input port? I always thought she looked a bit butch....

    12. Re:Actually by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      Absinthehol, on the other hand...

    13. Re:Actually by pl1ght · · Score: 1

      What does that make absinthehole then?

    14. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't Know the number, but the episode in question was Entitled 'Relics', and was by far my favorite episode.

      Always wanted a ship like the USS Jenolen :P

      -- vranash

    15. Re:Actually by tecie · · Score: 1

      Synthohol also went away after TNG -- in Voyager they explicitly mentioned getting alcoholic drinks from the replicators, and in DS9 Quark would occasionally use the federation replicators to make drinks when his cardassian made one broke.

    16. Re:Actually by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

      > What does that make absinthehole then?

      An even more-boring Friday night.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    17. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absinthehole makes the heart grow fonder.

    18. Re:Actually by Feanturi · · Score: 2, Funny

      feeling it didn't simulate it all that well (considering Scotty's reaction

      Aye but this is no mere mortal yer talkin' about laddie. This is Scotty, who kin tell ye which hour of the day a 60 year old scotch was bottled before the glass is off the table!

    19. Re:Actually by ShadowXOmega · · Score: 0

      madcow....that nick sounds familiar..... :)

      you didnt make a cool Unreal Tournament Flash animation long time ago?

    20. Re:Actually by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      mmmm scotch.

      In my eyes thats gonna be the downfall, I mean... I like beer just fine, especially good beers, mostly ales though, not a huge lager fan. Especially not a pilsner fan. Give me a nice high percentage trappist beer any day of the week. Whoever said organized religion never did anything worthwhile... maybe its the only thing, but hey beer is a good start (actually, they make cheese too)

      But scotch. I somehow doubt that a "synthahol" (or benzo based drink) to simulate good scotch will be quite far off, especially since at least some of the flavor from these comes from alcohols other than ethanol (cogners and high alcohols) which of course, in addition to being contributors to the intoxication, are usually more toxic than ethanol.

      Now of course, much of the flavor of scotch also comes from the aging process... which isn't kind to molecules like this, and even if you wanted to add them in after you extracted the right chemicals from the wood... add them to what? Its the alcohol that extracts out the flavors.

      Now... add that to what a bad idea mixing your cns depressants can be. Are these newer benzos going to be safer to mix with real alcohol than the current ones people use? Or does that mean if I start drinking synthbeer, I can't switch to scotch later on in the evening? or vice versa?

      I mean, I am all for letting people use what drugs they want and monitor their own use.... but this seems like it could use some research before tossing it out in bars as synthahol.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    21. Re:Actually by Mr._Galt · · Score: 1

      not quite away...like the TrekkieGod said, Synthohol didn't actually get you drunk, which is why is was the only thing available on a starship. But once they get into a port like DS9, and off-duty, they can find real alcohol. Although Synthohol was still in DS9. They drank it when on duty or when going on duty. In Voyager they were in a unique situation where they couldn't really go to a port, so I imagine the rules were relaxed for them.

    22. Re:Actually by waterford0069 · · Score: 1

      It's... it's... *snif*... it's "Green".

    23. Re:Actually by yammosk · · Score: 1

      Actually, how drunk you got could be precisely controlled. The Ferengi originally invented it as a negotiating aid. The person serving it would give himself the mild version while giving his business partner the more potent version. Starfleet later used the milder versions on their starships in order to provide an alternative to the real stuff. The idea being that the officers drinking in Ten Forward often got called to duty unexpectedly. It wouldn't do to have Picard drunk while making first contact.

    24. Re:Actually by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Data was (is/will be) "fully functional".

      Meaning it could probably vibrate, rotate and change size.

      Sung always seemed like a kinky bastard...

    25. Re:Actually by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

      Must be a different MadCow... I'm just the plain meat variety. :)

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    26. Re:Actually by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Some TOS episode:

      Alien Goober: "What is it?"

      Scotty: "It's...green!"

    27. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow - I have found that a great panty dropper is to comment on the chicks features as well as compliment her with well timed remarks of honesty (even if feigned) for feel goods. I had no idea you were sitting on this gold mine of information. Armed with this new found knowledge I bet I won't be able to stock enough condoms. Thanks!

    28. Re:Actually by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      Actually, given the spelling I would be more inclined to suggest it makes the fart grow Honda...

    29. Re:Actually by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Thought it just got her really twisted and buzzed?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    30. Re:Actually by Kyeo · · Score: 1

      That was "New Duff Zero".

    31. Re:Actually by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that wasn't Scotch, that was Aldebaran Whiskey...in both episodes it was featured in with those lines. ;-)

    32. Re:Actually by MCraigW · · Score: 1
      Tasha Yar boned Data

      Actually, I think that Data boned Tash Yar.

    33. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh. It's hardly surprising that a Star Trek nerd doesn't get the directional component to boning.

    34. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What self-respecting Star Trek nerd can't spell Soong?

    35. Re:Actually by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Not sure about that... she seemed a bit butch... maybe it was the hair...

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    36. Re:Actually by tecie · · Score: 1

      The thing is -- I might be wrong here though -- synthohol was never even MENTIONED outside of TNG. They were always drinking Raq de Ginos on the Defiant/various blown up runabouts. And it seems unlikely on Voyager, since for the most part Janeway made such a big deal of running a tight ship whenever possible. In one episode (ep 88 - Vis A Vis) Tom Paris is able gets somewhat drunk off of alcoholic drinks that he replicates in the mess hall, and Janeway approaches him about it later (he then strangles her.) I think it might be one of those TNG things - like the men in skirts.

    37. Re:Actually by Mr._Galt · · Score: 1

      My memory is vague about Voyager, but I know that Chief O'Brien had SynthAle on several occasions on DS9

    38. Re:Actually by drsquare · · Score: 1

      A Scotsman wouldn't call it scotch, that's an American thing.

    39. Re:Actually by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, a Scotsman wouldn't talk like James Doohan either!

  3. Nutt? by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I didn't make my career trusting scientists with names like "Professor Nutt." And for the record, the only thing more pointless than reading articles about things that "should" "theoretically" be "possible" is writing them.

    1. Re:Nutt? by temojen · · Score: 1

      Professor Nutt the psychopharmacist who writes about alcohol that doesn't get you drunk? Well named!

    2. Re:Nutt? by Subacultcha · · Score: 0

      For a guy whose website says "the sublime and the poetic are not merely goals, but foundations", I think you'd feel right at home with Professor Nutt.

    3. Re:Nutt? by WCD_Thor · · Score: 1

      And what career is that? While you mostly make sense, the career part is totaly stupid unless you back that up with something.

    4. Re:Nutt? by dartarrow · · Score: 1

      the only thing more pointless than reading articles about things that "should" "theoretically" be "possible" is writing them.

      Hmm... interesting idea. Yes it should technically be possible to avoid reading such articles.

      --
      I love humanity, it is people I hate
    5. Re:Nutt? by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 1

      He's probably a Ferengi in disguise anyway since they brought Synthehol to the Federation anyway. This one's just travelled back in time before the first ones traded it to Hoomans.

    6. Re:Nutt? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      He's a doctor and a lawyer. He has a mansion and a yacht. You should stop . . . .

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    7. Re:Nutt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I thought you were a troll, and then I read it on his site.

      It does seem to be a bit... hallucinogenic, doesn't it?

    8. Re:Nutt? by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Insightful
      the only thing more pointless than reading articles about things that "should" "theoretically" be "possible" is writing them.

      Not to stomp on a good put down, but the only reason many things are possible today is because someone wrote "pointless" articles about them when they were only theoretically possible.

    9. Re:Nutt? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      but the only reason many things are possible today is because someone wrote "pointless" articles about them when they were only theoretically possible.
      Not really. The main reason things are possible is because somebody went out and worked out how to do them.

      A caveman dreaming about being warmer doesn't do much to get a fire lit, does it?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    10. Re:Nutt? by Siffy · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting theory.

    11. Re:Nutt? by Siffy · · Score: 1

      No, but a psychopharmacologist writing about Sci-Fi shit does a lot in terms of aquiring kindling.

    12. Re:Nutt? by 70Bang · · Score: 1



      Particularly when all you could know he could dye his p%ss blue and pass it!

      (I have no doubt there will a pacebo effect for several poeople who will want more more!)


    13. Re:Nutt? by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      a psychopharmacologist writing about Sci-Fi shit does a lot in terms of aquiring kindling.

      I don't know about kindling, but he's certainly gathering nuts.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:Nutt? by Siffy · · Score: 1

      You mean gathering proof he's nuts? Er, Nutts.

    15. Re:Nutt? by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

      The name Nutt just makes me glad that my dad was adopted by his step-father so our last name wouldn't be Gass

    16. Re:Nutt? by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      >He has a mansion and a yacht

      Heh. I get that reference, now can you get this one?

      And a string a po-lopo-nies.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    17. Re:Nutt? by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. -Yogi Berra

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    18. Re:Nutt? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "someone wrote "pointless" articles about them when they were only theoretically possible."

      We're talking about a new iteration of near-beer. Even if the author is right on the money, still seems rather pointless to me.

    19. Re:Nutt? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I sure as hell can not! Is it another Linkletter movie?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    20. Re:Nutt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And for the record, the only thing more pointless than reading articles about things that "should" "theoretically" be "possible" is writing them.

      Actually, there are at least two things more pointless:
      1) Posting an uninformed, pointless opinion to a backwater topic on a forum about how pointless it is to read and write about things that "might" be "possible" (by the way, you've used "quotes" around certain "words", but I don't think it means what you think it means).
      2) Posting a pointless reply to such a post as an AC highlighting the poster's ironic, self-referencing pointlessness.

    21. Re:Nutt? by MrZaius · · Score: 1

      http://lakdiva.org/clarke/1945ww/

      Case in point. Look at all the wasted space on the above link.

      *scoff*

    22. Re:Nutt? by nleaf · · Score: 1

      Almost all new discoveries come from one of two places: a theorist postulating an effect that is tested and found to be true or false by an experimentalist, or an experimentalist finding an undocumented effect for which a theorist then tries to find a model to explain. The part you regard as speculation is a very neccessary part of the discovery process.

    23. Re:Nutt? by Woldry · · Score: 1

      the only thing more pointless than reading articles about things that "should" "theoretically" be "possible" is writing them.

      Apparently, however, commenting on them once they've been written is not pointless.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
  4. How About... by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Funny

    Romulan Ale is okay, but real life forms prefer the Pan Galactic Gargleblaster, for when you want to feel like you have had your head smashed in by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
    1. Re:How About... by LithiumX · · Score: 5, Funny

      The main difference is that while the PGG is legal in most of the more liberal parts of the galaxy, Romulan Ale is illegal, which is part of it's attraction (much like a Cuban cigar - it's the law that makes them taste so damned good).

      On the other hand, Romulan Ale doesn't leave you reeling like a man being mugged in a meadow, doesn't eat through the table when spilled, and never ever made anyone yell Pheoww in minor thirds.

      --
      Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
    2. Re:How About... by joe+155 · · Score: 4, Funny

      another advantage to the romulan ale is that you can drink more than 2 of them even if you are not a 30 ton mega-elephant with bhronchital pneumonia

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    3. Re:How About... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      I hear you can only drink 42 of them...

    4. Re:How About... by Siffy · · Score: 1

      much like a Cuban cigar - it's the law that makes them taste so damned good

      Really? And I thought it was 12 year olds. I mean that semi-seriously, as child labor often has better work ethic than adults.

    5. Re:How About... by xSauronx · · Score: 4, Funny
      i heard it was the lithium content that made the things so attractive.

      the cigars, that is, not the adolescents

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    6. Re:How About... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      much like a Cuban cigar - it's the law that makes them taste so damned good

      Really? And I thought it was 12 year olds. I mean that semi-seriously, as child labor often has better work ethic than adults.


      The law makes 12 year olds taste so damned good?

    7. Re:How About... by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      To be honest, in an objective fashion, I've found good cigars from Padron, Camacho, and Fuente, which are of honduran origin, to be better in flavor than the Cubans that I've had. I mean, I'd imagine there's some reason everyone says Cubans are the best - it is an ideal climate for tobacco, and there's generations of hand-rollers who make it an art in cuba - but, still. I'll take a Maduro 8-5-8 or a Camacho Liberty 2003 over the Cubans.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    8. Re:How About... by Mechanik · · Score: 2, Informative

      much like a Cuban cigar - it's the law that makes them taste so damned good

      But I'm Canadian you insensitive clod! :-P

      We can buy them legally. Hence why every convenience store in Niagara Falls, Ontario has gigantic signs saying "CUBAN CIGARS" for all the nice American tourists.

    9. Re:How About... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      If nothing else there's price. For what a box of Montecristo #2s cost, I can get a box each of my two favorite smokes (Partagas black label and La Gloria Cubana serie R if you're interested) and still have money left over for booze to go with it.

      Now to be fair, the Monte I had years ago was an amazing, perfectly constructed example of a cigar, but they're far over priced, even in mail order catalogs.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    10. Re:How About... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG!!! Look, Pink Unicorns!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I had a good laugh on that one, keep-em' coming!!!

    11. Re:How About... by rspress · · Score: 1

      We have almost the same signs down here in the states except they say "Guns" for all the nice Canadian tourists ;-)

    12. Re:How About... by bigtangringo · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Canada have more guns than people?

      --
      Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
    13. Re:How About... by rspress · · Score: 1

      I don't know but some Canadian politician was blaming America for Canadians coming down here to buy guns. It seemed a little backwards to me. Wouldn't blame the people coming down here to buy guns?

    14. Re:How About... by grocer · · Score: 1

      Huh? Padron grows their tobacco in Nicaragua using Habano stock...

    15. Re:How About... by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      Was shooting from the hip, I didn't know for sure. I was fairly Camachos were from Honduras, and I know that at least part of fuente's stuff is.

      I had a padron presedente once that was flat out amazing. Just... wow. Cool, smooth, complex, and an hour and a half.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
  5. Who'd use it? by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 1

    Most people who drink do it to get drunk. For those who want the taste, like those at wine clubs, they can't use the stuff since the alchocol in wine is naturally made, and you couldn't get the same flavor with this stuff.

    --
    This signature was left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:Who'd use it? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Luckily in life there's a whole class of people called "Alcoholics", who often would like to quit alcohol due to the cirrosis it's likely causing to their livers. An "Alcohol Substitute" would be like a nicotine patch for a smoker, or methadone to a heroin addict.

      (It's likely to be so expensive that otherwise, nobody would consider it anyways, thanks to the delicate balance of drugs required to make this stuff work. Not to mention possible side-effects...)

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    2. Re:Who'd use it? by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

      Are you 19 years old?

      Most people drink to get drunk... wow... maybe in high school or college, but that's a decided minority of the population.

      I guess though, it depends on how you define "drunk". A slight buzz isn't bad, but most people I know (who are adults) don't still enjoy the falling-down-drunk that they did when they were younger. They drink for the social aspects, they drink for the taste, they drink to relax after a long day (but not to get "drunk"), and maybe a few drink out of habit.

      What's wrong with being drunk, you say? Ask a glass of water. :)

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    3. Re:Who'd use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How self-deluding... "getting a buzz on" is getting (mildly) drunk.

      Now, be honest, do you really drink for the taste? If someone suggested fruit juice instead of wine what would you think?

      I hate the hypocricy most people surround alcohol with. It's a drug. There's nothing wrong with that. And there's no reason for us old farts to get snooty at college kids because hangovers are much more painful for us nowadays.

    4. Re:Who'd use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but most people I know (who are adults) don't still enjoy the falling-down-drunk that they did when they were younger.


      That's funny... most of the adults I know (my father for instance) pretty much just like getting hammed.

      I suppose you'd call these types "alcoholics".
    5. Re:Who'd use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hit the nail on the head. Alcohol is a drug.

      I know a lot of people who spend four-hundred dollars regularly on an ounce of great tasting, flourescent green, sparkly weed. If that kind cannot be found, they'll readily shell out sixty dollars for an ounce of Mexican dirt weed.

      Most people who drink are no different; if you find yourself "enjoying wine" more than a couple nights a week, chances are if alcohol suddenly vanished and they made a "synthehol" type substitute, these people would continue indulging themselves, even if it tasted like cheap/bad vodka. It's not like you can't chase it or mix it, right?

    6. Re:Who'd use it? by fatted · · Score: 1
      Most people who drink do it to get drunk
      And most people who get drunk, don't want a hangover in the morning. Hey Presto! Synthehol!
      For those who want the taste, ..., and you couldn't get the same flavor with this stuff.
      Since we're having a theoretical debate "There's no scientific reason...", I will further the claim and say there is no scientific reason why we can't make Star Trek wine which tastes EXACTLY like the real thing.

      By the way this Professor Nutt is a psychopharmacologist which is wrong on so many levels...
    7. Re:Who'd use it? by MattyCobb · · Score: 1

      I actually agree with this. As someone who drank to exremes when I was underage and still drinks to excess (IMO anyway) now that I am overage, I don't really get drunk anymore. I found, actually before I turned 21, that I did not really like being drunk. I liked a mild buzz that 3-4 beers could produce. I still drink around 2 beers a night. Sometimes even 3-4. Not every night but I would say 3/7 I do drink at least two, however I never drink to get "drunk" point I did when I was underaged. I imagine, based on the rate I am now, by the time I am 30 (I am 22 now) I probably wont drink much anymore at all except FOR taste. It seems to continually decline as I get older. I just dont feel the desire to get like that like I used to in my party days. Thats not to say I will never just get hammered again, I am sure I will, but I havent in a long long time and don't really want to, to be honest.

      --

      Matt
      You have 1 Moderator Point! Use it or lose it! Is that a threat? -vapid
    8. Re:Who'd use it? by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >> Now, be honest, do you really drink for the taste? If someone suggested fruit juice instead of wine what would you think?

      Yes, I do. I quite enjoy scotch, but rarely have more than one or two a week... I do drink it purely for the taste (one drink is hardly enough to get a buzz, let alone get drunk). When I drink beer, I also rarely have more than one. As difficult as this may seem to you, it's fairly normal with most people I know. My generation (born in early 70's if you ask) doesn't seem to have the "drink a few every night after work" mentality that our parents did. Maybe I live in an exceptional microcosm... who knows.

      As for fruit juice... I don't particularly like the taste, sorry. If it were as complex and enjoyable as Oban or Lagavulin, maybe I'd buy it by the gallon.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    9. Re:Who'd use it? by mary_will_grow · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      I never enjoy the taste of cold beer, or an icy margarita. I only enjoy alcohol at my local WINE CLUB.

      Hey- Do you only have sex WHEN YOUR IN LOVE

      hahahahahah

      --
      Why stick up for big business?
    10. Re:Who'd use it? by ted.hansson · · Score: 1

      An "Alcohol Substitute" would be like a nicotine patch for a smoker, or methadone to a heroin addict.

      For that we already have Antabus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disulfiram/

    11. Re:Who'd use it? by mrdaveb · · Score: 1

      Have a look at this world drinking 'league table' http://www.ritilan.com/archives/2004/08/16/13.35.5 0/

      Bear in mind these are averages, so of course include all the people that never drink a drop. It depends where you live and what constitutes '1 beer', but you probably fall within the bounds of normality and well short of doing yourself any serious damage :-)
      I'm assuming you drink sociably, I've never really seen the attraction of drinking by myself.

      --
      Homme petit d'homme petit, s'attend, n'avale
    12. Re:Who'd use it? by Tolleman · · Score: 1

      I get shitfaced once every other week or so. You drink 2 beers a night. Who's closest to being a alcoholic?

    13. Re:Who'd use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My generation (born in early 70's if you ask) doesn't seem to have the "drink a few every night after work" mentality that our parents did.

      Maybe your parents were hopeless alcoholics, but most of us in your parents' generation didn't drink much at all, if any.

      We were pot smokers.

      Nowdays, though, I rarely get high. As I'm now divorced and about the only two places to meet women are church and bar, I do a bit more drinking than when I was young.

      And last time we had a family gathering at my sister's, her kids (your age) were really slugging down the sangria.

    14. Re:Who'd use it? by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Having grown up United Methodist (communion is done with Welche's Grape Juice), and converted to Episcopalianism (communion is done with Wine), I can authoritatively say that given the choice between Concord Grape, and Fermented _any_ Grape, I'll take the wine. I would still take the wine even if I couldn't get a buzz off it, because at least the yeasts would have done something about all that accursed Sugar in the grape juice before it made it to my glass. Pity that dealcoholized wine is generally pretty vile stuff; with some care, it would be a great drink.

      Wine is always the right answer to the question, "what have the Romans ever done for us?"

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    15. Re:Who'd use it? by StopSayingYouSir · · Score: 1
      As I'm now divorced and about the only two places to meet women are church and bar, I do a bit more drinking than when I was young.

      Sounds like a fun church!

    16. Re:Who'd use it? by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      Have you tried pomegranate juice? I do 1/5 pomegranate juice to 4/5 water. It's delicious! And I hate regular fruit juice.

    17. Re:Who'd use it? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Most people drink to get drunk... wow... maybe in high school or college, but that's a decided minority of the population.

      Not sure where you come from pal, but in my current local area meat-network, going out and getting completely smashed is the accepted norm.

      As a tee-totaler, this is a source of much personal difficulty. Going out involves a fair level of psychological trauma. You see, drunk people can sense those who are sober around them. When inebriated enough, they gravitate towards their coherant companions and then... proceed to talk to them.

      This in itself might not be too bad, were it not for the fact that when drunk, people hava habit of being suddenly honest. Very, very honest. It's like their dying, and are passing on their most secret thoughts, opinions and hopes to you. I've heard more things in public houses after hours than most priests have heard in confession.

      Of course, they all forget everything by the next day. Leaving me, alone in all the world, privy to truths that can never, ever again be revealed. I feel like an intelligence agent, except without the oaths and pay.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    18. Re:Who'd use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never really seen the attraction of drinking by myself.

      Because it tastes good or because it relaxes you and makes you feel good or both.

      Personally I don't drink much beer as I don't like the taste, I do however like a nice glass of red wine with an appropriate meal or sometimes on its own, I sometimes drink cider usually that is for when I want something to help me relax rather than for the taste not that I don't like it.

    19. Re:Who'd use it? by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

      >> Not sure where you come from pal, but in my current local area meat-network, going out and getting completely smashed is the accepted norm.

      That's the crux of the matter: going out... getting smashed... things that people do before they get married, get a career, get a family. If you're talking about young single people, then I'd agree that getting drunk is pretty common. For the rest of us, it's not. There are a lot more "old" people in this world than single 20-somethings.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    20. Re:Who'd use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the fermentation that creates the complex tastes, not the alcahol. This is why there's nearly as much cheese snobbery as there is wine snobbery.

    21. Re:Who'd use it? by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Most people who drink do it to get drunk.

      Uh, no. There are a HUGE number of people who drink in moderation (even if they do so regularly) and enjoy alcoholic beverages on more levels than just the ability to get plastered. This ain't no elitist snobbery, it's like enjoying the taste of a good steak, not just its ability to feed you. We all enjoy food, don't we? Why not our alcohol beverages as well? The reason you are not aware of these people is because they don't frequent the sorts of places where the primary intent is to get drunk. Instead, they (I should say WE since I'm one of these people) consume at small parties, backyard barbecues, beer festivals, etc. Sure, it's possible to overindulge, but when it happens it's more accidental than intentional.

      My homebrewed beer for example is too precious to consume just for the sake of getting drunk. Once you're drunk, you might as well be drinking water so why waste the good stuff? Of course, if other people want to drink my beer, they're free to have as much of it as they want :-)

    22. Re:Who'd use it? by Tuffsnake · · Score: 0

      My generation (born in early 70's if you ask) doesn't seem to have the "drink a few every night after work" mentality that our parents did.

      Oh that's right, you all were the genereation doing coke like pixie sticks ...

      More to the point of the article, if there were a beer you could recover from almost instantly with no problem I would be getting so wasted ALL the time :D

    23. Re:Who'd use it? by The+Queen · · Score: 1

      My generation (born in early 70's if you ask) doesn't seem to have the "drink a few every night after work" mentality that our parents did.

      I'm in your generation but rarely does a night go by that I don't have 2 or 3 glasses of wine. This will continue until such time that I am no longer a tragically depressed and underpaid corporate whore. Am I the exception or have you made a gross generalization?

      --

      The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
    24. Re:Who'd use it? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Now, be honest, do you really drink for the taste? If someone suggested fruit juice instead of wine what would you think?

      Yes, I do drink for the taste. I positively hate beer, wine and most other tame alcoholic beverages; the stuff I like usually has about 40 Vol%. This would be quite suitable for fast, hard drinking binges but another thing I positively hate is losing control of my brain. I was drunk once - and after noticing that I had lost my sense of time and that I started pointing out spelling mistakes in my own thoughts I decided that being drunk is not fun at all. Besides, being with drunk people is even less fun so I avoid drinking-heavy occasions anyway.
      That means that I have to drink carefully, as my taste isn't particularly suited towards my goals (enjoy the taste but avoid the effects as much as possible).


      As for fruit juice: Actually, I prefer water. Towards the end of an evening with about three or four single malts I drink about two liters of water, as drinking much water is a way of avoiding hangovers (the headache comes partially from dehydration). If asked whether I would refrain from drinking anything alcoholic I'd probably agree - I can have fun without alcohol (arguably even more so as my kind of fun tends to be cerebral).

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    25. Re:Who'd use it? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I'll apologize in advance: I'm playing pop-psychologist.

      Why does one like the taste of alcohol?

      Personally, I think we make a connection between the taste, the effect on ourselves, memories, etc. I used to drink a lot of a particular brand of beer. Too much. Enough that I decided I needed a "lifestyle change" and quit drinking altogether for awhile, just to regain some command of my life. Anyway, nowadays I rarely drink to excess (the last time was about 4 years ago) but I find that I absolutely despise the taste of that brand of beer. I won't drink it. Other beers, no problem--just not that brand. As I told someone once, "It tastes like personal failure."

      I was thinking about other addictive things, such as coffee and cigarettes. I don't drink coffee--don't like the taste. But I do smoke and I like the taste of a cigarette. People look at me like a loon when I tell them that. But, again, I equate the taste with the stimulant effects of the nicotine. I bring up the same thing with coffee--they don't like the taste of coffee but they equate the taste with the positive effect and "learn" to like the taste. "It's an acquired taste" is the keyword.

      Remember that alcohol is a depressant. While you point out that one drink is not enough to get a buzz, it still has an effect. There's probably also some ritual involved which is comforting. I picture you sitting down in the big comfy chair with your glass of scotch and talking to friends/significant others about pleasant topics. The scotch is a message that it's time to relax and put away the stresses of life.

      No offense intended. I think we all do this.

    26. Re:Who'd use it? by jred · · Score: 1

      1972...

      Either nothing, booze/beer, or weed. Mix in a few other drugs occasionally for variety.

      Mostly beer & pot. Usually the ppl from alcoholic families smoke more pot, and vice-versa. Completely anectdotal, YMMV.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    27. Re:Who'd use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But, again, I equate the taste with the stimulant effects of the nicotine. "

      Stimulate effect of nicotine? It always felt like a depressant to me. I guess that's why I tend to have a better poker face while smoking a cigar, easier to keep under control when I have an awesome hand and want to drive up the betting.

    28. Re:Who'd use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why does one like the taste of alcohol?

      Alcohol by itself tastes nasty. Ever had grain alcohol? The 190 proof stuff that's illegal in MA but not in CT? More appropriate to fuel my car than for drinking.

      I think you're absolutely right that in many instances, there are other psychological factors at work (IANAP) but it is also possible to genuinely appreciate an alcoholic beverage on the basis of flavor alone. The good stuff is worth rolling around your mouth, picking the flavors apart one by one, maybe even trying to put adjectives to it.

      The ancestor post mentioned Scotch. From my personal list, I'd second Scotch, and also cite Bourbon, Tequila, and of course the better wines and beers. There are other categories, I'm sure; look for little pamphlets on the bottle describing the care taken in its production, hand blown glass bottles, dipped wax seals, that sort of thing. "Small batch" is a good buzzword to look for, as are hand-written batch and bottle serial numbers.

      Corks and hard liquor: Usually a sign of a higher-end product.

      Corks and wine: Corked bottles sometimes contain corked wine. For that reason, many high-end wineries are switching to screw-tops. The exception seems to be California, USA. I'm told that the designs on the cork have become cultural in some way.

      Do your research; pick a wine to match your dinner, or maybe serve it with cheese. Find out where a given beverage originates, learn about the variances in how it's made. As an example, try a Scotch from each different region of Scotland, pick one you like, then compare, say, the 5 year, the 12 year, the 20 year, etc.

      Even better, blow a little money at a nice restaurant. Look for places where the customers wear their Sunday best and the waitstaff is in livery. Someone on the staff will -know- their wines, and likely their liquors as well, not to mention how every beverage relates to every item on their menu. It needn't be a five-star joint; Legal Sea Foods comes to mind, although they're just about the only chain I know that is that good. Applebee's, Outback, and the like won't cut it.

  6. And you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That slashdot post could very well be your life's ultimate achievement. Savor it.

  7. The Nutty Professor?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But seriously, this guy must have hated life as an undergrad. Perhaps this is his get back at the nay-sayers who gave him so many years of ridicule... Okay, perhaps not *sigh*

  8. Star Trekkin. by RandomLinguist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me sometimes that we focus more on trying to make the 'cool' tech and gadgets from the tv shows of our childhood than making new innovations sometimes. I wonder if it actually inhibits science to try and make it fit to fiction, or whether fiction really is the best inspiration.

    On the other hand, I really, really want my own replicator.

    1. Re:Star Trekkin. by senocular · · Score: 1

      These innovations you speak of are exactly what science fiction writers have been able to conceive without the technology to reproduce it. They were unbound by technological restrictions and thereby able to innovate before it was possible to create. So ideally, we should strive to achieve what has already been conceived.

    2. Re:Star Trekkin. by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Admit it: you want to replicate 7 of 9. Right?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    3. Re:Star Trekkin. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Nah. Holodeck. Why replicate one woman when you can have any number of virtual ones?

    4. Re:Star Trekkin. by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Oh. My.

      There would be no more P2P pr0n... only source code for various types of girls.

      A whole new meaning for Open Source...

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    5. Re:Star Trekkin. by SirBruce · · Score: 1

      The problem with Holodeck porn is that, while the fantasy goes away when you "end program", all of your own -- shall we say, genetic material -- remains. And holodeck rooms are limited in dimension, so when you think you've gone up the stairs or into another room, you actually haven't. So all that -- residue -- which was held in check by forcefields all over the place will, when the program ends, finally become subject to gravity. Who do you think gets to clean up the place afterwards? Quark or some poor Engsin Redshirt?

      Bruce

    6. Re:Star Trekkin. by Limecron · · Score: 1

      Somehow I think once you've mastered the technology of projecting life-lke holograms onto force fields, making some kind of automated clean up system would be trivial.

    7. Re:Star Trekkin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, I really, really want my own replicator.

      If you're young, you may get one. Your kids will surely have one.

      Imagine a box with billions of nanorobots networked together, building things atom by atom.

      I'd say less than a hundred years.

    8. Re:Star Trekkin. by Epistax · · Score: 1

      When you get that replicator, could you make me one?

    9. Re:Star Trekkin. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I'll settle for a flying car. I want my flying car. They promised us flying cars.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:Star Trekkin. by Eil · · Score: 1

      Ideas have to come from somewhere and they usually come from the more creative element. Writers, usually.

      Watch an old original series Star Trek episode. Half or more of their technology is already in use or being developed today. (Doors opening automatically when a person approaches, personal communicators that let you talk to anyone on the planet, laser cannons, etc.) And we're not far off from a lot of TNG technology either (full-size touch-screen interfaces, complicated computer simulations, voice recognition, robots that move and act convincingly human-like).

      The point is, trying to envision the future is the only way progress can be made. If we take some far-fetched idea and set some really brilliant minds on it to evalute its practicality, we quite often find that the idea wasn't so far-fetched after all.

      That's what we call "progress."

    11. Re:Star Trekkin. by Surt · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, many people are pretty pleased with very star trek like devices. We have cell phones smaller than communicators now, and that's a good 4 centuries early I believe. I can't see anything keeping us from having the voice activated chest tag version within the next 10 years early (we almost have the voice activation part, and likewise almost have the size down), which will put us another century plus ahead of schedule.

      We have stun phasers for the military. Our computers are in some ways superior already. We have the beginnings of replicators being worked on (plastics and metal laser fabricators, atomic depositors). I can foresee existing technologies being refined into a pretty functional replicator not more than 50 years down the line.

      Transporters seem like the one area where we really don't have a good foundation. I'd guess that we'll still be moving people around at typically no more than 40mph average in 50 years, sadly.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    12. Re:Star Trekkin. by shawb · · Score: 1

      Or how about just putting on a condom?

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    13. Re:Star Trekkin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Raiker has the program already, don't rememebr the episode when they were transporting a metaform woman in stasis in an egg like field, to be given in marriage, a ferengi f*up and she wake up, after 5 minutes with her, Raiker walks out of the room telling that he will be in hollodeck 2.

      So TNG does consider some VERY PRACTICAL pr0n

  9. What about...? by nuclearwessels · · Score: 0, Troll

    When are they going to make synthawhocares?

    1. Re:What about...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I originally read that as synthawhores

  10. Yah, alcohol by lazuli42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The future of alcoholism just got brighter.

    Now if only they could get rid of the part of alcohol that makes people act like assholes.

    --

    "There's companies that are just so cool that you just can't even deal with it," - Bill Gates, about Google

    1. Re:Yah, alcohol by ToteAdler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean the person themselves? "A drunken man's words are a sober man's thoughts."

    2. Re:Yah, alcohol by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now if only they could get rid of the part of alcohol that makes people act like assholes.

      Indeed, I'm waiting for the alcohol that eliminates unpleasant side effects like; intoxication.

      As a friend of mine noted, as we watched the tables, chairs and fists flying around the bar:

      "Now there's a good idea, why don't we mix big, stupid people with alcohol?"

      Or, as an alcohol counselor friend of mine noted when I asked him why some people seemed to like getting wasted when all it does is make you feel like absolute shit:

      "Ah, well, you're not an alcoholic."

      He also noted that after 40 years in the business he could tell a lot about people by their drug of choice; and that alcohol was the drug of choice of people who were essentially unhappy and wanted to be numbed.

      There is a phrase, however, for ingesting depressants to be "happy":

      Vicious Cycle.

      KFG

    3. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm posting this anonymously, because I'm an addict.

      You have some good insights into the problems of the addict, even if you don't or can't understand what it's like to be one, as you imply.

      The underlying drive of the addict is not so much to feel good as it is to feel differently from what ever base state they are used to feeling (unhappiness). Any feeling is better than the underlying feeling of unhappiness, even total lack of feeling. (It's interesting that at the same time, many drunks tend to extreme emotions of anger or sentimentality.)Some of us have drugs of choice, such as alcohol, speed, marijuana, etc., while others of us will imbibe anything and everything they can get their hands on.

      I wonder if anyone will ever be able to create an alcohol that is safe for alcoholics to drink. Even if they can find away not to trigger the physical craving response by some subtle manipulation of the molecules, how can they remove the powerful psychological urge?

      I could ramble on, but in short, I don't think this represents any sort of cure for alcoholism. It might be a great boon for non-alcoholics to enjoy, but this won't stop the progressive spiral of destruction of a person addicted to alcohol.

      Anyway, I just thought I'd share that with you. You've always seemed like the decent sort, KFG.

    4. Re:Yah, alcohol by lightknight · · Score: 1

      "He also noted that after 40 years in the business he could tell a lot about people by their drug of choice; and that alcohol was the drug of choice of people who were essentially unhappy and wanted to be numbed."

      Just out of curiosity, what did he say about the other drugs?

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:Yah, alcohol by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is actually a substance that gets you almost the same effects without making people as violent as alc makes some.

      Unfortunately that substance is illegal in most places, the only place I know where you can legally enjoy it is the Netherlands.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Yah, alcohol by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      We used to have a place selling it openly... totally illegal, but even though it was a stones throw from the police station they only staged a raid (and even then they tended to give some warning) when some reported decided to make an issue of it.

      It was easier for them to leave it because:

      1. It massively undercut the street dealers, only sold the one thing, and sold quality.
      2. Even though it was open until late into the night, there was never once a violent incident in or around it.. in fact the crime rate fell around 20% in that area.
      3. Several of the local police shopped there.

      Eventually closed because the landlord got jittery and wanted them out. There's still one a few miles up the road though...

    7. Re:Yah, alcohol by visgoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For anyone who's a daytrip away from say, Vancouver, BC, then its also quite obtainable, and pretty much legal to consume. There's a number of "amsterdam style" cafes there that let people spark up. Not that I know this first hand, I err, heard it from a friend of a friend...

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    8. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of curiosity, what did he say about the other drugs?

      Hmmmm. Aspirin is the drug of choice for people who get a lot of headaches. Don't remember the rest.

    9. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ...almost the same effects...

      If you're not talking about weed, then what are you talking about?

      Weed doesn't have remotely close to the same effects as alcohol... you can function on weed, it's more like a background-type thing for most "addicts". Most can drive stoned w/ no problem, for instance.

      If you're talking about something else, do tell.

    10. Re:Yah, alcohol by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like the place where I ... I mean people I know, not too well, though, buy their stuff.

      I talked with a cop about it and got this answer: First of all, they only sell weed and none of the "hard" stuff. Second, people who only weed will get only weed that way, and they get OK stuff, no junk. Third, it cuts away from the street dealer's income, and those guys DO sell the bad shit. And finally, at least that way they can keep an eye on the market and make sure none of the REALLY weird shit makes it into the country.

      So far, no crack here. And I hope it stays that way.

      At least our cops realized that the "war on drugs" is a lost one. You can't control what can be grown fairly easily "at home". One of the biggest plantations I know of is right behind a military base here. Well, I wouldn't dare staging a sting there, it's well protected. :)

      They concentrate on keeping crack and the other weird shit out, and leave the weed smokers mostly in peace. Even the hardliners agree that there're more important things to do than hunt down pot smokers.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Funny quote, but totally meaningless bullshit. It doesn't hold up to reality, where impaired thought alters normal behaviours and thoughts.

      Unless of course you think all drugs reveal the "true" inner person. So someone taking PCP was always secretly angry, but if they took ecstasy instead they were secretly in love with EVERYBODY, etc.

      Drugs alter behaviour. They don't reveal some kind of spiritual or mental truth. That sort of popstore psychology crap only works on Dr. Phil.

    12. Re:Yah, alcohol by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      Yes, clearly everyone drinks because they enjoy feeling like "shit".

      er, no.

      Many people do enjoy drinking, getting drunk, getting wasted, and the lessened inhibitions, and the funny crazy things people do, and the stories you tell afterwards. And they also enjoy drinking fine drinks that have interesting stories or marketing or history.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    13. Re:Yah, alcohol by m50d · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Unless of course you think all drugs reveal the "true" inner person. So someone taking PCP was always secretly angry, but if they took ecstasy instead they were secretly in love with EVERYBODY, etc.

      No, but a major effect of alcohol is disinhibition. That's what it does, heck, that's a major reason for drinking it ("dutch courage" and all that"). So it makes people more prone to say what they think.

      --
      I am trolling
    14. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most can drive stoned w/ no problem, for instance.

      If you are one of those "most", I strongly suggest you not to do it. Weed impairs driving ability just like alc (slower reflexes, worse muscle coordination etc) and the time dilation effect actually makes weed worse. The only thing in favor of weed is, unlike under influence of alcohol, you *can* tell how much you are imparied and drive accordingly.

      You might be an exceptional one, such that weed doesn't impair your driving skills, but you might also be an exception of another kind, one simply does miss negative influence of weed on their own skills, just like with alcohol. You can't really know which type you are so just don't drive stoned, unless absolutely necessary. If it is absolutely necessary, drive knowing that you are impaired.

    15. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I like your comment, so I'll post my story. I've suffered from social anxiety since I was 15 or so and, like most people with this problem, quickly found that alcohol kicked the anxiety away. Being aware of the potential problem I could get into if I started drinking regularly I did some research, and found what at the moment looked like a panacea: GHB. No hangover and presumably no addiction. Little did I know that 2 years down the road of using it daily I'd face a living hell trying to quit. Not so much the psychological aspect (it had long stopped being enjoyable) but the physical dependency. I made it and had to spend 2 years with psychotherapy to learn how to live with anxiety. The anxiety is no longer a problem and I can lead an almost normal life now. I live on my own and have a good paying work. I've never had a date though and, being 30 already, have mostly given up. To get to the point, not being to function with the aid of a drug is a situation people who don't need it can't imagine.

      I want to wish you good luck in kicking alcohol. Things like having a pet and listening to music helped me a lot.

    16. Re:Yah, alcohol by nineoneone · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'll drink to that!

      --
      sig under development
    17. Re:Yah, alcohol by Shivetya · · Score: 1

      To expand on your point.

      My friend abuses alcohol. She excuses anything she does that may offend or be over the line as "that was happy hour and it doesn't count". As she lost her husband to alcholism it is even more of a tradegy. Her family and those she frequents with all excuse themselves from responsbility. Multiple affairs, abuse, endangerment of the children, and other activities are all part of the game.

      I do believe that alcohol does remove the inhibitions that many people do have. In my friend's case it brings out some of the things she would only tell closest friends. But it also a personal hell that she falls into because staying there is much easier than facing the reality of life.

      Frankly I would prefer to see something replace it that has no long term effect, a short buzz without the impairment or physical damage. By short term I mean its gone in less than 30 minutes or can be neutralized with another substance.

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    18. Re:Yah, alcohol by bnoblet · · Score: 1

      Err I'm sorry I can't let that pass. You were worried about the potential problems of drinking regularly, so you did some research and came to the conclusion that GHB would be a better option? Where did you do your research?! However well done for kicking it and getting past the anxiety problem too.

    19. Re:Yah, alcohol by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many people do enjoy drinking, getting drunk, getting wasted

      Noooooooooooo! Say it isn't so.

      Perhaps you missed my point, in reaction to the blurb, that some people do not. We get all of the unpleasant side effects of inebriation, but never get any sort of "buzz" or "high" or anything that could be construed as desireable at all.

      . . .the funny crazy things people do, and the stories you tell afterwards.

      I'm afraid, however, they are only funny to other people who enjoy getting drunk. To the rest of us you simply appear to be gloating over having been an asshole.

      I'm not saying that as any moralistic sort of thing, just observing the fact.

      KFG

    20. Re:Yah, alcohol by kfg · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I just thought I'd share that with you. You've always seemed like the decent sort, KFG.

      Thank you. Really.

      KFG

    21. Re:Yah, alcohol by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ok, then let's say the effect said substance has on me. Alc as well as weed makes me "slower". Can't think as fast, can't code as well and I'm generally less useful but a lot more in balance with the universe.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Yah, alcohol by redhatkingpin · · Score: 1

      I remember hearing a while back about a new prescription medication for alcoholics. It was supposed to block the active sites in the brain that the alcohol binds to, therefore preventing it from having any effect. If I remember correctly, the idea is that patients would give up on alcohol as it wouldn't do anything to them. Of course, it might also just cause them to switch to another drug if they are not at a point where they have the strength necessary to overcome their addiction.

      A doctor would definitely know more than myself on that...

    23. Re:Yah, alcohol by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, but a major effect of alcohol is disinhibition. That's what it does, heck, that's a major reason for drinking it ("dutch courage" and all that"). So it makes people more prone to say what they think.

      And thus we have -- "Alcohol, the cause of and the solution to all of life's problems."

    24. Re:Yah, alcohol by lubricated · · Score: 1

      and if you are a generally non-inhibited person, it still makes you stupid. I've certainly had thoughts when drunk that I would never have sober.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    25. Re:Yah, alcohol by Catskul · · Score: 1

      Yes.... ...of course... ...makse you "in balance" with the universe...

      Are you high right now ?

      --

      Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
    26. Re:Yah, alcohol by kfg · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, what did he say about the other drugs?

      I'm afraid they didn't really come up as we were talking strictly about alcohol at the time, because there was a proximate cause for that conversation. I'll have to pose that question to him at some point.

      He did tell me a story once about the guy who Rambo is based on. A friend of my friend through his work with Vietnam veterans. Seen a picture of him getting some award or other from President Jimmy Carter. Dweeby little guy in a suit and glasses. Looks like an accountant who couldn't bench press more than 50 lbs. Go figure.

      So, this guy is tracking down MIA/POWs in Laos, going in and getting them out with small commando raids. He's the only westerner on his team, all the rest are native Laotians. He's noted that they all wear little carved Buddhas around their necks; and just before they jump, pop the Buddhas into their mouths. After a few actions the Laotians decide he's ok and give him a Buddha. At the next jump he's watching the Laotians all pop the Buddhas into their mouths just as they go out the door, so he figures if he's going "be one of the guys" he'd better follow suit. Buddha in mouth, then out the door.

      The Buddhas turn out to have been carved out of opium.

      Opium is the "correct" drug to take the edge off of anxiety and feel good as an occassional use thing.

      Heroin is the opiate of choice of whiney upperclass "poets" and "philosophers" who don't actually have anything to whine about. It's also the drug of choice of my friend, despite being from a small lumber industry town. Serving in 'Nam introduced him to it.

      He did end up majoring in philosophy.

      If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it.

      And here's my problem; my "drug" of choice is giggling.

      KFG

    27. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Synthahol won't solve the problem because the problem isn't alcohol. The cause is something else and alcohol is how an alcoholic deals with it - if you take away the alcohol without dealing with the root cause, and they will just find some other way of escape.

      I've known four alcoholics - two of them are friends, one of them was my father and the other was me. I drank because I was bored or because I depressed or because I couldn't deal with a situation. I never really liked the taste all that much, I just used alcohol because it was a socially acceptable and legal way to escape.

      I had to stop drinking a decade ago because of a medication that I have to take, but the cause is still there. I just don't deal with it by drinking.

    28. Re:Yah, alcohol by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Unless of course you think all drugs reveal the "true" inner person. So someone taking PCP was always secretly angry, but if they took ecstasy instead they were secretly in love with EVERYBODY, etc.

      A drug is just a chemical. The response it causes comes from its interaction with your brain. All the specific characteristics of a drug response come from the organization of your brain. There's nothing inherently intoxicating about alcohol, except that our receptors happen to respond to it.

      So for any drug effect, what's happening is ultimately coming from inside you. How relevant it is to your sober state is up for you to decide. But it's important to understand that there's not one definitive normal state of consciousness. Our brains are awash in a sea of mind altering chemicals, neurotransmitters. Our states of consciousness are constantly changing. From sleep to wake, from joy to anger, from alpha states to beta states, etc.

      So there is no single normative state of consciousness. It's all just the balance of neurotransmitters acting on the scaffolding of your nervous system. When you take a drug you alter that balance, but its on the same scaffolding. So what you learn while on a drug can definately be relevant to understanding your normal state of mind.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    29. Re:Yah, alcohol by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The best evidence we have suggests that marijuana is not a big deal when driving. It does affect performance, but not nearly to the level that alcohol or many OTC medications do. Even at high doses it's not as impairing as a .08 BAC. Also, marijuana is underrepresented in accident statistics. That is, per person those who test positive for THC are less likely to get into accidents than drug-free drivers. That doesn't mean that THC makes you drive safer, just that as a group stoners are safer drivers.

      Really, the biggest altered state of consciousness to watch out for is fatigue. Use the fucking rest stops people, take a nap!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    30. Re:Yah, alcohol by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I think I know what you're talking about, but I'm too sleepy to look it up right now. If it's the same drug, it's been used to help kick heroin. It basically blocks the sites, much as a histamine blocker can block the sites that histamines go to that trigger allergic symptoms.

      This is great for the addicts/alcoholics that really do want to quit, but can't put even a few days sober together because the cravings get too bad or the withdrawal symptoms overwhelm them.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    31. Re:Yah, alcohol by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Actually that is sort of a recent development.

      Not so long ago, in the upper crust it was considered bad form to drink and behave badly when you were drunk. Given those social constraints, people behaved differently. Also, I think there was a study of college students who got "drunk" when told they were drinking alcoholic beverages but the drinks really were not.

      So the question is.. how would people behave if they were drunk but didn't know they were drunk?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    32. Re:Yah, alcohol by lightknight · · Score: 1

      "Opium is the "correct" drug to take the edge off of anxiety and feel good as an occassional use thing."

      Haha, nice. I asked because I've had a long running argument with my friends over which drugs work best to relieve anxiety/stress/etc. They backed weed, I backed opiates (OxyContin > major surgeries). Nice to know it is the correct drug.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    33. Re:Yah, alcohol by m50d · · Score: 1
      Not so long ago, in the upper crust it was considered bad form to drink and behave badly when you were drunk. Given those social constraints, people behaved differently. Also, I think there was a study of college students who got "drunk" when told they were drinking alcoholic beverages but the drinks really were not.

      Oh yes, I think part of the disinhibition stems from the fact that such behaviour is expected. But by no means all - even if you're doing your best to avoid it, the effect happens anyway, and tales of drunken behaviour exist from before it was expected.

      So the question is.. how would people behave if they were drunk but didn't know they were drunk?

      I predict the effect would be weaker but still there.

      --
      I am trolling
    34. Re:Yah, alcohol by m50d · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I'm not sure I've ever experienced that. Can you give an example of what you mean?

      --
      I am trolling
    35. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Drinking (or whatever) to escape is not what drives addicts, as you imply. It might underly abuse, and in turn might lead to addiction (i.e. it's a risk factor), but it's not typically described as the causative agent. Contrast meth with pot, for example. Both provide an escape, but crystal meth is terribly addictive and destructive, while smoking a fatty is not. The addictive effect seems more closely associated with a drug's downside than with it's upside. When you stop using your nasal spray, and your nose plugs up like it's full of glue, and you know a little whif will give you relief, it's hard to resist the temptation. You want to cure the headache and depression associated with your hangover? A little hair of the dog that bit you will do the trick quite nicely. What happens when the pot wears off? You might feel sleepy. Big whoop. That's not something most people feel they must urgently address with another toke.

      The problem with correlating addiction with escapism is that a lot of us think a little escapism isn't such a bad thing. But it's a problem when society paints all forms of escapism with the same broad brush and villifies the perpetrators. So we now have 'video game addicts', etc. Absolutely ridiculous, but also a stereotype that is firmly entrenched in our Dr. Phil pop culture.

      If you are trying to escape depression, as you say, just consider that perhaps your drug of choice is what's causing the depression. The fact that you think of it as a way to escape depression makes me think you might be caught in a circle of addiction that's bigger than you realize.

      A little escape from life is one thing. Using a drug to escape from the drug's own downside consequences is quite another.

    36. Re:Yah, alcohol by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that I get sort of a "contact drunk." When I am around people who are three sheets to the wind, I tend to be more relaxed and uninhibited as well, even to the point of reduced balance and slurring -- even if I didn't have a thing to drink!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    37. Re:Yah, alcohol by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Frankly I would prefer to see something replace it that has no long term effect, a short buzz without the impairment or physical damage. By short term I mean its gone in less than 30 minutes or can be neutralized with another substance."

      It's called marijuana. From what I understand, Twinkies and Doritos can cancel out its effects after only a short while. I would gladly push for a swap in the legal status of these two drugs.

    38. Re:Yah, alcohol by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      So it makes people more prone to say what they think.

      It also makes people prone to say what they don't think. Ever had a blackout?

      However, I disagree with the OP that all drugs distort personality. Just depressants, because of the way they work - they tear up neural connections, producing unpredictable results. Alcohol, ketamine, pcp, cough syrup...nasty stuff, all of it. At least with alcohol there is some genetic adaptation, which goes a long way towards making it safer.

    39. Re:Yah, alcohol by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      It's all just the balance of neurotransmitters acting on the scaffolding of your nervous system. When you take a drug you alter that balance, but its on the same scaffolding.

      Some drugs *destroy* the scaffolding of your nervous system. Take those drugs out of the equation and I agree with you that an altered state can be relevant to waking life.

    40. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the common things I've heard about the difference between driving high and driving drunk is that driving drunk makes a person extremely reckless: speeding, blowing stop lights because they don't want to wait, and just plain acting out. Marijuana makes one a little bit paranoid, so a high driver will be more likely to follow laws in an attempt to not draw attention from the police.

    41. Re:Yah, alcohol by kfg · · Score: 1

      They backed weed

      There's no arguing with a dedicated weed freak. They are, essentially, religious nutters.

      Note, however, that I said ocassional use. The downside of opium is how quickly a physical tolerance builds up, requireing ever higher doses to get the same affect. Not for daily use.

      I've always found "fucking relaxing" to be the best long term mental health strategy, but maybe that's just me. An easy bike ride and the Bach D minor Partita can work wonders along this line.

      KFG

    42. Re:Yah, alcohol by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Instead of self-medicating have you considered letting a professional do it? If social anxiety has seriously impacted your quality of life maybe you should consider taking something for it.

    43. Re:Yah, alcohol by runderwo · · Score: 1

      Two decades of research has shown that marijuana intoxication has a negligible negative effect on driving performance, and may even promote safe driving.Though it is an extremely good idea, as you said, to not allow this knowledge to impart false confidence, and to NEVER drive after consuming both alcohol and marijuana (there is a multiplier effect involved).

    44. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Social Anxiety'. You're not just shy! You have a disease! You must take our drugs! Realize that you're afflicted by a disease completely made up by drug companies trying to sell you their drugs. I wonder why the big beer brewers haven't jumped on that bandwagon. I'm sure they could do a study that shows effectiveness of their product against 'social anxiety'. Maybe it's the side effects.... I think part of the problem with drug abuse in the developed world is all the pharma companies telling you that if you don't take their drugs, you won't be 'normal'.

    45. Re:Yah, alcohol by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      Intoxication's not unpleasant; overintoxication is. Intoxication is a pleasant feeling, hence the reason man has been doing it forever. And yes, one can feel pretty rotten afterwards--but one feels pretty rotten after a marathon, too. Running a marathon and getting drunk are similarly pointless--and yet many folks enjoy one or both.

    46. Re:Yah, alcohol by lightknight · · Score: 1

      "There's no arguing with a dedicated weed freak. They are, essentially, religious nutters."

      I wasn't going to say it, but absolutely. ;-)

      "Note, however, that I said ocassional use. The downside of opium is how quickly a physical tolerance builds up, requireing ever higher doses to get the same affect. Not for daily use."

      Of course.

      "I've always found "fucking relaxing" to be the best long term mental health strategy, but maybe that's just me. An easy bike ride and the Bach D minor Partita can work wonders along this line."

      And again, correct.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    47. Re:Yah, alcohol by pthisis · · Score: 1

      You want to cure the headache and depression associated with your hangover? A little hair of the dog that bit you will do the trick quite nicely.

      For 95% of the world, the absolute _last_ thing they want if they're hung over is a drink. Pretty much everyone I know who drinks to the point of getting a bad hangover spends the next day drinking water, popping advil, and swearing to god that they'll never drink again.

      It's not until the hangover wears off at 5:00pm that they decide to pop off down to the bar for a couple beers.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    48. Re:Yah, alcohol by kfg · · Score: 1

      Intoxication's not unpleasant. . .

      To people who do not find it unpleasant.

      Intoxication is a pleasant feeling

      To people who find it a pleasant feeling. Did you understand my post at all? I'm not talking about being drunk either, only so little under the influence that you've metabolized it all an hour or two later. It simply feels like shit. Nasty shit. Hangovers afterward have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

      Your milage may vary, but has nothing to do with mine. Don't be a "What's the matter, don't you want to have any fuuuuuuuuuun?" sort of drunk.

      Only other drunks like them.

      People can react very differently to drugs. They used to give Dexies to my brother as a seditive and Ritalin is a synthetic caffine.

      Get it?

      KFG

    49. Re:Yah, alcohol by pthisis · · Score: 1

      There is actually a substance that gets you almost the same effects without making people as violent as alc makes some.

      It's been years since I blazed up, but I never enjoyed it when I did. Just made it really hard to think clearly, so I was basically stupid and very slow; and being conscious of being stupid and slow, it also made me really tense. Kind of like being hammered out of my mind on booze (also not fun) but with more coordination, less awareness of time, and more self-consciousness about the situation (and less headache and more dry mouth the next day).

      It was certainly nothing like having a good buzz going after 2-3 beers, where you get relaxed but still feel mostly in control of yourself and able to think clearly.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    50. Re: Yah, alcohol by gidds · · Score: 1
      some people do not. We get all of the unpleasant side effects of inebriation, but never get any sort of "buzz" or "high" or anything that could be construed as desireable at all.

      You don't know how relieved I am to see you write that, after all these years thinking it was just me!

      It took a good long while for me to step back and realise that I just wasn't getting anything out of it: I don't really like the taste of most alcoholic drinks, and they don't make me feel good (whether I drank a little or a lot, regularly or not) -- I was only drinking because everyone else was and because I expected to feel good.

      These days I generally don't bother; it's cheaper, I can drive, and it doesn't worry me when some people think I'm TT. Very liberating, actually.

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    51. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you better calm down.

      You might end up with 'restless leg syndrome'.

      Yes, 'RLS' is a medically recognised condition and do I ever feel glad that they have finally come up with a cure.

      Those poor people!

    52. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For 95% of the world, the absolute _last_ thing they want if they're hung over is a drink.

      True. That's a good thing. Because the reinforcement bit doesn't really kick in until you make the association between the drug and the relief. I was going to say that the next time you have a wicked hangover you should slug a really good Bloody Mary. But you know what, in the long run, you're probably better off if you don't.

  11. Oh no... by likwidoxigen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Speaking from the perspective of an American College student whom is reasonabally responsible. DO NOT REMOVE THE HANGOVER! I can only imagine how little work I would get done, and how many more students would fail out of college. There needs to be a bit of punishment, or else mass irresponisbilty would follow.

    --
    Walk with me or walk behind.
    1. Re:Oh no... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Failing college is the punishment. If you're stupid enough to drink to such excess after learning your own limits you probably don't belong there anyway.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:Oh no... by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      It's likely with the complexity and the number of drugs required to pull off this "synthetic alcohol", that not only would it be outside of the budget of most college students, it would probably also be only available by prescription only, and only for use for extreme alcholics who cannot function in ordinary life (since as any addict can tell you, quitting cold turkey is tough, and has a high failure rate).

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    3. Re:Oh no... by gbobeck · · Score: 1

      Being a college student myself, I can speculate that one of the following will occur: (1) College students would find a way to make it in Chem lab. (2) If it was available by perscription only, there would be a person who would act as a source on campus just for the sheer profit of it.

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    4. Re:Oh no... by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      "(1) College students would find a way to make it in Chem lab. "

      Considering it will require at least 3 named psycho-active drugs, in delicate balance, I doubt it's going to be easy for a student, or a drug company, to just cook up in a lab.

      (2) If it was available by perscription only, there would be a person who would act as a source on campus just for the sheer profit of it.

      Sure thing, but as soon as one of them dies a horrible death from the side effects of the medicines involved, hopefully they'll learn their lesson and switch back to the sub-$100 dollar, relatively safer version of alcohol readily available on the market, and much easier to obtain (and make in a chem-lab, or purchase from a chemical supplier, or make yourself with yeast.. you get the idea).

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    5. Re:Oh no... by hclyff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe it's just me, but when I'm drinking I never think about hangover until I get it. As long as I'm not in that cursed 'am I dead yet?' stage known as hangover, it's just some mildly unpleasant thing I know I will have to go through at some point later.

      But anyway, if hangover keeps you from drinking, good for you!

    6. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you can quite heroin cold turkey quitting alcohol that way is dangerous and can kill you if you've been a heavy drinker for years. Yes, it's very sad that such a toxic drug is sold legally.

    7. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as I'm not in that cursed 'am I dead yet?' stage known as hangover, it's just some mildly unpleasant thing

      Isn't that a contradiction?

    8. Re:Oh no... by RobbieGee · · Score: 1

      I've been to college and I've been drunk almost senseless, it's part of finding your limits. I have actually never had a hangover (believe it or not), but I still only drink once in a while. This is part of being responsible...

      --
      If you get this, we're 10 of a kind.
    9. Re:Oh no... by Sky+Cry · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the DO NOT NERF posts you see on MMORPG forums. ;)

    10. Re:Oh no... by Siffy · · Score: 1

      when I'm drinking I never think about hangover

      ...Nevermind, I was just gonna make one of those "duh" statements. :)

    11. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "who," not "whom," in this case.

    12. Re:Oh no... by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      That's why you should always homebrew your own. Friends did this, and managed to make a beer that had a decent taste while being consumed, but in about 10 minutes, you would start to fill billious and get a splitting headache. It was the perfect deterrent, Sober to Hangover without ever passing through Drunk. Kind of like Iron City Light, but quicker and with less water retention.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    13. Re:Oh no... by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      If you're stupid enough to drink to such excess after learning your own limits you probably don't belong there anyway.

      I was stupid enough to drink to such excess without learning my own limits, and after 2 years of hospitalization and learning how to deal with my mental illness, I was able to graduate with honors, and have professors say that "I could do anything" and one 20+ year professor at the school said that I was the brightest student he ever had. I still speak to these professors 10+ years after graduating, and do quite well.

      One of these days, I'll be smart enough to learn my own limits with respect to alcohol. At my current rate, it will not be until another 25 or so years until my liver quits. Apparently, I still have a few brain cells left.

    14. Re:Oh no... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Sober to Hangover without ever passing through Drunk.

      And as Chief Engineer Scott would no doubt remark: "Are ye daft, laddie? What would be the point of thot?"

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    15. Re:Oh no... by Mignon · · Score: 1
      Considering it will require at least 3 named psycho-active drugs, in delicate balance, I doubt it's going to be easy for a student, or a drug company, to just cook up in a lab.

      It wasn't easy, but I have figured out how to synthesize this compound. There's just one small problem left - it's only soluble in alcohol.

    16. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DO NOT REMOVE THE HANGOVER! I can only imagine how little work I would get done, and how many more students would fail out of college. There needs to be a bit of punishment, or else mass irresponisbilty would follow.

      First off, I almost never get hangovers since I gave up cigarettes. About the time I get hung over is when I'm drinking in a smoky bar, and I don't have to be very drunk under those circumstances.

      OTOH If I'm drinking in a cleaner bar or at home, I can be well past the "don't drive" and even into the "can't walk" stage without a hangover.

      Secondly, the hangover is what will get you in trouble, not the drunk. The hangover will make you at least inittentive in class, if you even show up. This stuff in TFA has an antidote; you could get trashed early in the evening, take the antidote, and have a normal, restful sleep waking alert and ready for class.

    17. Re:Oh no... by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      As sombody once pointed out, "if the hangover only preceeded the intoxication, alcoholism would be considered a virtue"

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    18. Re:Oh no... by 01101101 · · Score: 1
      I've been to college and I've been drunk almost senseless, it's part of finding your limits. I have actually never had a hangover (believe it or not), but I still only drink once in a while. This is part of being responsible...

      I can believe you haven't had a hangover. In college I could drink all night, sleep a couple hours then go to an 8 o'clock class without problems. It wasn't until years later than I began to get hangovers if I had one too many. Not even just from drinking to oblivion, just one too many. Its good to know your limits, but keep in mind your limits and the effects you feel might change throughout your life.

    19. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, dying of alcohol poisoning is all about "finding your limits" in college. And we wonder why American isn't competitive in the world industry market these days...

  12. Re:Great... by r00zky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry if I seem a tad against the idea... but I think alchohol is a waste of time and money that could better be used to improve oneself and the society in which they live.

    The same could be said about Slashdot but you still post in here.

    --
    I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
  13. It'll never happen... by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's hard enough to get the much less addictive and less harmfull drugs like Marijuana that people have used for thousands of years to be legal. Making some new alcohol like substance legal as a recreational drug would be near impossible.

    Really, if alcohol didn't have the added guise of also being a food, and being impossibly easy to create on your own it'd be illegal now.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:It'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Alcohol *is* easily produced synthetically - Ethanol. Simply add it to your favorite soft drink (diet if you want something close to completely synthetic) to create a completely synthetic alcoholic beverage.

    2. Re:It'll never happen... by ciroknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh Please, the inverse is true; the Drug Companies are some of the largest politically charged industries in current existance, and as a result, a lot of drugs that shouldn't be on the market get there (COX2 Inhibiting NSAIDs are virtually unilaterally linked to heart problems, and yet many are still on the market, and still cost a fortune).

      On the other hand, pot is cheap, it's easily home grown, and some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes. And since there really isn't a political lobbying force trying to get this "much needed pharmacutical" on the market legally... Hell, even with some doctors pushing its obvious medical uses, it's still been a tough sell.

      Think about Opiods. Then think about how much money has been made using synthetic opiates. The fact remains, the market for synthetic drugs is much greater than the market for naturally occuring drugs due to the corporate and political climates in this country, and because it's easy to convince people with vague symptoms that they have some disease and need a medicine to treat it.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    3. Re:It'll never happen... by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't know what the point that you're trying to make is. I largely agree with the facts you've presented, but what is it you're using them as evidence for?

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:It'll never happen... by Vengeance · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well that, and when we TRIED to make it illegal we discovered a fun new way to give organized crime lots of money and power. Really, the US is STILL recovering from the effects of alcohol prohibition. The do-gooders *really* screwed the pooch on that one, and created far more problems than they solved. More drinking, more crime, more violence, and still all the nasty bathtub gin they could stomach.

      --
      It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    5. Re:It'll never happen... by jgilbert · · Score: 1

      don't worry. the drug companies have fixed the short comings of marijuana with a synthetic.

    6. Re:It'll never happen... by hitmark · · Score: 1

      and this makes one ask, what would happen if some of the lower grade drugs where made legal?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    7. Re:It'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To say that a drug like alcohol is only acceptable because it reached mass use before the government stepped is an oversimplification because it begs the question of why the government did not step in earlier.

      While it's true that plants with active drug components that could conceivably be used in more than one form and which lack addictive properties such as marijuana have been effectively outlawed by the government, there are also plants such as tea or coffee which contain caffeine that have not.

      Similarly, there is also a history of governments going more than one way at different times on "hard" drugs such as opium, heroin and cocaine while flat out legalizing "harmful substances" such as tobacco, which has high dependancy, little or no medicinal value and, after the first pack is gone, almost no intoxicating effects.

      The pharmaceuticals industry is proof that influencing government to change its attitude towards new drugs is not only not impossible it's highly profitable, just as superbowl beer commercials and Zima are proof that keeping people interested in old drugs costs a lot of money.

    8. Re:It'll never happen... by Siffy · · Score: 5, Funny

      the US is STILL recovering from the effects of alcohol prohibition

      I don't think we're ever gonna be able to get rid of NASCAR now.

    9. Re:It'll never happen... by Siffy · · Score: 1

      If you have enough money you can make almost anything legal/law.

      "the market for synthetic drugs is much greater than the market for naturally occuring drugs due to the corporate and political climates in this country"

      I'd say that was the GP's main point.

    10. Re:It'll never happen... by spencerogden · · Score: 1

      An oversimplification? Maybe, but Alchohol has been in use for thousands of years, would you really expect any new government to move against it?

    11. Re:It'll never happen... by maggard · · Score: 0, Troll
      Do you honestly think that pot you buy today is directly comparable to "Marijuana that people have used for thousands of years"?

      No darling, it's an order of magnitude 'stronger' (higher THC) then a generation ago. That would be mid-1980s. That pot was itself an order of magnitude 'stronger' then a generation before.

      With that in mind do you think comparing what is on the market today with that of 40 years ago is particularly accurate? Wouldn't you be just a bit concerned about any neuropharmacological agent that was delivered in a random dose, from implicitly suspect sources, that had been bred up so quickly with such little good research?

      What you put into your body is your concern, but keep in mind what you're playing with is not your grandparent's, or even your parent's, pot.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    12. Re:It'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's probably entirely pointless to debate this here, but what the hell. I'm bored.

      No darling, it's an order of magnitude 'stronger' (higher THC) then a generation ago.

      False. There is no proof that marijuana on the market today is, on average, stronger than that in the mid or early 80's, or even 70's/60's. You're buying the B.S. that the U.S. Gov'ts failing drug czar's office wants you to buy. If you look at the figures they use to try and promote this myth, you will realize a few things. First of all, the method used to determine the concentration of THC way-back-when was inconsistent, it was not always used on fresh stashes, but rather very stale stashes (THC breaks down over time) and even on feral hemp, which containts hardly any THC. So on average, they claim that marijuana of the past had less than 1% THC content. There's a problem with this though. You can't get stoned on 1% or less THC. You're brain doesn't notice it. So either the hippies of the past were hallucinating the effects of marijuana (which I wouldn't entirely rule out considering the high use of acid...), or else, you got it, there was more THC in marijuana back then than the officials want you to think there was.

      Second of all, there are anectdotal researches that show that with older age, lower doses of THC have higher effects on the brain. That is one reason why people that were hippies back in the 60's find todays marijuana to be stronger. It's not really stronger, they're just getting a much better ROI thanks to their aging.

      And finally, lets just pretend for a moment that marijuana IS much stronger today. Say, 10 times stronger. It still wouldn't matter. Unlike alcohol, where drunk people consume more and more and next thing you know they're wasted, marijuana does not have these effects. Users stop smoking after a certain level of intoxication is achieved. Individual users will have different requirements. Some would want to get a mild buzz, others may want to get stoned off their ass. Either way they'll stop smoking after they achieve that level. The total intake is the same. So what you may be able to say is that high THC varieties are SAFER than old, low THC varieties, as the total amount of smoke ingested is LESS.

      With that in mind do you think comparing what is on the market today with that of 40 years ago is particularly accurate?

      Again, no I wouldn't, if your comparison involves logical falacies and down right illogical thinking. The basic FUD spread by the drug czar is that:

      Today's marijuana has more THC, so it is more dangerous than previous hippy generations had it.

      The problem here is that the underlying assumption is that THC and marijuana in general is dangerous. This has not been proven. At all. Not in the slightest. There have been no fatalities from recreational use of marijuana. Smoking and driving, while undesirable, does not have the same effect as drinking and driving. Traffic accidents involving parties that were ONLY smoking pot are actually less likely than totally sober traffic accidents. Taking a sample of traffic accident fatality victims that had traces of THC in their blood (I'll skip the fact that the sampling method is inacurate), the majority of these people also had some other intoxicating agent present, alcohol being at the top of the list.

      Wouldn't you be just a bit concerned about any neuropharmacological agent that was delivered in a random dose, from implicitly suspect sources, that had been bred up so quickly with such little good research?

      There is more than enough anectdotal and scientific proof that marijuana is not dangerous. However, you have a point. Black market marijuana may not be terribly safe, due to the nature of it being entirely un-regulated in it's final sales form. There could be plenty of insecticides used on it, or, like there have been a few (very few) reports of angel dust laced marijuana. That angel dust will REALLY fuck with you.

      What you put into y

    13. Re:It'll never happen... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Those figures are disputed, as the methods for measuring potency in the 70s and 80s were not as refined as they are today.

    14. Re:It'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
      and some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes.

      ugh. I hate when people bring this one up. Yes smoking a pack or marijuana is worse than smoking a pack of cigarettes. Luckily a 'pack' of joints is an unbelievable amount of substance. Where a smoker could easily smoke a pack a day, if one smokes good pot the dosage is MUUUCH smaller. I can get quite intoxicated every night, including sharing a couple nights with my girlfriend for a week and only use 1 gram/week.

      Basically what I'm getting at, is how long does one gram of tobacco satisfy an average smoker?

    15. Re:It'll never happen... by jackbird · · Score: 1
      plants such as tea or coffee which contain caffeine that have not.

      The breakfast beverage of choice in lower-class/peasant England before the industrial revolution was beer. With the advent of the factories came the necessity of a workforce synchronized to clock time, and the morning stimulant/evening depressant convention we know and love today came into being.

    16. Re:It'll never happen... by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

      Well that, and when we TRIED to make it illegal we discovered a fun new way to give organized crime lots of money and power. Really, the US is STILL recovering from the effects of alcohol prohibition. The do-gooders *really* screwed the pooch on that one, and created far more problems than they solved. More drinking, more crime, more violence, and still all the nasty bathtub gin they could stomach.

      It's good to remember that prohibition was extremely popular at the time. It wasn't a bunch of religious wackos pushing it through - the wackos were the ones who were against it!

      Drinking was also on the decline, and had been for several years.

      It's also important to remember that low-point beer was legal at the time. Yeah, the same watered-down piss that a few states inflict upon their consituency. So, the marginal desire for hard liquor, high-point beer, and wine - that is, the desire that wasn't satisfied by "non-intoxicating" beverages such as low-point beer - was enough to create crime syndicates, encourage wide-scale criminal activity and disrespect for the law, and get people killed through adulterated goods.

      A little desire goes a long way.

      Yes, drug companies are probably behind the harassment the FDA puts any non-patent drugs through. Though in this case it's probably less monetary pressure than the dislike of "unproven" drugs. They refer to the fact that naturally-ocurring herbs and such don't have to go through the same testing regime as synthetic drugs as a "loophole" to give you an idea.

      The issue is that there are two systems: the political system and the market system. The desire for illegal drugs now (and high-point beer then - along with the atmosphere it created) is enough to create a thriving market. It is insufficient to change the political system.

      It's the difference between "supply and demand" and "public choice".

      Synthetic alcohol will probably never make a serious encounter with the public conscience (supply and demand), and will be killed politically (public choice).

    17. Re:It'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point about those measurments being disputed. Some of the tests conducted in the 70's were poorly done. They used a very limited sample set in there measurements.

      That being said I wouldn't be surprised if the potentcy has slightly improved due to advancements in technique. However, you are just falling into propaganda if you belive the story that it is completely different and a lot more dangerous than what your parents did.

    18. Re:It'll never happen... by Jtheletter · · Score: 2
      just as superbowl beer commercials and Zima are proof that keeping people interested in old drugs costs a lot of money.

      You're a bit off base with that last sentence there. You're confusing branding with the wider market of the generic product itself. Budweiser is not spending millions of dollars on advertising to keep people intersted in drinking beer, they're doing it to keep people interested in drinking Budweiser! Even if beer commercials went off the air tomorrow you wouldn't see a significant drop in the beer drinking population. It's still going to be the alcohol of choice for many people because as compared to hard alcohol it has a more pleasant taste, and is also relatively easy to produce - including in one's own home with nothing more than some clean carboys and some yeast and wort.

      The other question that is begged by the GP poster's circular argument that alcohol and ciggarettes are legal because the government never made them illegal, is why were the other substances banned in the early 20th century not also kept legal? People don't remember that in the early 1900s just about anyone could walk into the local pharmacy and pick up some cocaine or heroine. Indeed, Coca-Cola was so named for containing cocoa - a cocaine product. But the government decided these were "bad" but alcohol and tobacco were "good". There are tomes written on the how's and why's of this but a lot of it comes down to tradition, tobacco and beer had been staples for centuries - millenia in the case of beer - whereas these other drugs were somewhat newer in the states(opium doesn't fit that statement I know). There's also the potency issue - much harder to overdose on booze and tobacco as compared to stronger substances. (sure you could die from one night of drinking, but it would take you a while and your body may pass out before you can ingest too much, whereas with pure cocaine a single large dose could kill you right away)

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    19. Re:It'll never happen... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Additionally I imagine it has improved simply due to selection. You're not gonna put all this effort to grow shitty stuff (although some people still do.. who are these people?). Plus, if it was really *that* much different, you'd hear people other than propagandists saying it. It's not like the 70s were that long ago.

    20. Re:It'll never happen... by karnal · · Score: 1

      I think one of the other problems you run into with Marijuana is that the people who smoke MJ typically smoke cigarettes too.

      Of course, over time you can come around and see that smoking either can be bad for you. I'm not against the occasional smoke, but as the saying goes, all in moderation.....

      --
      Karnal
    21. Re:It'll never happen... by Random+Destruction · · Score: 1
      true, but my group of friends all smoke MJ and are against the smoking of tobacco.

      Basically we recognise the dangers of smoking, and cant figure out the benifits of smoking tobacco.

      --
      :x
    22. Re:It'll never happen... by autojive · · Score: 1

      true, but my group of friends all smoke MJ and are against the smoking of tobacco.
      Basically we recognise the dangers of smoking, and cant figure out the benifits of smoking tobacco.


      And you don't recognize the dangers of smoking marijuana and only the benefit of getting high with it?

      Smoking is smoking no matter what it is, all with the same dangers. You need to be less hypocritical.

      --
      I wish my lawn was emo, so it would cut itself.
    23. Re:It'll never happen... by zifferent · · Score: 1

      Prohibition wasn't necessarily only about getting rid of alchohol.

      There were also major women's sufferage and anti-Catholic components of the Prohibition movement.

      --
      cat sig > /dev/null
    24. Re:It'll never happen... by zifferent · · Score: 1

      Indeed, Coca-Cola was so named for containing cocoa - a cocaine product.

      I think you meant coca.

      Cocoa is processed cocao beans, and the major component of chocolate.

      The leaves of the coca plant is the major constituent of the concentrated drug cocaine.

      --
      cat sig > /dev/null
    25. Re:It'll never happen... by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      I'm quite sick of this irrelevent, and unsubstantiated claim. If it's stronger, so what? People self regulate the amount of drug they use, So people stop smoking it earlier. This kind of crap is just propadanda from the DEA.

      --
      AccountKiller
    26. Re:It'll never happen... by Jtheletter · · Score: 1

      Whoops! Slip of the keyboard, thanks for the correction though, I was definitely not referring to chocolate.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    27. Re:It'll never happen... by soupforare · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to mention a lot of weed smokers that I know use vaporizers or water pipes... One of which isn't even really smoking, there's no burning going on.

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    28. Re:It'll never happen... by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Oh Please, the inverse is true; the Drug Companies are some of the largest politically charged industries in current existance, and as a result, a lot of drugs that shouldn't be on the market get there (COX2 Inhibiting NSAIDs are virtually unilaterally linked to heart problems, and yet many are still on the market, and still cost a fortune).

      First of all, it has not yet been firmly established as a class effect. And the effect is very small such that it does not occur in people without pre-existing cardiovascular problems. Do you even know why they're on the market? My guess is no. Over-the-counter NSAIDs such as aspirin are non-selective COX1 and COX2 inhibitors, COX1 has little to do with inflammation, but is found in the lining of the stomach. Its inhibition leads to stomach problems in a significant part of the population, which is often severe enough as to stop people from taking it. Selective COX2 inhibitors eliminated this side effect while retaining similar efficacy, providing relief for those who could not tolerate the stomach problems of OTC NSAIDs. IMO, that's a VERY good reason to put a drug on the market, in light of no evidence *at the time* for increased risk of heart problems.

      On the other hand, pot is cheap, it's easily home grown, and some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes. And since there really isn't a political lobbying force trying to get this "much needed pharmacutical" on the market legally... Hell, even with some doctors pushing its obvious medical uses, it's still been a tough sell.

      And other studies have shown that overall, it does more to protect against cancer than cause it. In any case, weighing the benefits vs. the side effects is a decision for a doctor and patient to make, not for politicians to make. There are lobbying forces pushing for this, including NORML and the Drug Policy Alliance, whose lobbying activities have assisted in medical marijuana legislation in quite a few states, not just California. And it hasn't really been a tough sell to anyone but the politicians... survey after survey has shown the large majority of the population favors allowing it to be prescribed.

      Think about Opiods. Then think about how much money has been made using synthetic opiates. The fact remains, the market for synthetic drugs is much greater than the market for naturally occuring drugs due to the corporate and political climates in this country, and because it's easy to convince people with vague symptoms that they have some disease and need a medicine to treat it.

      I'll presume you meant semi-synthetic opioids, synthetics are very rarely prescribed. The only one of those that's really easily prescribed is hydrocodone. The political climate of prohibition in this country led to the DEA prosecuting doctors as conventional drug dealers for precribing what the DEA thought to be excessive or unneccessary amounts of opiates. If you require oxycodone, in doses higher than whats mixed with acetaminophen, it suddenly becomes very hard for a patient to obtain, and your suggestion that it's being pushed on people who don't need it is laughable and uninformed. And if you need a fully synthetic opiate such as fentanyl... people are sometimes travelling to a whole different state to find a doctor willing to prescribe it. As a result of this, untreated or undertreated pain is essentially epidemic in this country... and it's not going to get better thanks to prohibition; medical schools actually discourage students from even going into the field of pain management because of the legal risks.

      Next time you want to point to drugs being overprescribed when they're not really needed because of politics or sales, etc, pick a different class of drugs. Money has been made on semi-synthetic opiates because alot of people actually live in pain, yet its still severely undertreated, doctors do NOT prescribe CII narcotics to people with "vague symptoms" of "some disease", and drug companies can't advertise them either.

      You sir, are grossly uninformed.

    29. Re:It'll never happen... by karnal · · Score: 1

      Wow.. Way to harp. He / She was trying to make a point...

      Everyone I knew who was into smoking the stuff back in my college days also smoked cigarettes, which I'm sure would be 10 times worse, because you smoke much more tobacco in a given day than MJ.

      However, only smoking MJ every now and again wouldn't damage you as much as cigs every day - its the Pack-a-Day habit that will do you in, not the occasional joint.. or whatever.

      --
      Karnal
    30. Re:It'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard for me to believe bathtub gin could taste any worse than the best commercial gins. That's the likely reason for the Milk & Cheese catch phrase "Gin makes a man mean" - the shit makes jagermeister seem like pineapple juice in comparison.

    31. Re:It'll never happen... by anethema · · Score: 1

      So thats you, I know people, especially in the construction industry who can easily smoke an ounce a week.

      And dont tell me it has no long term effects, just look at a heavy smoker.

      Side effects include lazyness and stupidity.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    32. Re:It'll never happen... by runderwo · · Score: 1

      I don't suppose that hashish, a highly potent mixture of the resin glands of the plant, having been used for thousands of years would convince you that the potency alarmism is a red herring even if it were true (which it isn't)?

    33. Re:It'll never happen... by runderwo · · Score: 1
      There was also some testing done on 60's and 70's samples in the 1980's, but by then the bulk of THC in the samples had spoiled into useless CBN, rendering the results useless.

      Since the beginning of reliable testing in 1980, marijuana potency has remained fairly constant. Were marijuana an "order of magnitude" more potent today than in 1980, it would be 30% THC on average. Where can I get some?

    34. Re:It'll never happen... by runderwo · · Score: 1

      Selection doesn't necessarily increase the potency, because not everyone wants a maximally potent product. If they did, they would smoke hashish (scraped resin glands) or hash oil (THC extract). Many smokers simply enjoy smoking, and would not like to get incredibly blasted out of their minds every time they sit down for some. Breeding usually concentrates on controlling the ratio of cannabinoids in the plant in order to bring out whatever psychoactive and medical effects are preferred, and of course for other properties like growing well indoors, not stinking enough to alert neighbors, etc.

    35. Re:It'll never happen... by runderwo · · Score: 1
      some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes.
      Horseshit. What these studies have shown is that they have isolated some of the same chemicals in marijuana smoke as in tobacco smoke. Until I'm going to believe that marijuana smoking is anywhere near as harmful as smoking corporate tobacco:
      • They will have to explain away the effects of radioactive heavy metals and nitrosamines in commercial cigarettes, the former produced from cheap phosphate fertilizer and readily uptaken by the tobacco plant, and the latter produced by open-air curing of the tobacco.
      • They will have to explain why tobacco chewers get cancer.
      • They will have to explain how PACs in the concentrations and duration present in smoke (both tobacco and marijuana) supposedly cause carcinogenic mutations.
      • They will have to explain away the antioxidant and anti-tumor properties of cannabinoids.
      • They will have to explain away the apoptosis-suppressing (and thus cancer-friendly) effects of nicotine.
      • They will have to explain why they cannot unearth a single case of lung cancer or emphysema in a marijuana-ONLY smoker that has no other risk factors. Where are the bodies?
      • Speaking of emphysema, THC is an expectorant which means it aids the lungs in clearing smoke particles from the small airways. Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor, which means it does a good job of keeping smoke particles inside the small airways (and raises blood pressure). Asthmatics have successfully used sufficiently potent cannabis to ward off asthma attacks when no other option was available.
      • If you still think tobacco and marijuana smoke are the same, why in the heck does tobacco smoke stick to everything and turn it yellow?
      Some people will point to a smoker's cough as evidence that marijuana smoke is harmful. You should note that the mild bronchitis that a frequent pot smoker gets is not accompanied by coughing up blood and ceases when he quits smoking. This is a risk so small as to be vanishing, when compared to the well documented long-term and permanent risks of tobacco smoking.

      Also, nicotine in tobacco smoke raises the heart rate and blood pressure while at the same time the carbon monoxide starves it for oxygen. Marijuana smoke, while containing CO as well raises heart rate but decreases blood pressure. Even if the same amount of marijuana as tobacco was smoked, and the same amount of CO taken in over the same period of time, the vasodilating effects of THC may mitigate heart damage that would otherwise be caused by the CO. It is a good area for further research (with appropriate controls).

      If you think smoking is risky, don't smoke it. Make brownies, or use a vaporizer. But the jury is most definitely still out on this one.

    36. Re:It'll never happen... by runderwo · · Score: 1
      some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes.
      Oh, and would you look at this! Remember Donald Tashkin, the UCLA researcher whose early 90's speculation that marijuana smoking caused cancer was repeated over and over again and passed off as fact by government propagandists? Well, it looks like he thoroughly refuted his own hypothesis as of last year.
    37. Re:It'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      An ounce a week of very poor quality stuff, maybe.

      Those people you speak of choose to live the way they do, the pot doesn't make them stupid (they made themselves stupid by choosing to do nothing but smoke pot!).

      Besides, who gets more physical work done than construction workers, and they're some of the biggest consumers...

    38. Re:It'll never happen... by Random+Destruction · · Score: 1
      Obviously you misunderstood. Let me try again.

      Smoking anything is bad for you.
      If you are going to do something bad for your health (ie. drive in a car) there better be a benifit (ie. arriving at destination sooner than by horse).
      Now lets apply this to the point I was making.. Still with me?
      Smoking marijuana is bad, but the risk has been found to be minimal (but its still bad) and you get high (deemd good by the user).
      Smoking tobacco is bad, and generally much worse than Marijuana due to the amount smoked*, yet my friends and I see no upside. (looking cool? yeah right.)
      The only upside I can think of is that once youre addicted, it feels good to feed the addiction. I still choose to pass.

      Hopefully this was straightforward enough, if you really think I'm a big idiot, and smoking marijuana leads to crack and baby raping, and that is kills you slow^h^h^h instantly like so many seem to think, post back and I'll find some sources to back up what I'm saying.

      * 30 cigs/day avg according to this site. vs 1/10 each time one gets high. If you go to look up amount of MJ smoked to get high, read a drug users' site instead of a medical site. The medical marijuana provided in most locations is notoriously low quality.

      --
      :x
    39. Re:It'll never happen... by Random+Destruction · · Score: 1
      Thank you
      Its hard to find people with reasonable opinions on the subject. People generally seem to think it is some huge risk, right up there with crack or something, or think its benificial and 'heals you' or some other supid hippy bullshit.

      --
      :x
    40. Re:It'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wanna get rid of NASCAR? It's easy. Have a black guy win a race and watch those crowds vanish!

        Oh, come on, you know it's true.

    41. Re:It'll never happen... by p!ngu · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to nitpick, but marijuana isn't always smoked. You can take it orally, which neglects all the smoking related effects.

    42. Re:It'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One further addition: medical cannabis is sold in easily distinguishable forms that basically range from getting high (for depression from chronic pain) to analgesic with little psychological effect. Further, some of the effects from smoking weak grades of cannabis are caused by the proportion of carbon monoxide, benzene, etc in the partially combusted smoke. A far better technique is the Volcano http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerstudy2 .html which passes thermostatically controlled electrically heated air through a container of cannabis, in the vicinity of 470 degrees F. Approximately four to ten times more efficient in effect, and minus the toxic side effects of burning organic matter.

    43. Re:It'll never happen... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Well that, and when we TRIED to make it illegal we discovered a fun new way to give organized crime lots of money and power.

      And yet the idiots in power cannot put two and two together and see that history is clearly repeating itself with the war on (some) drugs in spite of the fact that the last couple of presidents broke the drug laws in their youth.

    44. Re:It'll never happen... by Siffy · · Score: 1

      Or let an Asian race and kill everyone. I understand my joke but not yours, so I don't know if it's true.

  14. Re:Great... by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hear that alcohol leads to close dancing and jazz music. Clearly it should be banned.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  15. My Preference... by tktk · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Nothing beats the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster.

    1. Re:My Preference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster beats YOU!

      No wait. It does that everywhere.

      Witty but useless comment defeated! Argh!

  16. synthehol by TheScorpion420 · · Score: 0

    Wasn't the real attractiveness of synthehol the fact that you could be drunk as hell and become completely sobre with just a hypospray of sorts? An interesting article here

    --
    If you pay your taxes you support terrorism!
  17. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jezz, who pissed in your cornflakes?

  18. One good reason it'll never happen... by McFadden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The authorities have already lost the plot in the war on drugs. What with meth anphetamine, ecstacy, LSD and any number of other lab created drugs out there, do you really think that any government is going to allow another synthetically produced substance that alters your mood in any way whatsoever? The moment it happens the meddlers and self-appointed moral guardians that prescribe what is and isn't good for us, would be calling for a ban.

    1. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, I'm glad those drug companies aren't making a shitton of money on drugs that we don't need like anti-psychotics and anti-depressants, because the way you make it sound, the government would _never_ let those drugs come to market.

      Oh wait, aren't those the two drugs with the highest market value outside of painkillers (opioids or NSAIDs)? Believe it or not, there is a market for this stuff, as a huge percentage of this country suffers from alcoholism, and a lot of people that are a year away from needing a liver transplant could be helped down from the habit early enough to keep them from needing invasive surgery and a lifetime of anti-rejection drugs.

      Of course, this stuff's still going to be hella expensive (due to the number of psycho-active drugs neccesary, and because of the amount of testing it will require), and doubtful the FDA would EVER consider it for OTC usage..

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    2. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by gbobeck · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ...do you really think that any government is going to allow another synthetically produced substance that alters your mood in any way whatsoever?


      Hmmm... lets see: Prozac, Ritalin, Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil, Pexeva, Zoloft, Elavil, Norpramin, Tofranil, Aventyl, Pamelor, Wellbutrin, Cymbalta, Effexor...
      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    3. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you really think that any government is going to allow another synthetically produced substance that alters your mood

      The government is already supplying a synthetically made substance that alters our mood. Why are you bringing up the Iraq war in this thread?

    4. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by Shihar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think the point is about the government being utterly against recreational drugs, no matter how benign. It is pretty damn hard to imagine anything more benign then THC (the active ingredient of marijuana), yet that is still considered to be illegal.

      As for the drugs you list, most people who have used those drugs will likely tell you that they hardly fall under the "recreational" category. My girlfriend went through half of that list trying to find something that would work for her and it was far from pleasant to watch. Zoloft in particular actually drove her insane on the first (and last) dose she took. She found the right combination eventually, but not before going through others that made her miserable, crazy, apathetic, insane, or some combination thereof. Even if the drugs do end up working, they can have some very ugly side effects.

      The government is simply against recreational drugs in any shape or form. If you can't go buy THC, it is pretty safe to say that they will never allow any sort of recreational drug.

    5. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm glad those drug companies aren't making a shitton of money on drugs that we don't need like
      > anti-psychotics and anti-depressants
      You're welcome to tell my near-suicidal father and nonfunctioning, overanxious older sister that they don't need antidepressants.

    6. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by value_added · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... lets see: Prozac, Ritalin, Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil, Pexeva, Zoloft, Elavil, Norpramin, Tofranil, Aventyl, Pamelor, Wellbutrin, Cymbalta, Effexor...

      LOL. Family hour commercials on network television.

    7. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0
      do you really think that any government is going to allow another synthetically produced substance that alters your mood in any way whatsoever?
      Allow it? I'm surprised they don't make it compulsory.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    8. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by k_187 · · Score: 1

      well, yes spending hours with family tends to cause want/need of them

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    9. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just natural selection doing it's job. Let it be.

    10. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      Most people who are suicidal or overanxious have good reason to be, and it is only the drug companies' agenda which has pushed society in the direction of "anyone who is suicidal has a mental defect and needs to spend money on drugs"

      "Differing from the accepted norm" is never equivilent to "wrong". If you want to kill yourself, we as society will encourage you not to. But, trying to alter someone's brain directly is immoral. It doesnt matter if "nothing else works". If a suicidal person can't be convinced to not kill themselves no matter how long or hard you try, maybe it's you with your "I think life is worth living no matter what anyone else says" attitude which needs to reexamine your presuppositions.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    11. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Wow, I'm glad those drug companies aren't making a shitton of money on drugs that we don't need like anti-psychotics and anti-depressants, because the way you make it sound, the government would _never_ let those drugs come to market.

      anti-depressants and anti-psychotics are the government's and pharmacy industries wet dream.

      Government subsidized research, patents ensuring a long market at a high profit, depressive and psychotic people are less likely to sue because of all of the side affects -- even death, government subsidization of patient's prescriptions, these drugs are maintenance drugs with no cure in sight, they are government controlled via federal and state laws, there is no market for them for recreational drug users. Hell, maybe they can dope up the people enough to pay taxes and get a regular job.

    12. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... lets see: Prozac, Ritalin, Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil, Pexeva, Zoloft, Elavil, Norpramin, Tofranil, Aventyl, Pamelor, Wellbutrin, Cymbalta, Effexor...

      Don't forget Teamocil, Groupug, and Bondat.

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    13. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also don't forget the latest legal-by-prescription speed: Adderall

    14. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by gbobeck · · Score: 1
      I agree, but the parent didn't specify "recreational use".

      As for the drugs you list, most people who have used those drugs will likely tell you that they hardly fall under the "recreational" category.


      I have family members and close friends who take some of those medications that were listed in my previous post. I totally understand that they are serious drugs, and can have serious effects.
      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    15. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by McFadden · · Score: 1

      Although I didn't explicitly state it, I assumed it was fairly obvious I was talking about over the counter purchase since we were talking about a comparison to a fictional beverage. But then some people need everything spelling out.

  19. It already exists by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and it's called pot.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:It already exists by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Except potheads don't get angry. Ever been tackled by a stoner?

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    2. Re:It already exists by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      Alcohol without any of the negative side effects.... wouldn't one of those be anger?

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    3. Re:It already exists by venicebeach · · Score: 1

      No....

      You're saying that pot has the same effects as alcohol but without the hangover? It seems to me the effects of these two substances are quite distinct. I'm not saying they have nothing in common, but they work on quite different systems in the brain, and it's quite easy to tell apart someone on alcohol from someone on marijuana (from a 1st or 3rd person point of view). Each of these states of consciousness are useful in their own way, but they are not the same state; one does not adequately substitute for the other.

    4. Re:It already exists by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      They're not really comparable

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    5. Re:It already exists by LS · · Score: 1

      Pot does have a hangover. Sometimes you feel fuzzy and lazy for a few days afterwards...

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    6. Re:It already exists by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      It seems to me the effects of these two substances are quite distinct. I'm not saying they have nothing in common, but they work on quite different systems in the brain, and it's quite easy to tell apart someone on alcohol from someone on marijuana (from a 1st or 3rd person point of view). Each of these states of consciousness are useful in their own way, but they are not the same state; one does not adequately substitute for the other.

      Yes, the effects are different, and the onset, duration, and after affects are entirely different. Alcohol is almost a maintenance drug. You can start at X [AP]M and maintain until you stop. Marijuana has a distinct onset, especially when smoked, a slight peak, and a trail off. If you smoke too much pot, you will not notice much more than the onset and then stay "burned out". Personally, I rather enjoy a combination of alcohol and marijuana.

    7. Re:It already exists by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      Pot releases serotonin into the brain, and also relaxes muscles.

      Alcohol releases dopamine into the brain, then begins shutting it down.

      Serotonin and dopamine are complementary opposites, like males and females, work and play, yin and yang. In other words, pot and alcohol couldn't be more different.

    8. Re:It already exists by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Serotonin and dopamine are complementary opposites, like males and females, work and play, yin and yang. In other words, pot and alcohol couldn't be more different.

      I clearly said they were both different. I also said that I like the combination of both. Mix in some dopamine enhancing tobacco...

      These are tried and true combinations. 20 to 30x the time of being introduced to market than modern medicine itself. The target population probably is 1000x fold over any FDA study on a drug.

    9. Re:It already exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, and I like mixing them too. I was trying to illustrate the fact that most drugs act on one or the other neurotransmitter. When you start thinking about drugs in terms of neurotransmitters, it just blows away the old concept of uppers and downers, which they teach in health class and is stuck in pretty much everyone's head, including mine until recently.

      It explains a lot, like why potheads hate alcohol and why college alcoholics won't try weed. It also explains why the government hates most new recreational drugs (because they are effective anti-depressants) and why people still cling to alcohol, and why chicks dig coke and mushrooms so much.

      Dopamine is a male orgasm and serotonin is a female orgasm. From there all else follows...

    10. Re:It already exists by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      dude.... it's a joke.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  20. Yeah it's called "opium"... by ROBOKATZ · · Score: 4, Interesting
    and it's illegal. Well ok, it's not at all the same type of high, but the health side effects from opium use are negligible compared to alcohol. Alcohol and tobacco are only legal because they're already legal, and there are (as already has been demonstrated) social, economic and political consequences for changing our stance on these. If they had just suddenly been introduced today, no way would you would be able to legally manufacture, sell or possess them.


    We can also thank our anti-drug culture the practice of adding things such as acetaminophen to opiates (e.g., vicodin and oxycodone) to make sure it destroys your liver if you become addicted (as a "deterrent"). Given this, I don't think the government, or whoever decides such things, would be terribly pleased with a readily available drug with the "positive" effects of alcohol and none of the negative effects. If this really shows up, don't be surprised if it is simply labelled a "designer" drug and made highly illegal.

    1. Re:Yeah it's called "opium"... by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      >Well ok, it's not at all the same type of high

      Actually opium and alcohol are the same type of high. They are both dopamine flushes. And they are basically the only safe options for a depressant effect. There are a lot of safe serotonin drugs in the world (and by safe i mean per-dose) like weed, ecstacy, cocaine, mushrooms, but very few safe depressants. Opium is extremely safe, which is why every hospital patient in America is on it. GHB would be even safer.

      >We can also thank our anti-drug culture the practice of adding things such as acetaminophen to opiates (e.g.,
      >vicodin and oxycodone) to make sure it destroys your liver if you become addicted (as a "deterrent")

      In any case, tylenol can be removed from vicodin by dissolving the pill in water, filtering out the tylenol, then boiling off the water. A *must* if you plan to smoke/snort your Vicodins.

    2. Re:Yeah it's called "opium"... by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1
      "Alcohol and tobacco are only legal because they're already legal, and there are (as already has been demonstrated) social, economic and political consequences for changing our stance on these."

      And drugs like opium, cocaine, marijuana, etc. were all "already legal". It's all in the perspective.

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
  21. Blame Nutt by protich · · Score: 1

    In the news today: April 01, 2010. Synthehol Nation: Synthehol is everywhere...thanks to Dr David Nutt. 98% of the population abuse alcohol (I meant Synthenol)...because of NO hangovers. Dr. Nutt is now working on a new product Synmetol (Meth without side effects). In other news...4 lawsuits have been filled aganist Dr. Nutt by 2 ex-Synthehol users. Seriously...the only reason I don't brink is because of hangovers.

    1. Re:Blame Nutt by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      Ins thaaa newsshhh toda...*hic*..todayyy: April 01, 2008....er summthun. Synthehol Naashion: Good druunks are stilla drunkin...thanks to Missster Nutt. 98% of...*hic*... the population isshhh drunk...passhh me a beereer (*hic*)...Wassha hangoverrr? Mishter Nutt is now working (HAH HAH) on...good....cryshtal that don breaak ur teetsss. In other newsshhh...4 lawsuits...*hic* have ...awwww who careshh...only two gweeeks still read thish and that's 'cuz they too drunk to chansh their homepagesh.

      KEEEEGGGAAAAAAARRZZZZZZZZ RULKLLLELLELELLSSSSSZZZZZZZ!!!

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  22. GHB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually there is a very good substitute for alcohol, gamma-hydroxybutyrate (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ghb/). It is toxic at high dose (and mixed with alcohol), but at normal levels it feels the same as alcohol and is much healthier and without the hangover effect...

    1. Re:GHB by fabs64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Advertising a drug like GHB as being "healthier" than alcohol at normal levels is pretty screwed up man, seeing as it's ridiculously easy to make and as a result most of the stuff that you could buy on the street is made by some skeg bastard in his garage and is contaminated with nasties.

    2. Re:GHB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beware of GHB. I was hooked on it some years ago (I suffered from social anxiety) and the withdrawal after 2 years of daily use nearly killed me. Do serious research before happily jumping on GHB. The potential for abuse is huge considering there are no side effects.

    3. Re: GHB by Otto · · Score: 1

      Advertising a drug like GHB as being "healthier" than alcohol at normal levels is pretty screwed up man, seeing as it's ridiculously easy to make and as a result most of the stuff that you could buy on the street is made by some skeg bastard in his garage and is contaminated with nasties.

      I take it you've never had moonshine.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    4. Re: GHB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about the fact that it is highly adictive

    5. Re:GHB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took 5-10 grams a day every day when it was legal. Stopped doing it with no trouble whatsoever. Your addiction was completely psychological.

      Anything that makes you feel good can be "addicting" in that way, there's no way to design that out of the equation.

    6. Re:GHB by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      GHB dissolves stryofoam.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    7. Re: GHB by uncanny · · Score: 1

      No, some of us prefer not to have intercourse with our siblings.

    8. Re:GHB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GHB dissolves stryofoam.

      No it doesn't. One of its precursors does - gamma-butyrolactone (GBL). GBL is sometimes sold as GHB since it is metabolised to GHB and thus has similar effects.

    9. Re: GHB by Otto · · Score: 1

      My point WAS that alcohol is ridiculously easy to make too, and if you get ahold of some 'shine, it's usually "contaminated with nasties" as well.

      A sort of side point was that you only tend to get 'shine in places where alcohol is illegal, like dry counties and such. Making a thing illegal is what drives the homemade crap variety of substance creation, when a thing is legal, it tends to be made by companies, in mass production facilities, and with things like quality controls in place to prevent that sort of dangerous contamination.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    10. Re: GHB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      some of us prefer not to have intercourse with our siblings
      Hey, don't nawk it til yuhv tryd it. Yer sister wuz purty hot!
  23. In the name of science by Thnikkaman · · Score: 5, Funny

    If the inventors would like to send me a few kegs, I will consume them. Purely in the name of science, of course.

  24. Cool by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

    If people are gonna use, they're gonna use. Seems like removing the hangover is enabling on one hand, but relief for those who live with grumpy hangover drinkers on the other.
        Personally, I'm waiting for phasers (replace paintball with stuns, much more fun) transporters (bank/vault walls? what?) and protoplasers (Sealing orifices shut "accidentally" - whoa.).

    --
    Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
  25. Economically feasible? by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think you would be able to organically synthesise anything and then expect to put it 5% in a aqueous solution, and STILL make it for less than $1 a bottle.

    1. Re:Economically feasible? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      I don't think you would be able to organically synthesise anything and then expect to put it 5% in a aqueous solution, and STILL make it for less than $1 a bottle.

      But in many a boardroom that is where the:

      3) ?????
      4) PROFIT!

      is brought up. #3 is de-emphasized #4 is an example of the recency affect.

  26. Not deterrents by NekoXP · · Score: 1

    They add acetaminophen and aspirin to the opiate because it increases the effect of the opiate.

    Distill out the hydrocodone from a vicodin and take it and you'll be sorely disappointed..

  27. and more ... by LarryLart · · Score: 1

    True, there is no scientific reason as why not ... perhaps just a lack of interest until now... And I am also sure they could create something to inhibit the absorption rate at a certain level to avoid the other side effect.

    Same they can do with drugs - they could create drugs with no dependency effect and sell them legally at every pharmacy. This way we can gain control on the drug usage problem and put out of business a huge criminal network.
    Well, instead they choose a simpler inefficient solution to ban ... from which the only result was an well established network of drug dealers.

  28. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kirk: Chekov, you know anything about a neutron radiation surge?
    Chekov: Only the size of my head.

  29. Sounds like GHB by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 2, Informative

    it already exists and it is illegal, ghb produces effects very similar to alcohol,
    with much smaller dosage and few side effects. it works on gaba receptors like
    alcohol does.

    1. Re:Sounds like GHB by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      And it hasn't been illegal for very long. Maybe 5 years now.

  30. fighting hangovers by Paolone · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hangovers in my experience are caused by 2 things: 1: bad alchool, since methanol really frags up your body and makes you sick, being broken up in formic acid and formaldehyde, which also makes you blind destroying your optic nerve. 2: dehydratation, since alchool, well, makes you go to the loo way too much. It's a killer when combined with dancing because you also sweat a lot. My solution? Drink good quality vodka (low methanol) mixed with soda and lemon juice (good for fighting dehydratation). Unless I mix with some strange stuff I get offered from mates the next day I'm perfectly fine for a saturday morning of coding.

    1. Re:fighting hangovers by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also when you *do* drink make sure you have a pint or two of water before going to sleep. And keep a jug of water next to your bed so if you wake up with a raging thirst at 5am you can drink and avoid the worst effects.

      Haven't had a serious hangover since my student days. I've felt like shit some days but no headache, no sickness, etc.

      The other best hangover cure is a bit more extreme - dialysis. When I was on that I could get absolute shitfaced the night before and be cured of the results completely by the wonders of modern technology..

  31. TNG 6x04 by XanC · · Score: 5, Funny

    Duh!

    1. Re:TNG 6x04 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      WOOOOP. WOOOOP. WOOOOP.


      Lonestar: What the hell was that?


      Dot: That was my virgin alarm!

  32. Legality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It always amazes me to see a group of well educated 18-45 year olds with loads of income talk about the government as if they had no control over it. Guess what, you're their target audience. You want pot to be legal? You can do it. You want synthehol? You can do it. At what point do rich white geeks stop blaming government and start changing it?

    The only thing stopping you is the belief you can't do anything about it.

  33. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I take it you never got drunk during your teens then? You've been modded flamebait but what you say is true. In Spain alcohol causes most car accidents and, sadly, there are far more bars per square Km than any other type of store. People who die in car accidents because they drank too much? Screw them, it's called natural selection, the idiots die first. This being slashdot you'd figure people would be intelligent enough to avoid a neurotoxic drug like booze altogether. Sigh.

  34. Re:Great... by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful


    So... how many people in excess of typical norms have to die before they realize this was a bad can of worms to open?

    How many people have to use alcohol responsibly before you realize that for the vast majority of people it's not "a bad can of worms to open"?

    Sorry if I seem a tad against the idea... but I think alchohol is a waste of time and money that could better be used to improve oneself and the society in which they live.

    Spoken by someone that's probbably never had a hard day and needed to relax. Do you seriously work all the time on improving yourself and society, or do you need a break now and again? Movies, television, computer games, and the internet could all be considered by some "a waste of time and money that could be better used to improve oneself". We human beings need stress reduction. Many of us choose to drink a moderate amount to do so. If alcohol doesn't do it for you, great, don't drink. But if you can't see the benefits for responsible people who use it, you're just plain blind.

    --
    AccountKiller
  35. Funny name by wolf369T · · Score: 0, Redundant
    "Professor David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Bristol in the UK
    He's Nutts...
  36. Don't panick but ... by mattcasters · · Score: 1

    it's best to avoid consuming the PGG on planets without proper revalidation facilities!

    --
    News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
    1. Re:Don't panick but ... by rspress · · Score: 2, Funny

      How come nobody mentions price when talking about the PGG or Romulain Ale. What is a better buy for my gold-pressed latinum?

    2. Re:Don't panick but ... by alva_edison · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have to compare what you're buying. Romulan Ale is illeagle, hence you almost always have to pay extra "black market" fees. On the other hand, the PGG requires water from one particular planet, so the price goes up in proportion to the distance from said planet. Then, of course there is the price difference between mixed drinks (PGG) and straight drinks (Romulan Ale). This all varies depending on which part of the Galaxy you're in.

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
  37. Re:Great... by stinerman · · Score: 1

    I agree.

    The only bad part is that when you outlaw alcohol, only outlaws will become alcoholics ... or something to that effect. ;-)

    I think drinking is one of the single stupidest things anyone could ever do. I also believe the drinking age should be lowered to 18, possibly 16. I also believe you should be able to buy crack at your local store. The problem comes when you think your beliefs regarding morality should be imposed on others.

  38. Re:Great... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    Spoken by someone that's probbably never had a hard day and needed to relax.

    Or by someone that is way too tightly wound to ever relax.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  39. Mod parent up by SnowZero · · Score: 1

    This AC comment deserves to be seen.

  40. risk of psychosis and anxiety by fantomas · · Score: 3, Funny
    wikipedia: -- "studies have shown that a risk does exist in some individuals to develop symptoms of psychosis [1] and anxiety [2]"



    Plus of course regular heavy use may bring on the more feared long term addiction to tie dyed clothing, Grateful Dead, and believing one to be living in California in the late 1960s...

    #1 Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people, by Cécile Henquet, Lydia Krabbendam, Janneke Spauwen, Charles Kaplan, Roselind Lieb, Hans-Ulrich Wittchen and Jim van Os, British Medical Journal, December 2004, Volume 330: 11

    #2 Cannabis use and mental health in young people: cohort study, by G C Patton, Carolyn Coffey, J B Carlin, Louisa Degenhardt, Micheal Lynskey and Wayne Hall, British Medical Journal, 2005, Volume 325: 1195

  41. Politics by arrrrg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (rant) Meth, tobacco, alcohol, and perhaps PCP are the worst popular drugs, in terms of bodily harm. People do fucked up things when they're addicted to heroin, etc, but the drug itself is not that bad for you. From Wikipedia: ... "Francis L. Young, an administrative law judge with the Drug Enforcement Agency, has declared that in its natural form, (cannabis) is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known." Whereas tobacco is the biggest easily preventable cause of death/bodily harm out there, with alcohol not too far behind. Its about protecting the interests of big tobacco and alcohol, not about the safety of people or even cost to society in terms of medical expenses, etc. Plus this way the politicians get to seem "pro-family" in their strong stance against "dangerous drugs". In this context, would it really be possible for some new drug to be allowed, even if it removes some of the negative consequences of alcohol (see GHB, benzodiazapenes, etc. etc.) (/rant)

    1. Re:Politics by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      PCP, Ketamine, and cough syrup are the worst in terms of personality (brain) damage. That old story about how "five doses of acid makes you insane" is probably true for PCP...I've never met anyone who took PCP in the past who is still lucid today. Benzos (xanax) and sleeping pills are also pretty bizarre.

      The others you mentioned are pretty bad for the body. It's still not clear to me though how stimulants like coke and meth (synthetic, I know) produce that "crack addict" look. But Flavor of Love sure does speak for itself.

    2. Re:Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas tobacco is the biggest easily preventable cause of death/bodily harm out there, with alcohol not too far behind.

      I think the only difference between tobacco and marijuana (in terms of health) is that tobacco is chemically addictive. Something tells me that if you were to smoke 3 packs of marijuana a day, you'd be just as likely to get lung cancer at some point as if you smoked 3 packs of tobacco products a day. The difference is that marijuana smokers aren't chemically motivated to smoke that much (though I knew people in college that would smoke as much as possible).

      Its about protecting the interests of big tobacco and alcohol, not about the safety of people or even cost to society in terms of medical expenses, etc.

      Oh please. Look, I'm very socially liberal, I support the decriminalization of all drugs (although I don't suggest using most, if any, of them), and I think smoking marijuana in moderation is totally benign. But some of the statements that come out of NORML or High Times make my eye's roll. You're suggesting that the tobacco companies which already have all the capital needed to mass produce marijuana cigarettes would be or are opposed to decriminalization? Again, a coporation is only in it for the profits, they could only sell and profit more if they could add marijuana to their product offerings.

      There's no major conspiracy going on here. The reason why tobacco and alcohol are still legal while weed isn't, is because the user base of tobacco and alcohol have always been much larger, so they simply have more political power to protect their interests. These people aren't the ones trying to keep weed illegal. Most people who want weed to remain illegal would also like to limit or prohibit alcohol and tobacco.

    3. Re:Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Since the only people who profit in any way from the drug laws are the pushers and importers, I'm wondering how much of the drug cartels' profits go to "campaign contributions?"
      </tinfoil hat>

    4. Re:Politics by deblau · · Score: 1
      Indeed. For those of you who don't know the history of marijuana scheduling, see this wikipedia article, and Justice Stevens' footnote 37 from Gonzales v. Raich:
      We acknowledge that evidence proffered by [the marijuana users] regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I. See, e.g., Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base 179 (J. Joy, S. Watson, & J. Benson eds.1999) (recognizing that "[s]cientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC [Tetrahydrocannabinol] for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation"); see also Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 640-643 (9th Cir. 2002) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (chronicling medical studies recognizing valid medical uses for marijuana and its derivatives). But the possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution. Respondents' submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress' regulatory jurisdiction.
      [Warning: the linked case is a PDF.]
      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  42. I remember this 5 years ago, any ideas? by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 0

    I remember a guy (in New Zealand) was selling CD cleaner and people were drinking it like alcohol, and claimed it had the same effect as alcohol, but without the hangover. Does anyone remember what it was? It wasn't GHB (Fantasy), and definatly not diethanol (ethylene glycol). I keep thinking it was 1,4 Dibutanol. Any ideas anyone?

    1. Re:I remember this 5 years ago, any ideas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:I remember this 5 years ago, any ideas? by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 1

      cheers mate. I was going crazy!

  43. Beg to differ... by Aphrika · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but I had lectures from him and he's really rather good and certainly knows his stuff. If you want to knock him for his name then fine.

    A psychopharmacologist is interested in why and how chemicals interact with the brain and nervous system, so it's quite within his mandate to speculate on how something like 'synthehol' should theoretically be possible. Invariably you tend to find that postgraduates in the UK have to write papers on how something is theoretically possible in order to attract funding for research.

    These papers are in the public domain, so if some Sci-Fi fan for LiveScience breaks the news with the sensationalist title "Hangover-free Buzz: Star Trek's Synthehol Now Possible" while at the same time quoting passages from the paper like "Some "partial agonists" of GABA-A receptors already exist; bretazenil and pagoclone were developed as anti-anxiety drugs. These drug molecules are instantly reversible by the flumazenil, used as an antidote to overdoses of tranquillisers.", I'd wager that you should be shooting the messenger here, not the scientist.

    1. Re:Beg to differ... by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      A psychopharmacologist is interested in why and how chemicals interact with the brain and nervous system...

      An ethnobotanist is interested in how natural plants affect people.

      A good ethnobotanist will take you places that very few pshchopharmacologists will ever get right.

    2. Re:Beg to differ... by AlterTick · · Score: 1
      An ethnobotanist is interested in how natural plants affect people. A good ethnobotanist will take you places that very few pshchopharmacologists will ever get right.

      True, but a good ethnobotanist will probably also lead to a lot more vomiting. Vomiting is, of course, a necessary part of the recreation of an authentic siberian shaman experience...

      --
      Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
    3. Re:Beg to differ... by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      True, but a good ethnobotanist will probably also lead to a lot more vomiting. Vomiting is, of course, a necessary part of the recreation of an authentic siberian shaman experience...

      Look up Daniel Siebert. He's never caused me or anyone I've known to vomit. Sure, alkaloids can cause temporary nausea and vomiting, some more than others, like peyote. Wealthy Romans had vomitoriums in their homes so they could binge and purge (there were vomitoriums in the Coliseum as well, but those were different). Yes, these were dedicated rooms to puke. They also had intense alcoholics that figured out that you could get very, very drunk off of an alcohol enema with no nausea or vomiting required. Death maybe, but no puking.

      I regularly dry heave from FDA approved drugs. I've lied in bathrooms wishing I were dead from FDA approved drugs. I've had rashes, and required hospitalization because of FDA drugs. I've had psychochemical reactions to FDA drugs. Others cause headaches and chronic diarrhea. Long term affects are pending discovery and lawsuits.

    4. Re:Beg to differ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've lied in bathrooms wishing I were dead from FDA approved drugs.

      Urinal neighbor: Don't you wish you were dead from FDA approved drugs?
      hackstraw: No. Not at all.

      Honesty is the best policy.

  44. Alchohol is a waste of time and money by palad1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The same could be said about Slashdot but you still post in here.

    Only when I'm drunk!

  45. And also how safe are synthetic "alcohol"? by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Considering how few of all the synthethic shit we are putting into our self (to cure stuff and so on) and their bi-effects, what would you rather use? The natural real thing or the synthetic version?

    Atleast our bodies know how to deal with alcohol and get it out of the system. What biological "units" have understood how to handle "synthehol"?

    1. Re:And also how safe are synthetic "alcohol"? by maggard · · Score: 1
      Gawd I hate that trite, inane, argument: "Natural is better for us".

      Why?

      Do you think most plants want all of their bits eaten? No. They employ sophisticated biochemical warfare to prevent this, it's just we've bred that out of most of our food crops, or learned to break down the nasty stuff with heat, or in some cases developed tolerances.

      Meats? Do you think we evolved to eat huge hunks of meat with the majority of our meals? No, we desire it but it isn't particularly healthy for most of us. Same for sweets, same for large quantities of simple carbs, etc.

      Heck, lead & arsenic are as "natural" as you can get, I don't recommend going around snacking on their from-Mother-Earth-goodness!

      Ask any food chemist they'll tell you they'll tell you they're more comfortable with the artificial ingredients then the 'natural' ones. Typically the artificial has had to have been tested in epidemiological studies, is of an assured quality, and typically consists of just the chemicals required. The natural ingredients are a cocktail of whatever random biological & chemical processes that begot it, is exempted from specific testing beyond obviously striking folks down, and varies by season, location, and whatever was fed into / sprayed on / absorbed into it.

      You can go on eating your twigs & leaves for medicines (for all the good they do you, St. Johns Wort none at all, Echinacia none at all, etc.), I'll take the products of a sophisticated biotechnology. It's not perfect but it has done more to save lives & improve human health then all of the "it's natural!" fuzzythink ever has.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    2. Re:And also how safe are synthetic "alcohol"? by alchemist68 · · Score: 1

      Actually, synthetic compounds not native to our bodies are broken down rather easily, metabolized, and excreted from the body. The pharmaceutical industry uses ADME (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Elimination) models every day to determine the efficacy and safety of drug compounds. If a compound stays around in the body too long and has adverse side-effects, then the compound will be no longer continue development as a active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in its current form; it is either modified, or the target protein must have an entirely new compound developed that binds at a different site.

      Cytochrome P450 (CYP450) proteins are membrane-associated heme proteins that metabolize physiologically important compounds in microorganisms, plants, and animals. Human CYP450 proteins CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4 are the major drug-metabolizing isoforms, and contribute to the oxidative metabolism of more than 90% of the drugs in current clinical use. (1) In mammalian systems, heme is predominantly synthesized in erythroid cells (~85%) with the remainder synthesized in mitochondria and the cytosol. The initial reactions for heme biosynthesis and other cyclic tetrapyrroles are common among plants, bacteria, and mammals with all of the carbon and nitrogen atoms derived from glycine and succinyl coenzyme A. (2-5)



      1. Hodgson, J. Nature Biotechnol. 2001, 19, 722-726.

      2. D. Shemin and D. Rittenberg, J. Biol. Chem., 159, 567 (1945).

      3. D. Shemin and D. Rittenberg, J. Biol. Chem., 166, 627 (1946).

      4. D. Shemin and J. Wittenberg, J. Biol. Chem., 192, 315 (1951).

      5. D. Shemin and S. Kumin, J. Biol. Chem., 198, 827 (1952).

      These are really good references to get an understanding of how iron-metallated porphyrin in the active site of an enzyme can do amazing chemistry in the body.

  46. Lemon Smackers by robolemon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Lemon Smackers! - It's like a punch in the mouth, with a lemon!

    --

    I design user interfaces for a free network management application,

  47. Feh... by mshiltonj · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Romulan Ale is for lightweights. Real men drink Klingon Blookwine.

    1. Re:Feh... by f8l_0e · · Score: 0

      Really?! Then why did the Romulan Ale mess up Worf so bad in Nemnesis?

    2. Re:Feh... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Romulan Ale is for lightweights. Real men drink Klingon Blookwine.

      No, real men drink Klingon Bloodwine. That knock you hear at your door is the Geek Police. You have failed an elementary Star Trek knowledge test and are legally required to surrender your Geek Card.

  48. Hash Brownies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have any Starfleet docs on whether or not it was permitted to replicate hash brownies?

  49. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In Spain alcohol causes most car accidents
    Even more than the fact that dagoes are terrible drivers? I don't think so.

    Though they aren't as bad as arabs or chinks.

  50. Re:Great... by rohan972 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We human beings need stress reduction. Many of us choose to drink a moderate amount to do so.

    And there are also those of us who never use it for stress reduction, but do use it to celebrate! I like a quote I heard from a pastor one day "Jesus turned water into wine, and evangelical christians have been trying to turn it back ever since"

  51. Great so.... by stunt_penguin · · Score: 2, Funny

    now we can have 'Free, as in beer' and 'Expensive, as in synthenol'.

    Synthenol Cristal? I'll take 4 cases.

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  52. GABA GABA HEY!!! /nt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  53. Re:risk of psychosis and anxiety by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Those studies were a pile of crap, none of the participants were screened for psychosis before they started smoking, which leads to the inevitable question, would someone who is bordering psychosis possibly self medicate with marijuana? Correlation != Causation.

    They're pretty much both anti MJ propaganda pulled out by people who were against the reclassification of marijuana in britain. Strange how they suddenly got done right around when the reclassification became news.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  54. ... PROFIT! by Paolone · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    1: Get hold of portable dialysis machines 2: Offer dialysis out of pubs in Glasgow on friday and saturday nights 3: PROFIT!!!

  55. How soon Brave New World is forgotten by Flying+pig · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Huxley's world is where we are going. Caste genetically determined, with low caste individuals basically living in herds so the upper castes have something to look down on, and for those who don't like it, the drug soma. Which has basically the characteristics Nutt describes.

    I'm going to say this: Nutt's drug would send civilisation down the tubes faster than you can imagine. Why? Because at the moment anybody who is at the bottom of the heap will often try to forget their misery with drugs. The drugs cause vast social damage and cost, encouraging crime. As a result, society is aware of the problems and has to take steps to address them - often unsuccessfully because neocons and "libertarians" (sociopaths) will attribute any cause to social problems other than ones that might require them to change their behavior. But even just locking up two million people costs them tax dollars.

    Now imagine a drug as described. Fine for well adjusted middle and upper class individuals. But the poor and the maltreated will take it to forget their problems, and because there won't be any resulting social costs they will just be forgotten about. Right up until the infrastructure stops working. Or the rich start dying of the diseases being spread around by the poor drug users who don't care.

    Marx described religion as the opiate of the masses, i.e. it was used to keep them quiet and obedient. This drug really would be the opiate of the masses. The problem is that most of us identify with the rulers not the masses (especially when we are young and think life is easy.) But, in reality, most of us fall into the classes decribes by Marx as the "masses." Bear that in mind.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:How soon Brave New World is forgotten by spencerogden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's right, use upper and middle class citizen's are mature enough to handle recreational drugs. But those on the bottom, they are helpless, we need to protect them. Please. Drugs and addiction effect everyone regardless of class, but they are still a matter of personal choice.

    2. Re:How soon Brave New World is forgotten by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Informative

      You touch on Brand New World but I want to make it a bit obvious: in that book, Huxely describes soma, which is a bit like alcohol but without the hang-over (therefore pre-dating Synthehol by decades). And although I don't know anything about Star Trek, in Huxley's book drinking soma is usually accompanied by orgies. So there's that.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    3. Re:How soon Brave New World is forgotten by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      Having just read Brave New World I feel that the American society is heading that direction. I feel you simplified the caste description however. Huxley describes a few times how the caste system came to be, but the gist is that humans (in his world) are bred to their position. While they get a ration of Soma, mainly they are conditioned to accept their position in society. During the gestastion period the embryos are subjected to stimulus that will better adapt them to the part they will play when born. After birth they are continually emmersed in teaching and phyco-babble that re-enforces their future role in society. While the lower castes Soma intake is regulated, I found it interesting that the higher castes A A+ were more prone to abuse.

      In Huxley's world, humankind had finally reached a balance (good or bad depending on how you look at it) where all but a very few were accepting of their life because that was all they knew. Lower people did not want to rule, rulers did not want to work. If I was to extend that world into the future I would see a slow decline in mankind to possible extinction. If randomness and natural selection are bred out then when a outside force (a meteor for example) comes along the masses will be wiped out, the rulers will not have the ability to perform the tasks needed to keep the society alive. I think back to Logan's Run; at the end of the movie all these beautiful people left the city, but what I thought was "What will they do now?" Die mostly, because they have no idea how to survive in a harsh world.

      Anyway, it was interesting to see someone bring up Huxley in this context.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    4. Re:How soon Brave New World is forgotten by gboss · · Score: 1

      Now, I must admit that this idea is not my own but I read it somewhere recently. I cannot remember exactly where I read it but I feel I must have this as a disclaimer.

      An interesting theory about the (in)famous Marx quote "religion is the opiate of the masses": when Marx wrote that, opiates did not have the same stigma about them as they do now. They were the most effective pain relievers available at the time. So, surely Marx could have been issuing a more neutral statement that, for many people, religion is the most effective way to cure the pain of daily existance.

      Regardless, the poor of the world are not the ones causing the problems for everyone else because of their drug addictions, as your post states. Any human can fall victim to addiction and many "upper class" people have addiction problems.

      [extreme sarcasm]
      But of course the poor people are going to destroy society with their cans of King Cobra, which is completely different than the $500 bottle of Scotch. Yes, the only people weak enough to be subject to addiction are the poor. That's why they are poor in the first place! Maybe if they got off their asses and worked they wouldn't be so addicted/poor. [/extreme sarcasm]

    5. Re:How soon Brave New World is forgotten by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 1
      "libertarians" (sociopaths) will attribute any cause to social problems other than ones that might require them to change their behavior.

      Do you even know what libertarianism *is,* or are you just talking out of your arse?

      Oh, wait; the fact that you label us "sociopaths" (and then later quote Marx, haha) obviously points to the latter. But, then, that's just me pointing to a social cause that won't require me to change my behavior.

      --
      Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
    6. Re:How soon Brave New World is forgotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er - drugs creating crime? Lol, wrong. It's the war ON drugs which causes crime. Legalize drugs and we'd have some new problems, I totally agree, but crime as we know it would DROP drastically.

    7. Re:How soon Brave New World is forgotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude.
      Waaaaaay too much espresso.

      I took Economics 101/102 and became Libertarian; then I learned about Social costs and externalized costs, and became more of a socialist still wishing ruefully he could excise the unecessary parts of government. Trust me, the critic knows Libertarianism.

    8. Re:How soon Brave New World is forgotten by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1
      Do you even know what libertarianism *is,*


      Of course not... the GP poster wouldn't understand a philosophy or political leaning that wasn't spoon-fed to him by his college profs if it came with a "for Dummies" book and suplimental brain-capacity.
      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  56. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alcohol is involved in more car accidents than cars even!

  57. Negative feedback by pcmeehan · · Score: 1

    Synthehol sounds very dangerous. The body and brains vicious negative feedback mechanisms are important tools for controlling our behaviour. Bypass these at your peril. Sounds like Synthehol will be much easier to abuse than regular alcohol.

  58. Re:Great... by Siffy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    excess of typical norms have to die before they realize this was a bad can of worms to open?

    Geez, how many people do you think alcohol kills every year? I'd be willing to bet it's less than the sum of road rage and psychopaths. A drink might have actually helped in both those cases. :)

    improve oneself and the society in which they live.

    We did. We invented alcohol. And people stopped dying of dysentery. At this point in the span of humanity, alcohol has probably still saved more lives than it has taken. You and I might not be here today if our ancestors hadn't had the stuff around as a disinfectant. DFO was the typical norm way back when, I'm all for technology that saves lives and has fun side effects.

  59. Re:Safety of our children? by Siffy · · Score: 1

    lmao, "Synthehol, 2020's gateway drug that leads to 'hard' liquor." The same (liquor) shit people made in bathtubs a hundred years before then a month after the govenment said it was illegal. I could actually see something like that airing on the news even now, in an effort to cover this article, wouldn't have to wait til 2020. We're becoming such pussies.

  60. Cocaine, anyone? by he-sk · · Score: 2, Informative

    From Wikipedia:

    [I]n 1884 [...] Sigmund Freud published his work Über Coca, in which he wrote that cocaine causes: ...exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which in no way differs from the normal euphoria of the healthy person...You perceive an increase of self-control and possess more vitality and capacity for work...This result is enjoyed without any of the unpleasant after-effects that follow exhilaration brought about by alcohol....Absolutely no craving for the further use of cocaine appears after the first, or even after repeated taking of the drug...

    --
    Free Manning, jail Obama.
    1. Re:Cocaine, anyone? by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      In 1885 he coined the terms "coke whore" and later in 1985 President Reagan invented the "crack whore".

      All of which are healthy and normal.

  61. strange first thought by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 1

    Professor David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist at the

    I don't know whether I had been exposed to syntehol myself or whether I'm still half asleep, but the first thought, which came in my mind when reading the abstract was: of course, a "Nutty Professor"!

  62. Prescience by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    It seems that Gene Roddenberry's precognition, as weel as his later fellows', made another strike!
    Maybe we could do research in a different way: first attend to the whole Star Trek series taking notes, then go to the labs and try them out!

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  63. Without effects? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

    It will allow drinkers to experience all of the enjoyable, intoxicating effects of alcohol without unpleasant side-effects like hangovers.

    IIRC, you didn't get the intoxicating effects either, it just had the taste of alcohol.

  64. waht by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nd wahts sides effe,cts of reel alcihoal???? yoo guys arr stuupid1 just kidddng i love you gusyhs

  65. So getting hammered is STILL the point by swordgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...experience all of the enjoyable, intoxicating effects of alcohol without unpleasant side-effects..."

    Funny thing here. For me alcohol is a flavour and texture component of my favorite drinks. The volatility and solvent properties of ethanol make most alcoholic drinks impossible to fake--dealcoholized wines are wretched, non-alcoholic beer if carefully done can rise to the level of almost mediocre, and dealcoholized hard liquor is an oxymoron.

    For me and many others, the "enjoyable" effects are not the "intoxicating" effects, and in fact the latter often fall under the category of "unpleasant side-effects."

    This is just another drug to get stoned on. Big deal. Personally, I'd stick to mushrooms.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  66. give me a drug gland... by thelost · · Score: 1

    any day. Anyone is familiar with Banks Culture books will remember the drug glands most people have in their bodies. soma on tap basically. Think of what you want and your body secretes it. 20 year acid trip, woohoo. ok I have a strange idea of fun, I admit; but self produced drugs on tap, a gland that replicates caffeine directly into your body. sweet.

    --
    Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    1. Re:give me a drug gland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have them. Psychoactive drugs only work because your brain has receptors for similar substances. These "similar substances" are produced by your body itself.

      For example, the opiates only work because they fit your endorphin receptors; the "runner's high" is similar to an opiate high, and is caused by the pain in your muscles after you've overdone it. Runners are junkies!

      Any drug from cocaine to heroin has a corresponding substance you can make yourself, in your own body. Learn yoga and you can learn to drug yourdself without drugs.

  67. Re:Great... by -noefordeg- · · Score: 1

    Some of the greatest minds in history from musicians, artists, poets, scientists, to engineers have said that the use of different drugs/alcohol helped them stimulate their thougts, come up with new and unique ideas or unique solutions to old problems or that the use of for example LSD was one of their greatest and most important experiences ever.

  68. You've never done opium, before, obviously. by Khyber · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Health risk of an opiate NEGLIGIBLE?? Hello, anybody home? I've smoked plenty of opium, let me tell you that you're dead wrong. A few things I've learned from personal experience...

    1. Opiates constipate you (Immodium AD, loperamide, is an opiate)
    2. Smoking opium is harsher on the lungs than marijuana.
    3. Opium is far, FAR more addictive than alcohol (witness China and Turkey with their opium wars way back in history)
    4. Once hooked to strong opiates, the general recourse to getting off of them is an even worse medication (methadone) as opposed to counseling and Antabuse prescriptions for alcohol addiction.
    5. Opium can and will kill you, or get you killed.
    6. Opium screws with your system more than alcohol. The only reasons more die from alcohol than opium are embarassingly simple - Alcohol's far easier to obtain, it's legal, and people get really stupid off of it, and therefore do stupid things.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:You've never done opium, before, obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5. Opium can and will kill you, or get you killed.

      This post came from beyond the crypt I take it...

    2. Re:You've never done opium, before, obviously. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      1. Opiates constipate you (Immodium AD, loperamide, is an opiate)

      This is minor and managable in most cases.

      2. Smoking opium is harsher on the lungs than marijuana.

      Probably true, but opiates can be taken orally and parenterally.

      3. Opium is far, FAR more addictive than alcohol (witness China and Turkey with their opium wars way back in history)

      Probably so. But is addiction in itself a health problem? I am quite addicted to caffeine, and I feel rather healthy. One of the founders of Johns Hopkins was a morphine addict for years, had a distinguished career as a surgen, and no one knew until after his death. I don't see how his health or mine are adversely affected by our addictions.

      4. Once hooked to strong opiates, the general recourse to getting off of them is an even worse medication (methadone) as opposed to counseling and Antabuse prescriptions for alcohol addiction.

      Methadone isn't the only treatment option available. Besides success rates for quitting alcohol and opiates and really all addictions are pretty much the same. Even for non-drug addictions.

      5. Opium can and will kill you, or get you killed.

      When used in clean, appropriate doses, opium and opiates will not kill you.

      6. Opium screws with your system more than alcohol.

      It really doesn't. The outlook for someone hooked on long term pain killers is very good. Very occasionally they might have some minor kidney problems but that's about it. Opiates affect your opioid receptors and not much else. Alcohol however is a "dirty drug" that affects many things in your system, especially your liver. Toxicologically, there's no question that opiates are far safer than alcohol.

      Here's an interesting discussion, with references on the topic.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:You've never done opium, before, obviously. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I'll agree to some of that (to a degree, I can't argue about effective methods of controlling opiate-induced constipation, because the doctor I sleep with in bed isn't a gastrointestinal specialist) but here's my arguments to the last three rebuttals..

      Methadone isn't the only treatment option available, true, but it's the most common treatment, which sucks just as much. Treat one poison with another, worse, more addictive poison.

      And just how in the world do you propose to get a good, clean dose of what's generally a street drug? Are you going to do a bioassay on every bit of opium you get in order to determine its potency, cleanliness, etc?

      And for your last statement - Opium's put me in the hospital twice. Alcohol - never. Opiates eventually lead to the decreased manufacturing of the natural chemicals that bind to the receptors opiates bind to - eventually putting you IN SEVERE PAIN when you cannot get the opiate fix to keep those receptors occupied and filled. Most people I know that use opiates, are lifetime medical users - they've been doped up with so much of it (Duragesic is the prime suspect, here, in this point) by their doctors that without it, their body would go into massive traumatic shock (witnessed this with the death of Carl Mauk, a longtime friend, could not believe this until the doctor told me exactly what was happening,) and could possibly kill you. The effects of even small doses of opium are rather wildly unpredictable, whereas the effects of alcohol, in small or large doses, is very well understood and quite easily categorized.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:You've never done opium, before, obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention:

      7. Opiates are the only drug that even William H. Burroughs recommended people stay far away from. He was talking about Heroin of course -- He got on the acid and mushrooms mostly so he could stay off the H.

    5. Re:You've never done opium, before, obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opium's put me in the hospital twice. Alcohol - never.

      So what? Alcohol has put me in the hospital twice, but never opium. What is this, the battle of the anecdotes?

      I can tell you this: alcohol is the third leading causing of death in the United States. Opiate abuse can't hold a candle to that.

      And just how in the world do you propose to get a good, clean dose of what's generally a street drug? Are you going to do a bioassay on every bit of opium you get in order to determine its potency, cleanliness, etc?

      Yeah and LSD is made out of rat poison. Are we having a serious conversation or you simply going to trot more boogeymen? Can I play, too? I heard people are putting razor blades in Halloween candy!

      [...] eventually putting you IN SEVERE PAIN when you cannot get the opiate fix to keep those receptors occupied and filled [...]

      And this differs from late stage alcoholism how? Alcohol does that, too! But of course it also leads directly to hepatitis, chirrhosis of the liver, inflammation of the pancreas, gastritis, as well as cancers of the mouth, throat and colon.

      I'm sorry you've had a rough time with opiates, or know people who have, or whatever's made you lose your damn mind, but get some perspective, please. Susbstance abuse sucks, all around, whether it's alcohol or opiates. But the parent poster's basically factual accounting of direct pharmacological toxicity can't be rebutted by a bunch of cultural voodo about opiates being TEH EVIL.

    6. Re:You've never done opium, before, obviously. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Methadone isn't the only treatment option available, true, but it's the most common treatment, which sucks just as much. Treat one poison with another, worse, more addictive poison.

      I agree. Methadone maintenance sucks. Heroin maintenance is a much more reasonable solution.

      And just how in the world do you propose to get a good, clean dose of what's generally a street drug? Are you going to do a bioassay on every bit of opium you get in order to determine its potency, cleanliness, etc?

      By changing it from a street drug to an OTC drug. That's the crux of my position, essentially every negative effect of opiates happens due to it legal status and not its pharmacology.

      Opium's put me in the hospital twice. Alcohol - never.

      Anecdotal evidence. I'm sure I could trot out many people who would attest to the opposite situation.

      Opiates eventually lead to the decreased manufacturing of the natural chemicals that bind to the receptors opiates bind to - eventually putting you IN SEVERE PAIN

      Alcohol intake leads to the downregulation of the GABA receptor complex to which it binds. GABA is the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the body, so when alcohol is withdrawn the nervous system has no brakes and the resulting syndrome, delirium tremens, is very severe.

      While opiate withdrawl in weak patients can sometimes be fatal, it's generally no worse than a severe case of the flu. It's generally safe for an otherwise healthy addict to withdraw at home without any treatment. DT on the other hand can have a 35% fatality when untreated.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:You've never done opium, before, obviously. by fafalone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Health risk of an opiate NEGLIGIBLE?? Hello, anybody home? I've smoked plenty of opium, let me tell you that you're dead wrong. A few things I've learned from personal experience...

      And let me tell you why you're dead wrong, from personal experience and extensive studies of psychopharmacology. The risks of dependence are certainly there, but the health consequences of such dependence are in fact negligible... you'll note the lack of severe health consequences in long-term pain patients. Your interpretation of your personal experience does NOT supercede research on sample sizes far greater than yours.

      1. Opiates constipate you (Immodium AD, loperamide, is an opiate)

      WOW, huge side effect there. Alcohol destroys your liver and tobacco causes cancer. I'll take constipation, thanks.

      2. Smoking opium is harsher on the lungs than marijuana.

      It may be "harsher", but please point me in the direction of a study showing it's actually more harmful as opposed to simply more uncomfortable. Also, that's why the vast majority of opium is converted to pill or powder extracts.

      3. Opium is far, FAR more addictive than alcohol (witness China and Turkey with their opium wars way back in history)

      I don't know about the "FAR" with alcohol, but I do know it's FAR LESS addictive than nicotine. While substances derived from the alkaloids of opium do by far exceed alcohol in addictiveness, they are still less addictive than nicotine. That includes heroin. Look it up.

      4. Once hooked to strong opiates, the general recourse to getting off of them is an even worse medication (methadone) as opposed to counseling and Antabuse prescriptions for alcohol addiction.

      Methadone, while more addictive, is not nearly as reinforcing and does not produce much in the way of euphoria. Therefore it can be effectively used to step off. Other medications are being used that are superior to methadone. Antabuse is less effective for alcohol abuse than medications for opiate abuse are, counseling even more so. Counseling for opiates does exist, and many people can taper off their dose. Furthermore, abruptly stopping drinking while strongly physically dependent can kill a healthy adult, this is not observed with opiate dependence (but the withdrawal is still quite severe).

      5. Opium can and will kill you, or get you killed.

      Oh what a load of bullshit. So can alcohol, tobacco, marijuana (but not from toxicity), and virtually every drug, including over-the-counter ones. If you're irresponsible about it, there's plenty of ways to get killed with a whole lot of activities. Opiates, from a clinical standpoint, are FAR less likely to be fatal than just about every other psychoactive substance class out there, legal and illegal. Participating in the illegal consumption of a drug presents its own risks, but these are outside of the effects of the drug.

      6. Opium screws with your system more than alcohol. The only reasons more die from alcohol than opium are embarassingly simple - Alcohol's far easier to obtain, it's legal, and people get really stupid off of it, and therefore do stupid things.

      Again, what a complete and utter load of unresearched bullshit. Toxicity from opium isn't even in the same league as toxicity from alcohol. Especially notable is opiums (and almost all derivatives on the market, licit or illicit) lack of neurotoxicity contrasted to alcohol's repeatedly demonstrated strong neurotoxicity. Not to mention hepatoxicity, which opium again lacks. Alcohol impairs your judgment more than opium, by a huge margin.

    8. Re:You've never done opium, before, obviously. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "I can tell you this: alcohol is the third leading causing of death in the United States. Opiate abuse can't hold a candle to that."

      That's because Alcohol is LEGAL, whereas raw, unfiltered/processed/NATURAL opium is not. Imagine if Opium in it's raw form was legal. Bet you those alcohol statistics would drop like flies.

      "Yeah and LSD is made out of rat poison. Are we having a serious conversation or you simply going to trot more boogeymen? Can I play, too? I heard people are putting razor blades in Halloween candy!"

      Dumbass. LSD isn't made from strichnyne, it's chemically impossible. Strichnyne is an additive/stabilizer/enhancer in the case of LSD. Thinner blood, and all that "nonsense" from biochem class, and all. Back to college for you.

      "And this differs from late stage alcoholism how?"

      Simple, this effect happens earlier than anything alcohol-induced. Better read up on the reaction times between chemicals.

      "I'm sorry you've had a rough time with opiates, or know people who have, or whatever's made you lose your damn mind, but get some perspective, please. Susbstance abuse sucks, all around, whether it's alcohol or opiates. But the parent poster's basically factual accounting of direct pharmacological toxicity can't be rebutted by a bunch of cultural voodo about opiates being TEH EVIL."

      And that's why Edgar Allen Poe is rolling around in his grave right now, dead from an opium overdose. How about owning up to someone without mod points and posting under your real name, "ANONYMOUS COWARD?" I have my perspective, all through personal experience in using the drugs. You speak from an educated standpoint, not an EXPEREIENCED standpoint. Get the experience to properly correlate with your education, maybe we'll listen, like most educated people tend to do. Until then, shut up, please.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  69. The Nutt Factor by packetmill · · Score: 0

    Really, that guy is just asking for trouble.

    You can't go around being a pharmapschycologist AND having Nutt as a last name and expect to get away with it.

  70. Maybe I just haven't experimented enough by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...but isn't the hangover a result of severe dehydration?

    As I understand it, this is a chemical response at the cellular level to the presence of alcohol in the system. I don't know if it's true, but anecdotally one fairly dedicated alcoholic I knew in college advised me on a number of 'drinking tips' of which this is one that actually worked: if you're drunk when you go to bed, take 2 aspirin and a huge glass of water before falling asleep.

    Voila, no hangover in the morning.

    So in regards to TFA, how do you make alcohol that doesn't have the chemical effects of alcohol?

    (And yes, if you're too wasted to remember to do this, you're drinking too much and deserve the aftereffect.)

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Maybe I just haven't experimented enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asprin makes no difference. Just 2 litres off water and piss it out. Bingo Bango.

    2. Re:Maybe I just haven't experimented enough by danpsmith · · Score: 1

      Alcohol's side effects also have to do with the liver usage involved in breaking down the chemicals. You have to remember that alcohol is essentially to our bodies, a poison.

      I have noticed a large amount of sleep helps, this is probably due to the fact that it takes a while for the liver to work it off.

      --
      Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
  71. No, not for the taste... by Mille+Mots · · Score: 1
    I don't drink for the taste (as I have no taste at all...heh). I drink to take the edge off. I find that one or two after work take the edge off just fine. But, by the time I finish that second one, the edge that was removed has left two in it's place. So, now I have to drink four more. But, taking off those two edges leaves four more in their wake. Which brings me to eight drinks required. It's like some kind of fractal alcohol nightmare that never ends.

    At this point, I've had to quit my job in order to try and keep up with all these edges coming off. I wish there were a way to actually get ahead of the curve.

    --
    Dineanetics...The Modern Science of Eating Out

  72. Ever thought of trying meditation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once heard that it is a good way of "taking control of ones's own thoughts." Who knows, it might help.

    1. Re:Ever thought of trying meditation? by kfg · · Score: 1

      No, it is not so much "taking control" of your thoughts as it is taking control of yourself so that your mere thoughts do not control you.

      You feel pain, you feel hot, you feel cold, you feel like you hate your boss, the sky is blue, E=mc^2. . .

      All equal as thoughts, all passing through your mind, and all equally inrelevant to decideing what to have for lunch today, because they're just thoughts.

      KFG

    2. Re:Ever thought of trying meditation? by Dissenter · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with KFG. Meditation is a way to clear your mind according to most, unless of course you are into eatern mysticism. Anyway, the hard thing is that this is not a psycholigical addiction like most consider marajuana to be. This is a physical addition similar to cigarettes and cocaine. The physical aspects of the addiction require far more than a clear head. Not that it's anywhere near as bad, but I've been trying to kick ciggarettes for a while. Physical addictions are hard and I wish those that shared their stories nothing but the best as they continue to fight.

      --

      Dissenter
      "There is no knowledge that is not power."

  73. OB Blue Velvet Quote by aquatone282 · · Score: 0

    "Heinekin? Pabst Blue Ribbon m*ther f*cker!"

    --
    What?
  74. Inspiration by SeanDuggan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Not really. The main reason things are possible is because somebody went out and worked out how to do them.
    Every good inventor has had to have some kind of inspiration to actually make the invention. Sometimes necessity is the mother of invention — the inventor needs a particular device or effect, so he creates it — but sometimes they don't realize there is a need, or they don't have a basis to work from. Some brilliant researcher could be looking at the paper, smacking his forehead and crying "Now why didn't I think of that?" and proceed to apply his research in anti-anxiety drugs to create alcohol without negative effects. Sure, it's the end result guy who gets the patent (or, if the first guy is clever enough to pull off a very general patent, he may get it), but it was the inspiration of the person who posted the theoretical idea that got things off of the ground.

    Heck, you see it all the time in programming. Someone points out a theoretical vulnerability in an encryption algorithm and next you know, someone's posted a practical implementation. Personally, I wonder if the original poster was trying to avoid DMCA lawsuits by getting someone else to be their catspaw, but the idea is there.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Inspiration by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      Every good inventor has had to have some kind of inspiration to actually make the invention. Sometimes necessity is the mother of invention -- the inventor needs a particular device or effect, so he creates it -- but sometimes they don't realize there is a need
      What you say may be true in a few cases. A very few cases. But if simply having the idea was the difficult part, we'd have cured cancer, visted the stars and made windows secure by now.

      This is related to the main problem with patents these days. WIBNI syndrome - believing that being the first person to say "Wouldn't it be nice if ..." means you pwn the guy who actually goes out and makes it happen.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  75. I can hear Homer Simpson now . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mmm . . . cancer

  76. what about the other side effects?? by tehwebguy · · Score: 2

    does it still make washed up piece of shit old men beat their families?

    does it still make fat chicks hot?

    does it still make that car behind you "definitely not a cop"?

    --
    -- lol pwned
    1. Re:what about the other side effects?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "washed up piece of shit old men" beat their families not because of alcohol, but because of who they are. If all it takes for them to beat someone up is to remove a bit of inhibition they have left, it's otherwise too bad but little to do with alcohol. Most abusive relationships are not simply cured by abstinence from drinking.

      Cheers, Kuba

  77. Tranya! by vjmurphy · · Score: 1

    Yes, but will the synthehol be able to replicate the taste of Tranya, so that I can get drunk with Clint Howard? I really want to get in on that "scaring the crap out of the Federation with a big honking ship and a puppet" action.

    --
    Vincent J. Murphy
    Spandex Justice
  78. Nemesis by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    "Romulan ale should be illegal!" - Worf
    "It is."- Geordi LaForge

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  79. You get hangovers? by Hubbell · · Score: 1

    I see a lot of posts saying this is great cause if you hate hangovers, and this stuff is actually made, you can just drink it instead.
    There's already a nearly foolproof way to not have hangovers the next day. It's called drinking a good amount of water before sleeping/passing out, and you're good to go the next day.

  80. Just what we need... by slapout · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a bunch of drunk people running around with phasers shouting "Make it so!"

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  81. What Wikipedia doesn't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Freud stopped advocating cocaine use after one of his friends developed serious mental illness due to chronic cocaine use. Freud's advocacy of this dangerous drug is a scar on an otherwise brilliant career.

    Still, we all have vices. At least in Freud's day, money spent on cocaine didn't fund gangsters and Colombian warlords.

    1. Re:What Wikipedia doesn't say... by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Indeed, Wikipedia leaves that part out, which makes the entry there incredibly POV.

      However, provided what you say is true, which btw I have no reason to doubt, I am sure that some Wikipedian will edit the article arcordingly.

      In any case, my comment wasn't really serious, rather tongue-in-check.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    2. Re:What Wikipedia doesn't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The earlier AC is wrong, this subject *is* covered by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud :

      Furthermore, Freud's friend Fleischl-Marxow developed an acute case of "cocaine psychosis" as a result of Freud's prescriptions and died a few years later. Freud felt great regret over these events, which later biographers have dubbed "The Cocaine Incident".

      Heh, a psychoactive substance might cause mental illness.. well, what a surprise.

  82. Beam me up? by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

    If only we have some device, which, by pushing a button, we could communicate with others remotely.

  83. Or try *breathable alcohol*, which is here now by usurper_ii · · Score: 1

    There is a company which has a device which will vaporize alcohol and let you breath it. You supposedly get the same effects, but with no calories and no hangover. Now I figure it makes it a little closer to laughing gas, and in that respect, there is no hangover but the buzz also is probably going to go away pretty quick after you get off the machine. The link to the company is here:

    http://www.awolmachine.com/

    From their press release:

    NEW YORK - There's a new low-calorie, low-carbohydrate way for adults to consume alcohol in The United States, and you don't even need a glass. It's AWOL, Alcohol With Out Liquid, and for the first time, it is available in The United States after successful debuts in Europe and Asia.

    Spirit Partners, Inc. announced that it has acquired the exclusive license to market the AWOL technology in the United States, August 20, 2004, at The Trust Lounge in New York's Meat-Packing District. Spirit Partners will sell at least one AWOL dealership in all 50 states.

    AWOL consists of two components: an oxygen generator and a hand-held vaporizer. Tubes from the generator attach to the vaporizer. The user chooses an 80-proof spirit, which is poured into the vaporizer. Oxygen mixes with the alcohol producing a mist which is inhaled through the mouth.

    "We are elated to launch AWOL," said Kevin Morse, president of Spirit Partners, Inc. "We are now able to dispel the rumors that have been expressed in some media reports and show that AWOL is simply a fun, new, exciting way for adults to enjoy alcohol in a responsible manner."

    Alcohol enters the bloodstream through the lungs rather than the stomach making AWOL low calorie and low carbohydrate. The resulting feeling is the same sense of well being an adult gets from consuming alcohol in the traditional manner, only milder.

    Once the alcohol enters the bloodstream, it affects the body in the same way as drinking alcohol. Additionally, the alcohol leaves the body in the same manner as if it had been consumed by drinking.

    "One of the ways alcohol leaves the body is through the mouth," Morse said. "Therefore, contrary to reports, the alcohol will definitely register on the Intoxylizer 5000, commonly called the Breathalyzer test which is used by law-enforcement officials to apprehend drivers who are under the influence of alcohol."

    When used responsibly, there is no evidence to indicate greater risks from using AWOL than consuming alcohol in the traditional way. AWOL should be used no more than two 20-minute sessions within a 24-hour period.

    "We are not aware of any current evidence to suggest that use of the AWOL machine, in accordance with your advice and instructions, poses particular risks to the user over and above the risks that may be posed by consuming an equivalent amount of alcohol in an equivalent time period in a more traditional way," said Judith Hind of England's Department of Health Alcohol Policy Team.

    AWOL is intended for patrons of an adult-only facility or people that are at least 21 years old. Patrons should not drive or operate any type of machinery after using AWOL.

    AWOL units may be purchased directly from Spirit Partners. However, Morse says the company is currently selling exclusive dealerships in all 50 states.

    1. Re:Or try *breathable alcohol*, which is here now by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit.

      If enough ethanol gets into your bloodstream to make you intoxicated, there's gotta be some calories generated as the liver processes it. Ack, would you really want the fusil oils and other crap that's in a drink to get directly into your *lungs*?

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  84. Milk plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you want synthehol for? Just let me know when they invent milk plus.

  85. No, it doesn't by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Informative
    Synthehol doesn't get you drunk in Star Trek. It's just that a lot of the characters manage to get their hands on real drinks. From the TNG episode Family:

    Robert: "Your synthehol...never leaves you out of control, isn't that so?"
    Picard: "That is so."
    Robert: "This will. Now there's something I'd like to see."
    Picard: "What's that?"
    Robert: "I venture you've probably never been drunk in your entire life."

    The episode you're remembering is Relics. Data does claim that synthehol, "simulates the appearance, smell, and taste of alcohol, but the intoxicating effects can be easily dismissed." I suppose you could interpret "easily dismissed" as "easily shaken off" but given the evidence from other episodes, I interpret it as him saying that the intoxicating effects are so low that they can be dismissed as inexistent.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    1. Re:No, it doesn't by irving47 · · Score: 1

      That's about right. There were some books (some of which might have been canon. i don't remember) that explained the history of synthehol... A Ferengi invention so that during bartering, a potential business partner would be matching the Ferengi drink-for-drink, getting wasted, but the Ferengi staying stone-cold sober just by 'willing' the buzz away. That left him in control of the negotiations.

      Yep... a nice friday afternoon with nothing to do, and a beautiful beach and 82 degrees 10 minutes away, and here I am reminiscing on what I read about synthehol 10 years ago.
      help.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
  86. Dez Nuttz by cyko500 · · Score: 0

    lawl

  87. A great source of alcohol info by plopez · · Score: 1

    http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/

    The last word in alcohol use and abuse. Their article on pruno was very informative :)

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  88. Double dutch by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    You know, between "Dutch courage" and "Dutch uncle," the Dutch must be an interesting bunch.

    1. Re:Double dutch by m50d · · Score: 1

      "Going Dutch" as well. England was at war with the Dutch for a while, so early propaganda accounts for a lot of it.

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:Double dutch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dutch oven...

  89. the flumazenil by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
    Agreed, this article blows. One part I loved though:
    These drug molecules are instantly reversible by the flumazenil
    This is the first mention of flumazenil, yet the article refers to it as "THE flumazenil". Is flumazenil (whatever it is) in the same class as "the rheumatiz"? Or maybe it's like those people who refer to themselves in the third person: "Bob Dole doesn't like it when you touch him."
    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  90. Nasty side effects = poisoning by mattr · · Score: 1
    It is my sober opinion based on a sample set of one that the really nasty side effects fall into different categories and some are alleviated by controlling purity and dilution. Since the body can indeed burn alcohol (though I am not clear on it actually producing any usable calories), my own experience is that a nasty headache can be virtually eliminated by drowning the body in water. It doesn't seem to require a lot, compared to all the beer I would drink (this is maybe 10-20 yrs ago though, I don't drink much now), as long as I got home a quart or so of water would do the trick. Even now, drinking a liter of mineral water is proof against a headache, forget and I get one before I even get to sleep sometimes. So I believe much of the hangover is actually dehydration.

    Also I believe (less scientific proof available) there is a bunch of poisoning or other interference with the body caused by manmade additives and other impurities, either due to poor quality or inherent in a certain liquor. Those guys who made high quality (?) vodka by passing cheap stuff through commercial filters is another example it seems.

    This leads me to believe that drinking water or including in the drink something that breaks down to a lot of water is good for you, higher purity drinks are good, a way to wash alcohol and impurities out of the system through tons of water or perhaps by adding easily antagonised/captured chemical groups to the substances so they can be dumped out of the body is good. This latter possibility sounds like the quote from TFA and suggests that maybe you could still get drunk but you could get sobered up with a sobering elixir like in the scifi.

    The really nasty side effects are killing people with drunk driving. If people had the option of choosing alcohol analog based drinks and they actually tasted good, it might really improve safety on the road.

  91. Dont we already have this? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    That nasty beer like stuff that has no alcohol in it... ?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  92. Star Trek. by EddyPearson · · Score: 1

    Star Trek is a TV show. Please stop comparing it to REAL LIFE.

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  93. The Other White Meth by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I thought that was called a quaalude.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  94. Yeah, and how much is THAT going to cost me? by purduephotog · · Score: 1

    I make wine while my wife makes beer. Our 'external' liquor purchases have dropped from 120$/month (10 good bottles of wine) to around 120$/6 months (30 bottles of cheap wine).

    Basic costs are grape juice (25$/5 gallon) and malted barley (50$/55lb bag). Yeast is cheap and bottles are free if you're willing to ask around for them.

    All in all I figure it costs (excluding equipment depreciation, I know...) just around $1/bottle of wine and around 0.25$/bottle of beer.

    Thanks, but I'll take my hangovers. They remind me that I need to be more careful while boiling the wort.

    1. Re:Yeah, and how much is THAT going to cost me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I make wine while my wife makes beer. Our 'external' liquor purchases have dropped from 120$/month (10 good bottles of wine) to around 120$/6 months (30 bottles of cheap wine).

      Your definition of "good wine" probably explains why your home brew is so cheap...

  95. To the retailer of synthehol: I'll buy it! by Frobozz0 · · Score: 1

    If what this article is saying is true-- that I could get a buzz without the wretched hangover, I will buy that product. It won't even take me a second to think about it. The first retailer that has hangover free vodka or beer is going to be a bazillionaire.

    Honestly, there are only a couple blatantly obvious inventions left in the world and this is one of them.

    --
    "Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
  96. It's Green by Ranger · · Score: 1

    Add one shot of any cheap Scotch blend (Johnny Walker or Sheep Dip) and add a cup of Mountain Dew over ice. Enjoy!

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  97. Drugs are wrong solution by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

    I reccomend Meditation instead. About half-hour daily to relieve stress.

  98. You are, actually by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    Depending on what you define as alcoholism.

    But if you're talking about who's suffering more damage, more side effects, and is more likely to develop the dreaded "beer belly" - you've got that covered in spades. Binge drinking is without a doubt more harmful than moderate drinking, even when consuming the same amount over time.

    That said, I don't agree with the US's current concept of "alcoholic" and the complete blindness to the difference between an alcohol problem and an alcohol addiction. That went away in the early 80s it seems, and I'd like to have it back again. Shades of grey are important here.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  99. original AC replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, OK, but I think you're an exception. Most people who I've discussed this with get sheepish.

    And I'm sort-of with you on the scotch, it's a very interesting drink... though I would call it stimulating rather than enjoyable. A good scotch tastes like peat! No one goes around chewing peat.

    Fruit juice can be just as complex without alcohol, you need to investigate non-alcoholic cocktails.
    If you don't like sugar though, there are plenty of foods that are just as interesting as scotch - curries in particular. My point being that there are plenty of interesting tastes in the world which don't involve alcohol, so if you do drink then you must do so for the mind altering effects, therefore the person you were replying to is right.

    Maybe you're an exception (as your sig), but I don't think you represent the majority here. After all, look at the popularity of non-alcoholic beer... and check out the ages of people in bars.

    1. Re:original AC replies by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

      >> My point being that there are plenty of interesting tastes in the world which don't involve alcohol, so if you do drink then you must do so for the mind altering effects, therefore the person you were replying to is right.

      Up until that point, you didn't sound like a troll... but to paraphrase what you said above would be the same as:

      "There are plenty of interesting foods in the world which don't involve saturated fats. So, if you eat anything with saturated fats then you must be doing so to get fat yourself. That's the only possible reason why you would eat things like that".

      Saturated fats are in most of your typical junk foods (and lots of other things), but I highly doubt that people eat them because they want to get fat.

      One of the reasons I rarely drink more than one drink a night? I don't particularly like feeling drunk. I assure you, taste is by far the primary reason I consume alcoholic beverages (if I do). That wasn't always the case, but I'm past that stage of my life now.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    2. Re:original AC replies by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1
      My point being that there are plenty of interesting tastes in the world which don't involve alcohol, so if you do drink then you must do so for the mind altering effects, therefore the person you were replying to is right.

      One of the reasons I rarely drink more than one drink a night? I don't particularly like feeling drunk. I assure you, taste is by far the primary reason I consume alcoholic beverages (if I do). That wasn't always the case, but I'm past that stage of my life now.
      Agreed. While I am younger than thou, I have never had a desire to get "drunk" or "out of control"; however, I do like the taste of alcohol - but that doesn't mean I will drink just anything. For instance, I like my "three wisemen", "liquid cocaine", "white russians" and other such drinks, but can't stand beer - won't get near the stuff - and can enjoy a little bit of wine - but the large bulb glasses at restaurants are just way too much.

      And no, its not the "side effects" that I am after (as someone else was talking about) - I simply like the taste itself - just like I like sugar, chocolate, ice cream, steak, etc.

      That also doesn't mean that I don't understand why people at times would drink for the "side effects" - it can be quite relaxing after a stressful day when done right.
      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  100. Forget Synthetic Booze! by wtansill · · Score: 1

    Let's concentrate on making synthetic babes! Oh, wait...

    --
    The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
  101. Obligatory Dean Martin quote... by modi123 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Gotta love this one. It puts off all those people who claim I drink too much. Perhaps I shouldn't BREATHE so much? Ha-haaaaaaa!

    I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day.

    -- Dean Martin

    (Ok, so I had to throw in a Nick Cage quote from 'Leaving Las Vegas' - call it a two-fer Friday special!)

  102. It already happened. by twitter · · Score: 1
    a bunch of drunk people running around with phasers shouting can be found here. They use real booze though. Spoiler: everybody dies.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  103. Holy shit!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd never heard of GHB, so I googled.

    GHB: Gamma hydroxy butyrate or Gamma hydroxybutyric acid, Sodium Oxybate

    Made From: gamma butyrolactone (GBL) and Sodium Hydroxide or Potassium Hydroxide - basically it is degreasing solvent or floor stripper mixed with drain cleaner.


    And that guy thought it would be safer than beer????

    1. Re:Holy shit!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? Common salt is "sodium hydroxide mixed with hydrochloric acid". Drain cleaner mixed with concrete etcher.

  104. Pointless to make it... by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...because if they did make it, it would be considered a drug, subject to FDA regulations, and so forth.

    By all rights, alcohol should be considered a drug. It is a drug. It's just that it has such a unique relationship with our society that it's essentially "grandfathered in"--the one time they tried to regulate it as a drug, it caused so much trouble that they ended up deregulating it again.

    But a "synthetic alcohol," regardless of whether it's supposed to act just like alcohol without the bad side-effects, would not be the same thing as alcohol--so it would probably never be available in lieu of alcohol.

    Furthermore, I'm not sure how they could incorporate it into beers, wines, or liquors, given that the character of the beverages is created at the same time the alcohol comes into being naturally. (Unless they could somehow genetically engineer yeast to make the synthetic stuff instead of the real stuff.) So what you're talking about is basically a synthetic form of Everclear.

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    1. Re:Pointless to make it... by KnightStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the one time they tried to regulate it as a drug, it caused so much trouble that they ended up deregulating it again.

      You mean the rampant crime, gang warfare, police corruption, toxic homemade hooch, etc? Yeah, I'm glad we've left those problems in the past. Our modern drug regulation is the envy of the world!

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  105. What about grog? by Ekhymosis · · Score: 1
    What about monkey island's grog?

    Every pirate's choice of drink!

    Contains one or more of the following: kerosene

    propylene glycol

    sulphuric acid

    artificial sweeteners

    red dye no2

    rum

    acetone

    battery acid

    scumm

    axle grease

    and/or pepperoni

    If you want to talk about hangovers, this one will put you in a coma!

    --
    Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
  106. Re:that episode was great by Maverick1337 · · Score: 1

    It was worth seeing just for the scene with Captain Picard downing some of Guinan's real deal. Prior to that, I always thought of Picard as a sissy frenchman.

  107. But I thought... by radiophonic · · Score: 1

    ...we already had this and it was called Everclear.

    --
    Whenever you read this sig someone's refrigerator light turns on.
    1. Re:But I thought... by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 1

      no, thats just paint stipper that someone stuck in the wrong bottle.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
  108. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Romulan ale" is not the real deal. There is no such thing as Romulan ale, much less Romulans. Get therapy.

  109. Re:NO! NO NO NO! You've got it backwards! by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can only imagine how little work I would get done, and how many more students would fail out of college.

    Hangovers do not prevent people from drinking.
    Hangovers do prevent people from going to class or work the next morning.

    The thing about drinking is that people forget fairly quickly what a hangover feels like... And go... "Oh what is one beer going to do to me! Mmmm... This buzz feels good. Another one can't hurt!"

    Of course 6 beers, 2 shots of jadger, a 5th of tequila, and then 4 hours later... Your alarm goes off around 6:00am and your still in the bathroom with your head in the toliet and your swearing you'll never drink again.

    Of course... Until next week until you decide to have another beer and then all those memories of being hungover are completley forgotten.

    If there were no hangovers, then people wouldn't drink more, but wouldn't call out sick the next day.

    Seriously, how many college students and workers aroudn the world do you think called out this morning alone because of a hangover? Productivity and grades would increase world wide if they could drink and then get up the next morning without any ill effects.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  110. hey...you know what? you know what? you know what? by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    I LOVE YOUUUU MAN!

  111. Um.. by VxMorpheusxV · · Score: 1

    "that appears in Star Trek:The Next Generation television series) cannot be created now. " Oh, it can't now?

  112. mnb Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Close.

    The problem, in the beginning, isn't alcohol, but alcohol can quickly become a problem.
    When alcohol abuse is simply a symptom, that is addiction.
    When alcohol abuse leads to a physical need for more alcohol, that is chemical dependency.

  113. Re:Actually (and some nerds know the Simpsons) by monkeyfamily · · Score: 1

    You dimwit! Duff Lite wasn't the name of the new beverage produced when Springfield banned alcohol after a woman saw Bart drunk at the St. Patrick's day parade, and which brought about the immediate failure of the Duff Brewing Company---it was Duff Zero!

  114. Re:risk of psychosis and anxiety by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Right; and tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer, people who were going to get lung cancer anyway are probably drawn to/self-medicating with tobacco.
    When people get hallucinations long after taking LSD ('flashbacks') that's not the LSD, people who get random hallucinations are drawn to/self-medicating with LSD.

    There are vastly higher rates of disorder A amongst people who take drug B. There can only be one explanation; people with disorder A are drawn to drug B. Honestly..

    If you want to smoke it then fine, but please don't spread rubbish like this for kids to read and get the impression that it's harmless.

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  115. Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's completely disingenuous.

    People don't make GHB out of Draino, even if Draino contains NaOH. The use of NaOH or KOH in the production of GHB is not a particularly enlightening fact and says nothing about whether the final product is safe.

    Mixing GBL and NaOH is not like making a rum and coke. There's no "drain cleaner" floating around in the final product. The chemical reaction is transformative.

    Secondly, GBL may be a "degreasing solvent" but that's irrelevent since it's not poisonous. It's metabolized directly into GHB, in fact.

    Finally, GHB is endogenous, which means it is naturally produced in and used by your body. It metabolizes into GABA, an important neurotransmitter. So, congratulations, man, you're on GHB right now.

    1. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But all that doesn't contradict what the GP said: if you increase the amount of GHB in your body, things will eventually suck, cuz you will be dependent on the increased amount.

    2. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I wasn't rebutting the recovering GHB addict, just the nonsense that GHB is made from Draino ;)

      GHB can, apparently, cause physical dependence, and it's certainly dangerous in high enough doses or mixed with other drugs (such as alcohol, incidentally).

      In other words, it's much like alcohol in that respect.

      However, it does not cause the wide range of toxic side effects that alcohol does. And, it doesn't cause a hangover because it is metabolized directly into a safe neurotransmitter and not first into a slowly eliminated and highly toxic chemical like acetaldehyde.

      It is safer, in that regard, from a pharmacological standpoint.

  116. I don't drink alchohol by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    ...but I've smelt it, and it doesn't smell that good. From what I can tell, alchoholic beverages don't taste good half as much as it's an acquired taste.

    1. Re:I don't drink alchohol by Damvan · · Score: 1

      So we are getting opinions on the taste of alcohol from someone who has never tasted it?

  117. synthahol = non-alcoholic by manJerk · · Score: 2, Informative

    In star trek synthahol was non-alcoholic drinks, except in the star trek universe they tasted good, or just like the original would. so the synthahol equivalent of whisky would taste exactly like whisky but without the effects like getting drunk and having a hang over. It didnt just show up in next generation either, it was alive and well in the 60's show as well. they even mentioned at some point that it doesnt get you drunk, thats why scotty kept a secret stash of scotch under one of the armor helmets in his quarters. I believe McCoy kept a stash too for "special occasions".

    Even in TNG they mention that synthahol is non-alcoholic. after picard gets turned into a borg and back again he goes home to see his brother, they get together and statrt to drink some real wine, picard's brother says to him that this is the real deal, you might loose control. Not like that synthahol garbage the military makes you drink.

    so technically we already have a synthahol type equivalent, so drink up your o'doules (sp?)!

    -ManJerk

    --
    -Boycot shampoo! demand real poo!
  118. We've had it for years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called GHB. If you can get past the media "date rape" hype, and actually listen to people who've been "abusing" it for years, you'll find there are no hangovers and all you need to do to sober up is eat a little food.

    Why is it that "designer drugs" are bad, but some chemist mentions "real synthehol" and all of slashdot yells "cool!" ???

  119. Re:Great... by mark-t · · Score: 1
    Geez, how many people do you think alcohol kills every year?
    85000 in the USA alone in Y2K.

    I fully understand the practicalities of alcohol as medicine and would not want to discourage its use in that area, but without negative side effects to drinking to excess, the bottom line is that more people will do it. Drink too much, that is.

    And note that unlike Star Trek's synthehol, the intoxicating effects themselves of what they are talking about in this article are not easily ignored... it's just that the most visible negative side effects like hangovers and getting sick won't happen. People can, and most definitely will still get piss-ass drunk with this stuff. It'll be a boon for bars, because if people don't get sick, they'll have that much less reason to stop drinking.

    And of course, it's more often than not that an alcohol related death was not a person who themselves had drank to too much, but was killed (often inadvertently) by the actions of a person who was drunk, so we can't even attribute it to darwin's theory in action.

    TAANSTAFL.

  120. ghb is patented for alcoholism by mshurpik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even if they can find away not to trigger the physical craving response by some subtle manipulation of the molecules, how can they remove the powerful psychological urge?

    If you take GHB, it removes the physical urge to drink alcohol. It also makes you happier. Overall, the psychological urge to drink is greatly diminished. In fact, US Patent 6,436,998 covers GHB as an alcoholism treatment.

    For the sake of comparison, how badly did you want to get drunk the last time you exercised? If you've never felt GHB, it is like a five mile run in a bottle.

  121. You need a new scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can get quite intoxicated every night, including sharing a couple nights with my girlfriend for a week and only use 1 gram/week.

    An unfiltered cigarette weighs about a gram, a full pack is half an ounce. I weighed it once when I used to smoke the nasty things.

    I think you mistyped; you mean an eighth of an ounce lasts you and your lady a week, if you're talking about three or four bongs or one-hitters per night.

    But yes, a "pack" of good marijuana "cigarettes" would last most smokers two weeks to a month. And would cost up to several hundred dollars.

  122. What is the truth...? by cr0sh · · Score: 0
    Right; and tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer, people who were going to get lung cancer anyway are probably drawn to/self-medicating with tobacco.

    I am not going to say that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, nor am I going to suggest that cancer doesn't have natural causes that can't be eliminated (it does), but I tend to wonder about the real truth about it. Personally, I think that smoking is but one, most likely minor (especially in the case of secondhand smoke!), component amongst much greater ones, in causing lung cancer and other cancers today.

    The truth is, most of us live in a very dirty, polluted world. In our cities and suburbs - indeed, just about anywhere - we have air pollution, most of it caused by industry, but a significant portion of it (especially at ground level) caused by automobiles and other internal-combustion engine powered machines. We sit in these machines, and breath the exhalations of them. We walk by them, and breath not only that, but also the dust from the roads, tires, and brake linings. Some of this dust is likely fibrous and/or nanoscopic in size.

    Couple all of this with benzene, pvc, and other contaminants - it should be a wonder that we arent' dying quicker from lung cancer and other cancers before we are 30. Actually, when it gets right down to it, we are...

    Ignore all of that, though. It isn't the automobile, nor is it industry which is helping to cause high cancer rates - it is cigarettes, evil, nasty smokers - BOOO! BOOO!

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  123. opium correct by mshurpik · · Score: 1

    Opium really is the correct anti-anxiety medication when you do the analysis.

    All recreational drugs, including stimulants, are "relaxing" or "relieve stress." What you want from an anti-anxiety drug in particular is a boost in dopamine levels. The problem is that most dopamine drugs, like alcohol and Xanax, tend to work by destroying neural connections. In fact, the dopamine boost from these drugs may be coincidental; certainly having your brain manually shut off can be regarded as anti-anxiety by itself.

    In other words, all depressants I've ever seen work by causing brain damage. Opiates are not a depressant. They simply produce a great deal of dopamine, probably the only drug that does.

  124. Go ahead, it's an O'Douls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cannot believe no one has mentioned this.

    http://www.odouls.com/

    p.s. I agree with the fella who pointed out that Data's description of the effects of synthehol as, "...easily dismissed," means there is no intoxication. Which fits O'Douls perfectly. It tastes similar to alcohol, no hangover, is not toxic, and its effects are easily dismissed.

    However, I highly doubt it will get borgs drunk.

  125. enjoyable, intoxicating effects by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    like:
    - running over people with your car
    - waking up with shit all over your dick
    - child support a year later
    - numerous inexplicable cuts, bruises and sprains
    - friends that aren't anymore
    - marriages that aren't anymore
    - the bed in a jail cell

    Yeah, I need more of that.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  126. You're brainwashed, dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what you're playing with is not your grandparent's, or even your parent's, pot.

    Let me explain the difference between what we had and what you have today.

    The only thing that's changed is how pot's packaged, while how its strength is measured hasn't.

    When the police (whose measurements are what's used by the Gov. to cook these bad data up) test pot, they test it all, together; seeds, stems, and all.

    In 1971 a fifteen dollar ounce of pot had perhaps a half an ounce of seeds. The seeds have almost no THC whatever; you can't get high smoking seeds. The stems weigh as much as the smokable material, and have littlte to no drug, either.

    Take out your half ounce of stems and seeds and you have half an ounce of pot that contains as much drug as the previous full ounce.

    Of the half ounce that's left, half of that was leaves. The leaves will get you high, but the buds are the good part. Throw away the leaves (what we called "shake" and the kids now call "schwag") and you have a quarter ounce of good bud, no different than the quarter ounce you now get.

    See, they just stopped selling stems, seeds, and leaves. So when you measure the potency, it's four times as strong. At forty to over a hundred dollars a quarter ounce!

    I can assure you from personal experience that what I smoked in Thailand in 1974 was far better than anything you can buy on the street today.

  127. Re:risk of psychosis and anxiety by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1
    Right; and tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer, people who were going to get lung cancer anyway are probably drawn to/self-medicating with tobacco.
    When people get hallucinations long after taking LSD ('flashbacks') that's not the LSD, people who get random hallucinations are drawn to/self-medicating with LSD.
    Except those effects have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In marijuana's case, the reports are inconclusive at best. Instead of lambasting the GP, you should provide references to other resources, and encourage readers to develop their own opinion. Granted: this may be too much to ask for on Slashdot, and the GP committed a similar faux pas.
    If you want to smoke it then fine, but please don't spread rubbish like this for kids to read and get the impression that it's harmless.
    Discussion of this topic (as any other) should not be impinged, regardless of whose kids you feel obligated to protect. With that said, I agree that those lacking mental maturity should not use psychoactive drugs.
  128. Synthetol is not fun by JamesP · · Score: 0

    Call me when they get the Pan-Galatic Gargle-Blaster ready, baby!

    (slow... wait... slashdot... time....)

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  129. marijuana kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good god man, did you stop to think about obesity? 2/3 of Americans are suffering from weight problems. And you think smoking weed is safe? :)

  130. Wooo! Par-tay in Ten-Forward!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guinan will be serving!

  131. GHB by kennygraham · · Score: 0

    Get drunk without organ damage, without a hangover, and without risk of overdose? It's called GHB. Just don't mix it with alcohol and you're fine. It'll still make you puke if you take too much tho.

  132. This is nothing new by runderwo · · Score: 1

    Have you ever heard of an alcohol vaporizer? Minimal hangover, fast onset of effects, and reduced health risk compared to excessive drinking. All the properties of this proposed "synthahol". Unfortunately, this is how we celebrate innovation in our society. So I wouldn't hold out hope for whatever this guy creates staying legal for too long...

  133. Yeah, so I'm trolling. So what? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    Fermented grape juice is a partial answer to the question, "what have the Romans done to us and how can we get back at them for it?"

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  134. Warrior's drink by teal_ · · Score: 1

    Make mine a prune juice

  135. Re:Great... by mfrank · · Score: 1

    Why don't Baptists have sex standing up? It could lead to dancing.

  136. No, ketamine by spun · · Score: 1

    Actually, what he's looking for is Ketamine. Horse tranquilizers. Dry the liquid, powder it, and snort it. The high lasts 20 minutes, there is no comedown, and it's completely harmless. Actually, it even protects neurons from oxygen deprivation. A ketamine high is very similar to being slightly drunk, although you don't want to mix ketamine with alcohol as the two potentiate each other and you may get queasy or find yourself unable to focus your eyes. It's a disassociative, which is why (in higher doses) it was used as a general anaesthetic for children (it's that safe.) But the kids would wake up and claim they had talked to God, which disturbed many parents, so they stopped using it in humans. Who cares if a horse talks to God, right? The disassociative part reminds me of the effects of LSD, about six hours into a trip, when you get all introspective. But very manageable. Physically, it takes a little getting used to. The first time you try walking on ketamine, you'll feel like your limbs are all the wrong size and you'll walk like a marionette. But good luck finding any now, the feds have cracked down and I haven't seen any in years.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:No, ketamine by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Actually, what he's looking for is Ketamine. Horse tranquilizers. Dry the liquid, powder it, and snort it. The high lasts 20 minutes, there is no comedown, and it's completely harmless

      He said short-term. Ketamine screws with your coordination and senses for a lot longer than alcohol, often up to 24 hours.

      It's also pretty far from being a replacement for alcohol; alcohol is often a party drug making people socially outgoing and taken in crowds. Ketamine tends to make one maudlin, introspective, and antisocial (often to the point of being comatose). Totally different effect, especially compared to moderate alcohol consumption.

      Also, it is _not_ completely harmless; it causes respiratory and circulatory depression and can be lethal. It is safer (not completely safe) when ingested or snorted than when injected intravenously; combining with alcohol, GHB, or other downers is particularly dangerous. Chronic use can cause long-term memory problems, neurosis, and depression. And it's highly addictive.

      When used as an anaesthetic for children, it is generally accompanied with other drugs to counteract respiratory depression.

      But good luck finding any now, the feds have cracked down and I haven't seen any in years.

      Are you kidding? Special K is all over every rave these days. It and GHB are currently the two fastest spreading club drugs on the planet.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    2. Re:No, ketamine by spun · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm no young raver kid anymore, so I'm a little out of the loop. I never noticed any lingering effects from K, but I never did that much. A little bump every 20 minutes or so never made me maudlin or antisocial. As for its safety, I'm basing my statements of things I heard at a presentation at a conference called Mindstates II, which admittedly may have been biased.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:No, ketamine by Dan+Hayes · · Score: 1
      The effects of ketamine last around an hour or two, after which point you'll be almost 100% back to where you started. You might if you've had a lot notice some (very) minor effects for a bit longer, but certainly not to the point of impairing you in any way. And the effects are very dose dependant - in small amounts it doesn't make you antisocial; after a point the effects certainly change, but that's typically from a single larger hit, not a series of small lines.

      Snorting it (don't ingest it, it causes stomach cramping and is generally unpleasant) won't be fatal on its own, you can't generally take enough to cause anything other than blacking out. It's used as an anaesthetic on adults as well due to it being about the safest anaesthetic in terms of possible allergic reactions - it's often used when the patient's medical records aren't available. Indeed as an anaesthetic is has unique properties that make it valuable.

      Recreationally it's also the fastest growing drug (well, other than cocaine) in the UK as well.

  137. Try high grade medical from California by spun · · Score: 1

    I worked in a medical marijuanna club in San Francisco, building computer security systems to keep our patients' medical records out of the hands of the Feds. The highest grade cannabis commonly available today has 20%-25% THC. Some high end strains that have been grown absolutely perfectly may have upwards of 30%. On the other hand, THC is not the only thing in cannabis that gets you high. We had a college student come in one day and show us some absolutely 100% pure THC he had extracted in the lab. That should get you SUPER high, right? Nope, it really didn't do much at all. Without the other cannabinoids I couldn't even recognize the effects. We also had a fellow who made hash oil that was 80% pure. Now that stuff would put you in a coma if you weren't careful. We had things like movie night at the club, and sometimes he would come around and give out free samples. We had to ask him to be more careful, some of our new members who weren't used to pot would get so intoxicated they couldn't get up off the couch afterwards. Trying to herd a bunch of near comatose cancer and AIDS patients out the door at nine at night is no fun.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Try high grade medical from California by runderwo · · Score: 1
      You say "worked" - did you quit or did they go out of business/get shutdown?

      BTW, we are talking about average potency of a set of random samples. If it came across that I was claiming that having 30% or more THC in a cherry-picked sample is impossible, that is not what I meant. But I see how it could be read that way.

    2. Re:Try high grade medical from California by spun · · Score: 1

      Oh, I didn't think that's what you were claiming. It's very rare for cannabis to have 20% THC, let alone 30%. As for what happened to the job, it was the feds cracking down, which made the managers scared so they started embezzling money and refusing new members. I'd say it was more the managers than the feds, which is very sad, because it was the best run club in the business otherwise. We had free support groups for people with AIDS and cancer, harm reduction plans to help people kick hard drugs like heroin, and free food every day to help people with appetite problems due to AIDS or chemo. Laguna Honda hospital contaced us to deliver cannabis to their AIDS patients. Nancy Pelosi came to our club to congratulate us on how much good we were doing. The city declared a day "CHAMP day" (CHAMP was the name of the club) and we did benefits in the park.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  138. Did you ever try a alcohol vaporizer? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1
    They don't do anything.

    It was just another yuppie trend like O2 bars. Complete waste of time and money.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Did you ever try a alcohol vaporizer? by runderwo · · Score: 1
      Right, and in the rush to ban them nobody bothered to check if they worked. Please. I suppose next you're going to tell me the initial buzz from the first drink of the night is a placebo, since according to you absorbing alcohol in vapor form is not possible. Have you ever looked at the MSDS for ethanol and noted the uncanny resemblance of the inhalation effects to being drunk? And no, I haven't tried one since they were banned in my state from day one as a save-the-children measure (hemp-flavored candy came next).

      related article

  139. Just breath deep after adding a beer to chili by HornWumpus · · Score: 1
    You won't get any kind of buzz though.

    These devices are pure BS. Sounds good but they don't work.

    You'll get more buzz in an O2 bar.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  140. Laws and taste... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    The only law that makes things taste good is the Reinheitsgebot, or Beer Purity Law of 1516.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  141. Re:NO! NO NO NO! You've got it backwards! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
    The thing about drinking is that people forget fairly quickly what a hangover feels like... And go... "Oh what is one beer going to do to me! Mmmm... This buzz feels good. Another one can't hurt!"
    Sure, if you lack self control, or party in an enviroment that encourages drinking beyond your limits. But most of us grow out of it.
  142. Extrapolating from the smell... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Well, I am extrapolating from the smell, and smell is a component of taste.

    1. Re:Extrapolating from the smell... by fbjon · · Score: 1
      Well, I am extrapolating from the smell
      ..If you're extrapolation from the smell of pure alcohol, that won't work at all. See, the vast majority of alcoholic beverages contain much less than 50% alcohol. Beer contains aroun 4-7%, and at 4%, it's definitely not the alcohol you taste. Same thing with ciders, (good) wines, etdc. I've tasted a liquour that had about 50% alcohol, but still didn't taste like it, which was pretty impressive.
      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    2. Re:Extrapolating from the smell... by maotx · · Score: 1

      Allright, I'll bite then. I don't like the smell of alcohol or the taste. I do drink it on occassion in social environments but never alone for my own self pleasure. Of course you can cover the flavor of it by adding other substances, but it still has the taste of alcohol. I have tried various beers, mix drinks, and even flavored moonshine so I have an idea of how it tastes in various mixes. Also, I have never met anyone who did like the taste right off. Therefore, I agree that alcohol is an acquired taste.

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
  143. Hacking Vodka by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    There was an interesting post here a while ago about hacking Vodka.

    Essentially it is all about the filtration:
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/1 6/1731212
    Saturday November 20, 2004

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  144. odouls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    synthenol sounds like odouls

  145. The morning after by GoatVomit · · Score: 0

    If this prevents me from waking up next to something which looks like a Ferengi I'm all for it.

  146. GGW by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    Great, does Synthehol mean an end to Girls Gone Wild? Damn....

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  147. Garlic Mustard by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    I am thinking about spreading a rumor about some kind of drug effect to garlic mustard (Alliaria Petiolota). Garlic mustard is an ecological disaster in the making, and the people around here who are educating people about the problem are organic types who would faint at the suggestion of Roundup herbicide -- they are laboring under the impression they can bring it under control by pulling it. This weed is beyond some pony-tailed volunteers going into city parks every May and pulling it -- they are hardly making a dent and it is spreading with each passing year. It is actually highly nutritious, in the same family as cabbage, broccoli, but I don't think enough people want to eat it. If we convinced the authorities that people were smoking it, boy, you would see an erradication effort.

  148. Two kinds of addiction by sjames · · Score: 1

    My observation is that alcohol abuse can take two forms, both of which are lumped in as addiction.

    Some have the widely recognized real physical addiction. Others have the less recognized habituation or psychological addiction. The former are in for a long struggle. The latter really can 'just stop' if they begin to address the underlying psychological issue (or in a few cases, just realize "hey! I'm drinking a hell of a lot of beer, and it's a problem!"). They will, however, need to do occasional reality checks afterwards lest they slip into old habits again. The physical addict must consider social drinking very dangerous. The (formerly) habituated will not likely have a problem with it once they stop for a while.

    The habituated group really can be helped by meditation, or perhaps in really bad cases, anti-depressants. That group CAN be cured (that is, once they stop, they no longer have a problem).

    It's unfortunate that there's so much dogma around alcohol addiction.

  149. You'll get a date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I've never had a date though and, being 30 already, have mostly given up."

    You will, don't worry. The thing is to find something you enjoy, and enjoy it in a social environment. Sounds like you like music, you got a pet. Hey, go to some music gigs. Hang out with other folk who have the same pet as you. Do it online if you want. You're going to end up chatting to a load of people who share the same interests. Some of them you'll end up hanging out with and sharing social time with, and discover you have more shared interests. The folk who are into the same music might also be into going out for Mexican food or watching sci-fi movies or whatever. One of these folk might turn into a date, you'll be spending your time enjoying sharing your interest in music or whatever and forget to be worried about chatting them up. Nothing is more attractive than somebody's who's excited by the same interests as you are. You'll be fine. Good luck on you.