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