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.

Comments

Nutt?

[virgil_disgr4ce]

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.

Re:Nutt?

[commodoresloat]

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.

Yah, alcohol

[lazuli42]

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.

Re:Yah, alcohol

[ToteAdler]

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

Re:Yah, alcohol

[kfg]

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

Re:Yah, alcohol

[m50d]

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.

Re:Great...

[r00zky]

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.

It'll never happen...

[Vellmont]

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.

Re:One good reason it'll never happen...

[gbobeck]

...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...

Politics

[arrrrg]

(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)

Beg to differ...

[Aphrika]

...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.

Re:Who'd use it?

[MadCow42]

>> 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.

Inspiration

[SeanDuggan]

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.