Scientist Seeks Investment For "Alcohol Substitute"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientist Seeks Investment For "Alcohol Substitute"

Posted by samzenpus on Monday November 11, 2013 @11:30AM from the bottoms-up dept.

First time accepted submitter MalachiK writes "A senior academic and former UK government drugs adviser reckons that pretty soon it'll be possible to enjoy the fun of being drunk without having to suffer the negative effects of alcohol. In a proposal reminiscent of Star Trek's synthehol, Professor David Nut has identified a number of molecules that he claims offer experiences that are subjectively indistinguishable from alcohol intoxication. Apparently a major advantage of using these more selectively psychoactive drugs is that the effects can be quickly reversed. It's not all good news though as Professor Nut seems to think that the drinks industry is using its financial and political clout to stop this sort of research being undertaken."

328 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I believe this will be called... by kachakaach · 2013-11-11 11:33 · Score: 0

Synthahol.
1. Re:I believe this will be called... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  yes, as stated in the summary
2. Re:I believe this will be called... by xevioso · 2013-11-11 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
  The same could not be said for something like "Synthahol."
3. Re:I believe this will be called... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 21:10 · Score: 0
  
  Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
  Not just a solution. It's a solvent too.
4. Re:I believe this will be called... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-11-12 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
  Alcohol. Helping ugly people get laid since...
5. Re: I believe this will be called... by gzuckier · 2013-11-12 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Barbituates
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
You had me at ... by bigjocker · 2013-11-11 11:34 · Score: 4, Funny

Professor Nut

--
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
1. Re:You had me at ... by war4peace · 2013-11-11 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  The Nut family must be awesome to meet...
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
2. Re:You had me at ... by NettiWelho · 2013-11-11 12:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked
  
  Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser, has been sacked a day after claiming that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
  His claims are factual but go against official-opinion-on-the-matter(tm)
3. Re:You had me at ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  And by "drinks industry is using its ... clout to stop this sort of research being undertaken", he means that he gets so drunk off their drinks that he can't continue his work.
4. Re:You had me at ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:27 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Nutt? Sacked!
5. Re:You had me at ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  When a government scientist gets sacked for stating an obvious fact you know things are fucked.
6. Re:You had me at ... by Anne_Nonymous · 2013-11-11 12:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The Nut son married a Sachs girl and they now have a bunch of little ones running around with a wonderfully hyphenated last name.
7. Re:You had me at ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Separation of Science and State appears to be necessary
8. Re:You had me at ... by Quasimodem · 2013-11-11 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  Repatriation of politicians with reality would be a better choice.
9. Re:You had me at ... by mrmeval · 2013-11-11 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  If I can't brew it in my bath tub it ain't 'MERICAN enough fer me!
  I also brew it in three sheds. Of course I only brew 200 gallons a year for personal consumption.
  However if I'm forced to I can work with a sleezy science teacher and cook up some pseudo-cannibanoids. We'll dye the powder blue.
  
  --
  I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
10. Re:You had me at ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  200 gallons of LSD?! That's probably enough to trip the entire planet, let alone you personal use...
11. Re:You had me at ... by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · 2013-11-11 18:39 · Score: 2
  
  It didn't help he (correctly) pointed out ecstasy is safer than horse riding, which happens to be relatively popular in the UK. The BBC felt obliged to publish an article arguing the dangers of riding were "tempered" by its health benefits and that, somehow, his assessment was invalid.
  
  --
  Howdy howdy howdy
12. Re:You had me at ... by YttriumOxide · 2013-11-11 21:05 · Score: 2
  
  200 gallons of LSD?! That's probably enough to trip the entire planet, let alone you personal use...
  Generally liquid LSD varies in actual LSD content, but let's call it "one drop contains 100mcg", which is a common expectation.
  100mcg is considered a typical dose of LSD for anyone to experience a trip (some people will trip on less; some require a little more. Also generally, for more experienced users or people wishing to have a 'heavy trip' for self-discovery or other such purposes, much higher doses are used; but we'll go with just 'experiencing a trip' for the purposes of calculation and so 100mcg is acceptable).
  One 'drop' from an eyedropper is around 0.1ml (varies a lot with different eyedroppers and users, but that'll do). So, for each 0.1ml, we've got enough to get one person tripping.
  A gallon contains 3785.4ml; so enough to get 37854 people tripping. 200 gallons is therefore enough for 7570800 people. A little less than the population of New York City.
  Of course, if you were talking 200 'gallons' of LSD in salt form rather than liquid, it's harder to judge. I'm not quite sure about the size/volume of LSD salt crystals in relation to exact weight; I get the feeling LSD salt is probably a little more dense than water, but it also doesn't stack so perfectly and so there'll be empty space between the crystals in the container. So for the purposes of just calculating it out for fun, let's go with a 'simplistic' (and quite possibly horribly wrong) calculation and say it's 1g per ml volume as with water. In that case, 200 gallons would be enough for 7570800000 people - a half a milliard or so over the current population of the earth.
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
13. Re:You had me at ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 21:45 · Score: 0
  
  If the cops found any quantity of those drugs in his lab, they wouldn't hesitate to Bust a Nutt ...
14. Re:You had me at ... by kaspar_silas · 2013-11-11 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  Relatively popular is somewhat pushing it. The overwhelming majority of people have never been horse riding. "It is only relatively popular amongst MPs and vastly rich powerful people and travellers" two of this group were outraged.
15. Re:You had me at ... by Hieronymus+Howard · 2013-11-12 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  You could equally argue that the the dangers of ecstasy are tempered by the health benefits of dancing.
16. Re:You had me at ... by spiralx · 2013-11-12 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Not far off! According to this page the density is 1.2 g/cm3. So 200 gallons is approximately 1000kg, which is about 10 billion 100ug doses.
17. Re: You had me at ... by AvitarX · 2013-11-12 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that I agree with the fact that lsd is safer than alcohol. Some people definitely have their brains fried from relatively little use.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
18. Re:You had me at ... by YttriumOxide · 2013-11-12 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Reasonably good guessing on my part then. Thanks for the link!
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
19. Re:You had me at ... by spiralx · 2013-11-12 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually according to Wikipedia the average purity of crystal is 62%, so it would be a bit short of the world's population. It would cover the adult population though :)
20. Re:You had me at ... by cellocgw · 2013-11-12 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  When a government scientist gets sacked for stating an obvious fact you know things are fucked
  You mean like when Clinton fired his Surgeon General for having the audacity to suggest that masturbation was preferable to unprotected sex with random partners?
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
21. Re: You had me at ... by cellocgw · 2013-11-12 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that I agree with the fact that lsd is safer than alcohol. Some people definitely have their brains fried from relatively little use.
  AvitarX, meet Statistics. Statistics, this is AvatarX. He can't wait to learn all about you.
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
22. Re:You had me at ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Surely the ones with reality are the ones you want to keep? And where would you send the others to? Most of them are native born.
  Stupid nigger.
23. Re:You had me at ... by Hognoxious · 2013-11-12 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  One night, while somewhat drunk, we worked out what the cost of redoing all the flags would be if Arkansas (or whoever were being asshats around '96, maybe Michigan) seceded. It involved roughly how many kids per classroom, how many public buildings there were, etc etc. One of the assumptions was that rather than producing new flags you'd just colour in one of the stars with a marker pen. That caused a digression into exactly which one it should be. Thankfully, nobody challenged the assumption that the marker would be blue or we'd still be there.
  But even if I could remember the details (because beer, and also beer) and the final answer it wouldn't even be fit to perform as the opening act to your calculation.
  [takes hat off]
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not all good by houstonbofh · 2013-11-11 11:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

One of the things that cause people to curb their drinking is that morning after hangover. With no pain for indulgence, this could be much more addictive than alcohol, which is already very addictive.
1. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Then again, there will be no need to 'curb your drinking' when you can control the effects instead of the effects controlling you.
2. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  One of the things that cause people to curb their drinking is that morning after hangover
  No.
  If you're an alcoholic, the hangover is just a reason to start drinking early, not a deterrent. No hangover? I'll drink to that!
  If you're not, then you don't really need to "curb" it, and the memories of the dipshit things you did will be just as much of a deterrent. In fact, since you'll have a clear head and fully remember all your antics from the night before, the lack of hangover would actually increase the chances you'd think twice before having that last six shots of Tequila.
  As for the article, we already have alternates to booze and it's called Marijuana. But because it's not physically addictive and doesn't cause horrible health effects, that means it has an even higher potential for abuse and is thus even more "addictive". Legally speaking, that is. I have a feeling that anything this guy comes up with is going to end up in the same boat. Either it'll have some nasty side effects (like so-called 'bath salts') or it'll be "too good" to allow people to use.
3. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Relax.
  This has none of the bad side affects of alcohol.
  So no getting drunk, no mental impairment at all. What, you don't consider those bad side affects?
4. Re:Not all good by fey000 · 2013-11-11 11:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Then again, there will be no need to 'curb your drinking' when you can control the effects instead of the effects controlling you.
  The problem depicted is not that of hangovers, but rather that of excessive drinking leading to a severe lapse of judgment and restraint. This seems like a smart consideration to make.
  I have seen drunks with little regard for their own or other's safety, and I would prefer if such behaviour stayed rare and infrequent. We already have problems with drug addicts behaving in undesireable ways, so let's take a moment to ponder if we want more alcoholics that behave in a similar manner.
  Also, it should come with a redshirt.
5. Re:Not all good by jrumney · 2013-11-11 11:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Psychological addiction is all in your head. You can get addicted to absolutely anything (including non-chemical things like gambling), and you can wake up one morning and quit cold turkey. The real danger from alcohol is the physical addiction. Alcohol is one of the few drugs that can be life threatening if a serious alcoholic suddenly can't get any. As long as the replacement drug is not physically addictive, then it is a big improvement.
6. Re:Not all good by plopez · 2013-11-11 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  There's an easy solution to that, just stay drunk.
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
7. Re:Not all good by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-11 12:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  One of the things that cause people to curb their drinking is that morning after hangover.
  That is absolutely so. I haven't been drunk since shortly after college and it's because I hate how it makes me feel the next morning.
  I don't know about the rest of the comment though. I don't quite understand why people feel that intoxicants are inherently bad. I don't use them, but I don't share the moral objection to them.
  If someone can use an intoxicant and still manage their life in a way that is satisfactory to them, I don't believe that society needs to place artificial strictures on intoxicating substances.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
8. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  One of the things that cause people to curb their drinking is that morning after hangover. With no pain for indulgence, this could be much more addictive than alcohol, which is already very addictive.
  Bullshit. The universal way drinkers cope with a hangover is called "the hair of the dog". Gives those pesky gut bacteria that bred up on the ethanol and are now working on the methanol (causing the worst "hangover" symptoms) something to eat.
9. Re:Not all good by NettiWelho · 2013-11-11 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  we already have alternates to booze and it's called Marijuana. But because it's not physically addictive and doesn't cause horrible health effects
  
  Warning to reader: your milage may vary depending on where you live
10. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  There are some efficient ways to avoid a hangover.
  Make sure that you eat something and drink a lot of water after you have been drinking.
  Stay up until you start to sober up and you won't feel the hangover at all.
11. Re:Not all good by steelfood · 2013-11-11 12:40 · Score: 2
  
  you can wake up one morning and quit cold turkey without any physiological effects.
  FTFY.
  There are psychological effects to quitting psychological addictions cold turkey. In fact, some of these can become severe enough to eventually manifest as physical symptoms.
  As the practice of hypnotism has shown, the subconscious is very, very powerful and not to be so casually treated the way you do here.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
12. Re:Not all good by Altus · 2013-11-11 13:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You do understand that alcohol withdrawal can kill you right? It's phyxical effects are more dangerous than heroin withdrawal. Not that psychological addiction should be scoffed at but alcohol addicicion is no small matter.
  
  --
  "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
13. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 13:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Physiological addiction in most cases can be beaten by a short stay in an inpatient rehab center. Success rates are very high. But the real danger and the real long term worry is the psychological element of the addiction. It's what makes addictions so hard to beat, the day in day out avoidance of the addictive chemical/behavior (even after what you consider the "real danger" period is past). Note that psychological addiction is very much related to genetics and background, so only a limited percentage of people will suffer from it. This also contributes to the insidiousness of it; someone with a non-addictive background will simplify the addiction down into "no physical withdrawal, no big deal" logic you are echoing.
14. Re:Not all good by Charliemopps · 2013-11-11 13:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  No, there are certain people (mostly Asian) that have a genetic mutation involving how Ethanol Metabolizes that causes their hangovers to come on quicker and stronger. It's been proven that these people have significantly lower rates of alcoholism. It's been proposed that this common genetic mutation among Asians is a contributing factor to eastern societies relatively low rate of alcohol consumption.
15. Re:Not all good by Charliemopps · 2013-11-11 13:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This begs the question: If a drug has no pain for indulgence, and you can turn off the effect almost immediately with a counter-acting dose... Does it matter if you're addicted to it? Do we have a problem with people using drugs of their own free will if those drugs have no negative impact on their lives?
16. Re:Not all good by couchslug · 2013-11-11 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  "and is thus even more "addictive"
  No, it isn't even comparably addictive. Words mean things and "higher potential for abuse" doesn't mean "addictive".
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
17. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 13:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No, there are certain people (mostly Asian) that have a genetic mutation involving how Ethanol Metabolizes that causes their hangovers to come on quicker and stronger. It's been proven that these people have significantly lower rates of alcoholism. It's been proposed that this common genetic mutation among Asians is a contributing factor to eastern societies relatively low rate of alcohol consumption.
  Spoken like a man that has only studied East Asia in books and journal articles, having never been there. They drink like fish and are stone alcoholics, too. Not sure where you're getting your information, but it's not from reality. Lying to save face is also extraordinarily common. Just look at Fukushima!
18. Re:Not all good by Nemyst · 2013-11-11 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  I largely agree with this. My sole concern is the possibility of people abusing whatever drug it is they're using and ending up in the hospital. That's a net cost to society, both in medical fees and in their inability to do anything for a while, and it's putting their own lives at risk.
  
  I know that recreational drugs don't necessarily mean you're going to go on this slippery slope and end up drugged to hell, but it's a possibility and it needs to be kept in mind. I'd be much more supportive of preventative measures such as educating people on the subject and offering support than hunting them down, though.
19. Re:Not all good by Cammi · 2013-11-11 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  This is 100% true. The same reasoning goes with Caffeine. Don't suffer withdraw if you stay on it ..
20. Re:Not all good by JanneM · 2013-11-11 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  The hangover seems to come too late to reliably cause an aversive association to alcohol. One idea behind Antabus is that the negative reaction happens quickly enough to be useful. Of course, I'd expect it would also cause an aversive reaction to the medication as well.
  
  --
  Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
21. Re:Not all good by houstonbofh · 2013-11-11 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Psychological addiction is all in your head.
  So is PTSD, schizophrenia, and delusions of grandeur. All of those are no big deal right?
22. Re:Not all good by houstonbofh · 2013-11-11 14:20 · Score: 0
  
  If someone can use an intoxicant and still manage their life in a way that is satisfactory to them...
  Yeah... Those aren't the ones with a problem. It is the ones who can't manage their life, or relations ships, or raise their kids, or... There are MMORPG players so into it they forget to eat, and actually die.
23. Re:Not all good by houstonbofh · 2013-11-11 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  This begs the question: If a drug has no pain for indulgence, and you can turn off the effect almost immediately with a counter-acting dose... Does it matter if you're addicted to it? Do we have a problem with people using drugs of their own free will if those drugs have no negative impact on their lives?
  It is that last line that is the problem... Addiction does have a negative impact. That is the defining characteristic. Some examples here... http://listverse.com/2010/11/07/top-10-cases-of-extreme-game-addiction/
24. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:32 · Score: 0
  
  Grandparent poster deliberately and correctly put the quotes around "addictive" because he, being brighter than you, understands that while not addictive, it will most certainly be habit forming and worse.
25. Re:Not all good by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-11 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  There are MMORPG players so into it they forget to eat, and actually die.
  You say that as if it were a bad thing.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
26. Re:Not all good by s.petry · 2013-11-11 14:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What you said!
  Some things simply should not be produced, or studied beyond a certain point for that matter, because they harm society much more than they help society. If a guy develops a cure to heal you of an alcohol addition and provides you a nice fat dose of daily PCP have they helped, harmed, or have things stayed the same?
  Historically drugs have been used by people in power as a method of control. Simply teaching people about that aspect is not enough to cure the abuse of substances, but it's a start. A lack of upward mobility in society ensures they are still used today.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
27. Re:Not all good by germansausage · 2013-11-11 14:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You should hang out with some Koreans some time. Their genetic mutation seems to be 2 parts Irish and 1 part Russian.
28. Re:Not all good by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-11-11 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  Wait a minute. Nobody said that abuse will not kill you. You just won't have a hangover.
29. Re:Not all good by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-11 14:55 · Score: 2
  
  You're hitting some unrelated topics. "Binge drinking" is not addiction. It's stupid behavior. I'm not sure I want society to prevent stupid behavior by putting strictures on substances that most people use without being stupid about it.
  
  Escaping reality never makes people stronger.
  Hold on a minute. I'm pretty sure you're making a big assumption there. What is "stronger"? Do you mean, "better able to work for a living"? Or do you mean, "more likely to have successful family lives"? Or do you mean, "conforming to societal norms". There are simply too many unknowns in the term "reality" and the term "strong".
  And this "reality" you speak of... Are you sure you know what it is? You have a construct inside your mind that you call "reality", but it's only as real as the consensus. I could make a case that spending time reading Slashdot is "escaping reality", or that being involved in religion is "escaping reality". I could also say that what great authors do is "escape reality", yet you probably shouldn't say that makes them less "strong", or that religion makes people less strong, because there is a very good argument that's not true. Is going to work at your cubicle farm every day strong? Or is taking an axe into the wilderness and living off the land "strong"?
  I think we should, for the purposes of this discussion, stick to the term "intoxication" rather than "escaping reality", because "reality" can be too slippery of a term (and so can "strong").
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
30. Re:Not all good by girlintraining · 2013-11-11 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  There are MMORPG players so into it they forget to eat, and actually die.
  Not actually true. It takes weeks to months to die from food deprivation, and at least 3-5 days to die from lack of water... and it doesn't matter how "into" it you are... water deprivation is a powerful need that no addiction can get in the way of. What they die from is lack of sleep and pre-existing medical conditions that result in high blood pressure, blood clots, and similar. They die from systemic shock -- stress to their bodies. And their health is almost invariably already suspect.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
31. Re:Not all good by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-11 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how much of the "ending up in the hospital" part of drug abuse comes from the way society demonizes intoxicants. If you think of the really destructive drugs, like meth or crack, you'll find that most people start out going for these substances because there aren't better substances available to them. There's a lot of data showing that someone can use heroin daily and still be a productive, safe member of society. The problems come from forcing them into back alleys to buy their drug and keeping clean needles away from them.
  As I said, I don't use intoxicants. But when you scratch the surface of the drug problem, you find all sorts of paradoxical thinking and misunderstanding. And it's all wrapped up in moralism to make it all even more complicated.
  As you say, preventive measures are the best, but demonization of addicts and addiction and intoxicants generally (except alcohol) is standing in the way of us taking a sensible approach to prevention. People have been getting intoxicated on something or other for as long as people have been around. I'm sure Neanderthals got intoxicated. There are better solutions to the ones who become a problem than locking them up in jail, because incarceration is more expensive than just giving them their drugs and a safe place to do them.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
32. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  Thirdly eh? Not buyin that one at all. All these substances are elemental, and have no will about your mindset.
  First off, you don't escape reality at all. You are just feeling funny. You can do that sober as well, so your "escaping reality" argument is falling apart already.
  Seconds please, everything we do is to "escape reality." Why do we build houses, to escape reality of weather. Why do we have cars, to escape the reality that moving takes lots of time and energy. So we are all weak pansies now and deserve to die? Because we didn't live a "pure life" like the animals? Animals like getting drunk too*. Why do we procreate, to escape the reality that collectively, our individual lives add up to a pile of feces and you probably didn't make the biggest pile.
  *You can confirm this with fermented cornbread if you have squirrels in your yard :) they sure do have a hard time getting back up in the trees afterwards.
33. Re:Not all good by reub2000 · 2013-11-11 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  Simply put, an addiction is the continued use of a drug despite clear negative effects. If you take away the negative effects, then they aren't really addicted. Kind of like the millions of perfectly functional people that depend on caffeine.
34. Re:Not all good by jhol13 · 2013-11-11 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  One of the things that cause people to curb their drinking is that morning after hangover
  No.
  If you're an alcoholic,
  I think the GPs point was, "if you are not alcoholic". You need to drink quite a lot before you are alcoholic and hangover really does stop, very effectively, your drinking. It is not enough to prevent you from becoming an alcoholic, but it is one deterrent.
35. Re:Not all good by spaceman375 · 2013-11-11 16:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You have it backwards. Asians are one of the few human lineages that haven't developed an adaptaion to the consumption of alcohol. Specifically a liver pathway for dealing with ethanol rather than a more generalized one. It's a little slower to metabolize the ethanol into the first step, an aldehyde, and the one produced has a different feel to it. Less euphoria, more blushing red face IIRC.
  
  --
  On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
36. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  Rubbish its not physically addictive. It is addictive and has serious long term side effects that are well documented. Ask someone who has been using it for a long period of time to give it up. They can't and won't, which is the definition of addiction.
37. Re:Not all good by gl4ss · 2013-11-11 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  ...so, do you have a reason to not be drunk without ill effects? if wouldn't be bad for your health, what would be so bad about being wasted in the evenings, really?
  and anyways, real alcoholists have to keep drinking to avoid the hangover that might get them killed... it's true, it can happen to real alcoholists, pink elephants and all - that's why proper doctors who get a patient who needs to go sober but who has been drinking nonstop for month+ don't do cold turkey on them(or if they do they pump them full of drugs).
  or are you of the opinion that drinking is bad because you'll have fun while doing it - NOT that drinking is bad because it's poisonous?
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
38. Re:Not all good by spaceman375 · 2013-11-11 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  You aren't considering the case where the subconscious WANTS to quit. You may think some people are too stupid to quit, but a psychiatrist I know commented that he's met many people who were too smart to quit. They could come up with all sorts of reasons for just one more, oh it fits so well here, I have to for thus and such reasons.
  
  --
  On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
39. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:48 · Score: 0
  
  "Psychological addiction is all in your head."
  Obvious Lad states the obvious.
40. Re:Not all good by CodeBuster · 2013-11-11 17:33 · Score: 2
  
  It's been proposed that this common genetic mutation among Asians is a contributing factor to eastern societies relatively low rate of alcohol consumption.
  Have you never been to Japan? Going out after working late and getting shit-faced drunk before showing up for work again early the next morning (hopefully sober) is a long standing tradition of the typical Japanese salaryman. In fact, doing business in Japan without engaging in social drinking would be practically impossible.
41. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 17:45 · Score: 0
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction
  Otherwise known as the 'Asian flush'
  "It has also been associated with lower than average rates of alcoholism"
  "80% of Asian people (less common in Thailand and India) have a variant of the gene coding for the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase called ADH1B, and almost all Chinese and Korean people have a variant of the gene called ADH1C"
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19012127
  "The prevalence of alcohol dependence is not as high as is seen in other regions"
  Basically, you're wrong. Asians don't drink as much as non-Asians.
42. Re:Not all good by fractoid · 2013-11-11 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  You have to drink a metric fuckton before you start getting into that territory though.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
43. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 17:54 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously you are not an addict. I am. I go to AA and NA (Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous). Detox takes a month. The psychological addiction, the need to get loaded to dull the psychological pain, and the senseless compulsion just to use, is what endures, and is why people keep going to meetings and working the steps in order to stay clean and sober, years after the physical addiction goes away.
  Now I haven't mentioned the next step that all of us recovering addicts come to realize in AA/NA, that addiction for many of us is ultimately a spiritual malady. When we address that aspect of our lives, many of us miraculously find relief and completely turn our lives around. And it doesn't mean believing in "God", by the way, although if thats what works for you, then great. If you're curious, read some of our literature, or find a successfully recovering addict, and ask them.
  These two aspects of the illness, the psychological and the spiritual, completely eclipse the physical addiction. Except maybe for suboxin. It's _really_ hard to kick that for some people, so much so that quite a few have to stay on a low dose of it for the rest of their lives. But, they're not getting loaded, and it's under a doctor's supervision, so they are still clean.
  And by the way, I'm not ashamed of being an addict, but because we as a group have a policy of maintaining anonymity at the level of press, radio, and film, I am posting this as Anonymous. But believe me, anybody who embarks on the journey of recovery through the twelve-step program and sticks to it is about as far from being a coward as you can get.
44. Re:Not all good by Dahamma · 2013-11-11 18:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Sorry, your post is factually incorrect. The common mutation to the pathway is with ALDH2 (aldehyde dehydrogenase), the *second* step of the process.
  What happens is ethanol is broken down into acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), and then the aldehyde into acetic acid by ALDH2. When ALDH2 is not effective, aldehyde (a toxin) builds up in the bloodstream and causes flushing, nausea, headaches, etc. And it's been traced down to a single amino acid substitution in ALDH2 with partially dominant expression.
  One interesting anecdote I've seen from this is the use of certain drugs (an antihistamine, I think?) as off-label ALH inhibitors - basically to slow the pathway down and reduce buildup of acetaldehyde. In fact, an anesthesiologist friend was giving it to all of the Asian guys at the last bachelor party I attended :)
  And do the slightest research into it and you will see the OP was correct - one study showed something like 40-50% of Japanese had ALDH2 deficiency as a whole, but less than 5% of Japanese alcoholics had it. If you almost immediately got flushed and sick when you drank you'd obviously be more likely to avoid it in general...
45. Re:Not all good by jandersen · 2013-11-11 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, I can't figure out whether I agre with you or not, but here's my perspective: People have always used and will always use recreational drugs, and it does a certain amount of harm - although one may argue that it can also be beneficial to society, to some extent. It would be better in general, if there were some substances that gave people what they wanted, but with less harmful side-effects.
  I have used a fair amount of drugs in my life, but I don't any more; not because of a great, moral insight or anything, but because when the novelty wears off, it is no longer as interesting, and it makes me less able to do the things I really enjoy in life. I think most people have had the same experience.
  Drug addiction and -dependency is not the norm; if it were, then everybody who's been to hospital for major surgery would come out as heroin addicts; heroin is still widely used in hospitals, you see, as a safe and effective painkiller.
46. Re:Not all good by maxwell+demon · 2013-11-11 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  Also, it should come with a redshirt.
  Good idea. As everyone knows, when anything bad happens, it's the redshirt who dies. So if you get a redshirt together with your synthahol, you're safe.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
47. Re:Not all good by eulernet · 2013-11-11 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  Hold on a minute. I'm pretty sure you're making a big assumption there. What is "stronger"? Do you mean, "better able to work for a living"? Or do you mean, "more likely to have successful family lives"? Or do you mean, "conforming to societal norms". There are simply too many unknowns in the term "reality" and the term "strong".
  I meant: able to accept reality as it is.
  Drinking or taking "recreational drugs" allow to momentarily hide problems by reducing the amount of thoughts, but when the relaxed state vanishes, the problems appear more acute and one feels even more miserable.
  
  You have a construct inside your mind that you call "reality", but it's only as real as the consensus.
  I agree with you.
  Let's say that "reality" is the world perceived by our own senses.
  It's our mind that makes it either hell or heaven.
48. Re:Not all good by fatphil · 2013-11-11 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen two sides to this coin:
  
  I've witnessed drink-to-pass-out behaviour in Korea. (On soju, their rice wine much like sake.)
  
  I've also witnessed Korean brewers making the pissiest beer in the universe (InBev, I'm looking at you with your Cass and Cafri nonsense), so that you can literally chug all night and (at least someone with a well-adapted system will) barely get a buzz.
  
  However, both of those sides point to one thing - the fact that they do merily drink alcoholic beverages in quantity just like everyone else.
  
  Also note that there's no reason to consider a less efficient, or less pleasant, processing of alcohol to be the "mutation". Tolerance to a poison is more likely to be the adaptation, rather than intolerance to it.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
49. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 21:28 · Score: 0
  
  If society doesn't want to pay for the cost of treating drugrelated illnesses it doesn't have to.
  This is a trick that is becoming quite common:
  1) make something expensive a 'right'
  2) wait a while
  2) start complaining about the expenses incurred due to the 'right'
  3) start adding a lot of limitations on peoples actions justifying them by those expenses
  Rights are supposed to guarantee freedoms, they're a check on abuse of power, using them to impose limitations, to add chains limiting our freedom is a complete and utter abomination.
  With regards to specifically the cost of treating drug-related injuries in hospitals, I think you're fooling yourself:
  - first, despite decades of drugwar we are no closer now then we where at the start of the drugwar to having less of them
  - second, I'm pretty sure that the cost of the drugwar both in terms of money spent directly on it, and in terms of the increased criminal activity needed to fill that black market (and all the usual associated problems of criminal enterprises), is several magnitudes higher then the cost of treading those addictions.
50. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 21:38 · Score: 0
  
  the effects of marijuana are kinda different from those of alcohol
51. Re:Not all good by delt0r · 2013-11-11 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  The problem depicted is not that of hangovers, but rather that of excessive drinking leading to a severe lapse of judgment and restraint. This seems like a smart consideration to make.
  I have always wondered about that. I seem fully capable of severe lapse of judgement and restraint without any alcohol. In fact alcohol seems to improve my restraint and cause conservative judgement.
  
  It also makes me a better dancer and pool player ;)
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
52. Re:Not all good by delt0r · 2013-11-11 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  That is absolutely so. I haven't been drunk since shortly after college and it's because I hate how it makes me feel the next morning.
  You know i still drink quite a bit. I also just don't get hangovers since i have been in the EU. Don't know why that is. But as long as i get my min 4 hours sleep i am fine. And great if i get +6 hours. Otherwise i am a bit tired, but no headaches or anything like that. Sometimes i am really thirsty and drink lots of OJ.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
53. Re:Not all good by Kvan · 2013-11-11 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  Drinking or taking "recreational drugs" allow to momentarily hide problems by reducing the amount of thoughts, but when the relaxed state vanishes, the problems appear more acute and one feels even more miserable.
  That comes with a huge YMMV. Lots of people simply do it to have fun, not to escape anything.
  
  --
  "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
  - 'K' in Men in Black.
54. Re:Not all good by serviscope_minor · 2013-11-11 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  I meant: able to accept reality as it is.
  People who accept reality the way it is will never change the world.
  Drinking or taking "recreational drugs" allow to momentarily hide problems by reducing the amount of thoughts, but when the relaxed state vanishes, the problems appear more acute and one feels even more miserable.
  That's utter bullshit. Stressful week ends, have a few drinks to relax on Friday night. Wake up Saturday feeling fine because the stressful things are a little more distant and matter a little less.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
55. Re:Not all good by ubergeek · 2013-11-11 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  I meant: able to accept reality as it is.
  Drinking or taking "recreational drugs" allow to momentarily hide problems by reducing the amount of thoughts, but when the relaxed state vanishes, the problems appear more acute and one feels even more miserable.
  You've obviously never taken high doses of certain hallucinogens. Or if you had, you somehow completely missed one of the main benefits: insight into yourself and your relationship to the world around you. Ability to see problems for what they are, and often cope with them better.
56. Re:Not all good by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-12 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  But as long as i get my min 4 hours sleep i am fine.
  I hope you're under 35. A 4 hour minimum is way too little, IMO.
  Get some sleep, friend. It makes your life better.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
57. Re:Not all good by delt0r · 2013-11-12 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  My live is great. But i don't need lots of sleep. 6 hours every day on average with a sleep in on the weekends and i am good to go.
  
  Don't forget the variance or sample size on these so called studies. Also when they don't have a significant effect, they still claim an effect.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
58. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  I largely agree with this. My sole concern is the possibility of people abusing whatever drug it is they're using and ending up in the hospital. That's a net cost to society, both in medical fees and in their inability to do anything for a while, and it's putting their own lives at risk.
  Thats exactly why education is key. Its basically the whole point behind the harm reduction movement. "Abstinence-only" approaches only make the problem worse, by forcing a lack of education and an ecosystem run by lies and rumors, and by causing those affected to lose trust in the people pushing the approach due to their constant lying.
59. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  Apart from the addiction aspect, there is another problem. If you're pissed, how are you going to recognise a situation that requires your unclouded judgement?
60. Re:Not all good by DerekLyons · 2013-11-12 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  One of the things that cause people to curb their drinking is that morning after hangover
  No.
  If you're an alcoholic, the hangover is just a reason to start drinking early, not a deterrent. No hangover? I'll drink to that!
  He's not talking about alcoholics - he's talking about the considerably larger numbers of Joe and Jane Schmoes out for a few beers/shots on Friday night. They currently limit themselves to Friday night because Tuesday night they have to work on Wednesday... Now, if they can get tanked on Tuesday and be just fine on Wednesday, they're much more likely to be driving/dealing with kids/etc... tanked much more often.
61. Re:Not all good by IwantToKeepAnon · 2013-11-12 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Do we have a problem with people using drugs of their own free will if those drugs have no negative impact on their lives?
  "free will"? Ask a smoker if they smoke from their free will. They GOTTA smoke. Maybe, just maybe, the first one was of their free will (more like peer pressure or need for a stimulant or something non-free will); but their choice in the matter dissolved long ago.
  Even if there was an antidote to clear the haze, the addiction would still be there and there would still be no free will about it. I think this is an important point. This synthehol might make society more ok with addicts, it might make addicts more ok with being and addict, but those enslaved by it would not be "free-er".
  
  --
  "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
62. Re:Not all good by tepples · 2013-11-12 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  I think the allusion was to the Controlled Substances Act (USA) scheduling criteria.
63. Re:Not all good by bruce_the_loon · 2013-11-12 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Hey delt0r, you haven't forgotten our next pool game at Uncle Mike's Free Beer and Pool bar? I need the next contribution ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H donation ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H victory for my retirement ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H record.
  
  --
  Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
64. Re:Not all good by 3.5+stripes · 2013-11-12 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  As a counterpoint, some alcohol has been judged as healthy, because moderate drinking "hides" those problems, and therefor reduces stress. Are you seriously proposing that people spend their lives stressed (have a look at stress and disease rates, there's a huge causative link there) ?
  
  --
  
  He tried to kill me with a forklift!
65. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  The point is that they sit down to play a game and wind up killing themselves from neglect.
66. Re:Not all good by sixsixtysix · 2013-11-12 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  laws != drugs
  these are victims of the law, not the drug itself. it's like when people cite drug turf violence as a product of drug use, when it's really the laws in place that create the black market which creates the turf war.
  
  --
  ...
67. Re:Not all good by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2013-11-12 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  You know that "all in your head" doesn't mean much. A concussion is "all in your head". The brain damage from football that cause beloved Dave Duerson, and Junior Seau to take their own lives was all in their head as well. Go tell an Alzheimer's patient "it's all in your head" and see how much that helps your treatment of them.
  The brain is a pattern seeking, pattern matching, pattern forming engine. These patterns are created by chemicals and by creating physical connections in your brain. You can't totally remove physical from any "solely psychological" phenomena.
68. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Addiction does have a negative impact. That is the defining characteristic.
  That line is also a problem. The definition most people use for addiction is "won't stop using [substance] when I ask them to", not "is this even harming their quality of life"
69. Re:Not all good by delt0r · 2013-11-12 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, but that is what i mean by restraint. I won't put money on a pool game if i am drinking. Where i have done so sober. And believe me its still a bad idea sober!
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
70. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  He could have said habit forming and been correct then, or perhaps dependant.
71. Re:Not all good by s.petry · 2013-11-12 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  I think we agree for the most part, but I'm not sure my point was very clear.
  If marijuana, cocaine, and opium were legal everywhere would drug use increase? I think you state what studies show. Temporarily there may be an increase as people experiment. Society would not see more addiction because of legalization. A person may choose to go to the bar on Friday night and use a drug vs. using alcohol, but money and responsibility would keep most from using the drugs any differently than they use alcohol today.
  If those things were legal, would we need to have designer drugs in society and how much "science" would there be in those designer drugs? I don't believe there would be much need to develop those things since much of the reason the designer drugs come out today is due to other drugs being prohibited. Designer drugs largely come from people trying to circumvent the current laws.
  Looking at the rates of "regular" use of illegal drugs they tend to come from areas where people lack upward mobility in society. They are sold for money where legitimate jobs are lacking. Many urban areas see drug sales as their only way out of a crime ridden society, or the only way to gain any financial security in society. Legalization of drugs without any upward mobility would simply trade off illegal drugs for some other illegal activity needed to gain that same security and upward mobility.
  The history of Opium and the Opium wars is no different in my opinion than we have currently with the "War on Drugs". Drugs are used to pacify a certain demographic with use, generate income for a few in that same demographic, makes police lots of money in busts which removes that money from that same demographic, gives people free labor with prisons, etc... A large part of the "war on drugs" relates to an economy that a few people benefit from while the majority pay into the system.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
72. Re:Not all good by Urza9814 · 2013-11-12 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you're not, then you don't really need to "curb" it, and the memories of the dipshit things you did will be just as much of a deterrent. In fact, since you'll have a clear head and fully remember all your antics from the night before, the lack of hangover would actually increase the chances you'd think twice before having that last six shots of Tequila.
  The memories of those "dipshit things" are the entire reason I drink in the first place! Otherwise I think too much for my own good...
73. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  I've been using it for long periods of time (~15 years) with intermittent pauses of several years each. I would always quit from one day to the next, without it even registering as quitting. I just stopped using it like I would stop watching a TV series after it inevitably turned shit. It's addictive in the sense that everything that you can start liking and growing used to is.
  Soap operas, Internet, gaming, sex. These are all habits on the same qualitative level of "addiction".
  In short, you are wrong and stupid.
74. Re:Not all good by TangoMargarine · 2013-11-12 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if you end up running your liver into the ground even faster than before...
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
75. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  ""free will"? Ask a smoker if they smoke from their free will. They GOTTA smoke. Maybe, just maybe, the first one was of their free will (more like peer pressure or need for a stimulant or something non-free will); but their choice in the matter dissolved long ago."
  Bullshit. If this were true, no one would ever have quit smoking. But millions quit every week. Because they choose to.
76. Re:Not all good by parkinglot777 · 2013-11-12 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  You've obviously never taken high doses of certain hallucinogens. Or if you had, you somehow completely missed one of the main benefits: insight into yourself and your relationship to the world around you. Ability to see problems for what they are, and often cope with them better.
  I have never taken any kind of hallucinogens and I will never do that even a slightest. Though, I am uncertain on your claim about the main benefits.
  Hallucinogen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen ) has 2 main effects -- dissociatives and deliriants. From what you claim, it looks like you are talking about dissociative effect -- detach self from surrounding environment. Hallucination is not equal to truth or fact even though there may be some relation (just may be), so the insight you are talking about is not equal to seeing the truth of relation of self and the world. The part of seeing and dealing with problems better is doubtful to me. I would love to see a study (if any) on this part because the result of the study would either confirm or reject your claim. As of now, your claim is highly doubtfully reliable.
77. Re:Not all good by Urza9814 · 2013-11-12 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Who are you to decide how others should live their lives?
  If I decide I'm perfectly happy going home from work every day and smoking pot, why is that a problem that you must "save" me from? Because it doesn't benefit society as a whole? Well, I also enjoy spending hours upon hours writing code that will never be released (because it's custom code on custom hardware that I can't be arsed to generalize) so that's not benefiting society either -- should that be banned too? Should it be illegal for me to build my own tesla coil because I might electrocute myself?
  High IQs tend to coincide with mental illness too. Should we be trying to prevent high IQs?
  Why should you care how someone else chooses to live their life if they aren't actively harming anyone else?
78. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  To alcohol, source of and solution to all my life's problems!
79. Re:Not all good by swb · 2013-11-12 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  If this was even a reasonable argument, we wouldn't have any alcoholics.
  This is basically the morality argument for alcohol. Sin must be followed by repentance before redemption.
80. Re:Not all good by ubergeek · 2013-11-12 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a crazy idea: try reading more than just the first sentence of the first article you find.
  Also, the fact that you misread that very same sentence does not bode well for your reading comprehension. But seriously... while I would love to spend hours doing research for you and trying to convince you of the merits of this class of drugs, maybe you should try doing some reading beyond a single Wikipedia article.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_drug#General_psychological_effects
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin#Effects
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin#Medical_research
81. Re:Not all good by anarkhos · 2013-11-12 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  No, it *raises* the question
  
  --
  >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
  >life
82. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  if people can be psychologically rewarded for destroying their own biologies and then becoming a huge leech on the healthcare systems as they age, they have every right to!
  Gee, I wonder why no permissive societies ever last past 3 generations...
83. Re:Not all good by mcgrew · 2013-11-12 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  You have to drink a metric fuckton before you start getting into that territory
  Alcoholics do. Like many other psychoactive drugs, they build a tolerance up. One woman I know walked to the hospital one night with over a .4 blood alcohol content, that's twice as much as will kill most people.
  Alcoholics start drinking as soon as they wake up in the morning and don't stop until they pass out.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
84. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  One of the things that cause people to curb their drinking is that morning after hangover. With no pain for indulgence, this could be much more addictive than alcohol, which is already very addictive.
  Yeah, that's why they add acetaminophen to many opiate pain killers. Abuse it and it kills you, which makes sure there are fewer addicts out there.
85. Re:Not all good by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-11-12 09:39 · Score: 2
  
  I don't quite understand why people feel that intoxicants are inherently bad. I don't use them, but I don't share the moral objection to them.
  There are many people with a strong streak of Calvinism in their makeup. Anything that is pleasurable is immediately considered evil.
  It crops up in so many places. The temperance movement was one. The Comstock laws are another. The Harrison act, and the war on drugs is yet another.
  Even in more legal circles we see a lot of hate toward e-cigarettes. No particular health hazards, no second had smoke, allows ex smokers to improve their health.
  But it really pisses off three groups; those who have been trying to prohibit all tobacco sales, many of whom are frothing at the mouth about this, those who become upset when seeing another person enjoy something, (there must be something wrong with vaping) and an unrelated group, the Government, who when they started taxing tobacco, became just as addicted to the money as the smokers to the tobacco.
  Too many people believes pleasure = evil.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
86. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  I know this was a joke but the inability to metabolize alcohol is more in China than Korea or Japan. Japan and Korea both have big drinking cultures.
87. Re:Not all good by houstonbofh · 2013-11-12 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  Addiction does have a negative impact. That is the defining characteristic.
  That line is also a problem. The definition most people use for addiction is "won't stop using [substance] when I ask them to", not "is this even harming their quality of life"
  Not addiction counselors, or psychiatrists. Layman, perhaps, but I don't trust their opinions of cancer treatment either.
88. Re:Not all good by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-12 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  Funny you should bring up e-cigs. It's been an ongoing discussion at my house. I've always enjoyed tobacco, but never was a heavy smoker (no more than about 1/2 pack of cigarettes or maybe a few pipe-fulls per day, but not both). I'm also a martial arts teacher, so I've always struggled with the damage I know the smoke to be doing to my lungs and the enjoyment of the nicotine (I just can't enjoy snuff or chaw). I got a few of the N'joy e-cigs and just used one of those for a few days and I found myself with a strange headache. Maybe it was just my body adjusting to being without some of the tobacco additives or something, but as soon as I smoked a regular cigarette, the headache went away. My wife and daughter are much more amenable to the e-cigs, because they don't make me and my clothes smell like an ashtray so I don't have to go outside to enjoy an e-cig. I usually restrict my tobacco use to when I'm walking the dog.
  Anyway, I didn't mean to dump all this unrequested info on you, but you mentioned "vaping" and I'm new to the practice and it happens to be an issue for me.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
89. Re:Not all good by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-12 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  There's a lot more to entheogens than just "dissociatives and deliriants".
  I'm not familiar with the wikipedia entry on hallucinogens, but I suggest you find other sources if that's all you found there.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
90. Re:Not all good by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-14 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  But i don't need lots of sleep. 6 hours every day on average with a sleep in on the weekends and i am good to go.
  
  I'll bet you're under 40.
  You may not think you need additional sleep, but won't reach peak performance. I used to believe I only needed 6 hours/night. I found out that I do a whole lot better if I consistently get 7.5 hours. I wouldn't have known how much better, except I spent a month at a rural location where there wasn't much to do after it got dark and started sleeping a bit more. After a few weeks of 7+ hours (and consistent - no change on the weekends), I started noticing I was learning new stuff faster, performing better, feeling better.
  You may be an outlier, but just keep an eye on it, friend.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Pot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:36 · Score: 0

A little beer with THC would give you a certain similar buz and would actually mellow out people.
Stop looking, legalize it.
1. Re:Pot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  That would be an "intoxicating liquor" with not too much stretch of the imagination. When Prohibition was repealed, the regulation of "intoxicating liquors" was left up to the states. I don't know if anybody has ever made this argument. I suspect the SCOTUS would shoot it down on the basis that "everybody knew" that "intoxicating liquors" meant "alcohol". When you've got a SCOTUS that thinks growing grain and feeding it to your own cattle is "interstate commerce", it's pretty obvious the Constitution doesn't matter that much to them anyway.
As someone with a high tolerance... by neminem · 2013-11-11 11:36 · Score: 5, Informative

The effects of alcohol are occasionally fun to experience, but what aren't fun are a. attempting to get drunk and failing because it takes a lot, b. attempting to get drunk, overshooting and being too drunk, and c. even after drinking exactly the right amount, getting a hangover because you had to drink a lot to get there. I totally applaud this research.
That said, this is apparently also very old, so I'm not holding my breath ever seeing this in reality. (That is a link to basically the same synopsis of the same guy's research, from 2006.)
1. Re:As someone with a high tolerance... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  The trick is to drink quickly. It's frowned upon in some circles, but it's really the way forward if you enjoy the intoxication effects of alcohol, and anyone who denies this is very probably deluding somebody or other.
  Try this some time: drink a couple of pints of beer (in the UK that's 2x568ml at typically 3-6% ABV), and do it in under 40 minutes. You'll get that pleasant drunk feeling, then an hour or two later you'll be ready for bed. You can, on the other hand, drink nice and slowly all day, never get to the intoxication level of the two quick pints, and you'll have a stinker of a hangover the next day.
  The health damage comes from the amount of alcohol, not the intoxication (intoxicant-related physical injuries aside), so if you want to get a bit tipsy do it from a relatively small amount of alcohol in a short timeframe.
2. Re:As someone with a high tolerance... by Trax3001BBS · 2013-11-11 12:38 · Score: 2
  
  That said, this is apparently also very old, so I'm not holding my breath ever seeing this in reality. (That is a link to basically the same synopsis of the same guy's research, from 2006.)
  Shows what he claims; the business of producing alcohol for consumption is blocking his research and efforts.
  In a Nutt shell he's fighting Budwiser, just one of the many companies that would involve themselves in blocking this.
3. Re:As someone with a high tolerance... by hubie · 2013-11-12 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  The large scale beer producers operate for the most part on a very slim profit margin. Unless this is somehow cheaper to produce than mashing malted barley, they wouldn't care about it one way or the other. Alcohol is a large part of the taste of beer and other alcoholic beverages (taste a non-alcoholic beer, or a Malta Goya) so you'd need to figure out how to replace ethanol and not change the taste. I doubt the big beer producers give a rat's ass about this at all; if they see any worth in it, they'd work with him. That industry is not afraid of change; witness the failed attempts at clear beer, Zima and its ilk, all the current alco-pops. If they see a potential opening into a new market segment, they go after it aggressively until it doesn't pan out.
  However, it certainly sounds much better, in a pull for the underdog way, to say "and it would have worked if it wasn't for those meddling beer companies and that dog".
4. Re:As someone with a high tolerance... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  It could easily be cheaper by not being taxed like Alcohol. Personally I think the breweries are missing out on an opportunity
Already exists ! by bob_super · 2013-11-11 11:37 · Score: 5, Funny

"the effects can be quickly reversed"
It's called RU-486
*ducks*
1. Re:Already exists ! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  "the effects can be quickly reversed"
  It's called RU-486
  *ducks*
  A Russian-built 486, eh?
2. Re:Already exists ! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:34 · Score: 0
  
  RU-486
  Nope, Pentium.
3. Re:Already exists ! by maxwell+demon · 2013-11-11 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  PentiRUm?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:37 · Score: 1

Will it taste as good as a nice bottle of Rum?
1. Re:Yes, but... by maxwell+demon · 2013-11-11 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  Rum bottles are usually made of glass. Let me tell you, glass doesn't taste very well.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by occasional_dabbler · 2013-11-11 11:38 · Score: 1

Will Prof Nut's concoction taste this good?

--
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
1. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by DaveAtFraud · 2013-11-11 11:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Will Prof Nut's concoction taste this good?
  I know it's a rhetorical question but can't stand not answering with a decided *NO*. I've tried both "near beer" and "non-alcoholic wine" and neither tastes anything like the real thing. They aren't even poor substitutes; they're horrible.
  Professor Nut seems to think that the only reason people drink is to get drunk. He definitely needs to expand his circle of drinking companions as well as what he drinks.
  Lastly, I would be afraid that his cure would be worse than the disease. This sounds like the next "date rape" drug.
  Cheers,
  Dave
  
  --
  They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
  Ben
2. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by drinkypoo · 2013-11-11 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  That depends on your tastes...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Trepidity · 2013-11-11 12:06 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I have a can of Natural Ice here, and have a similar question to ask.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
4. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  You mean he should travel outside of United Kingdom?
5. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  Pure alcohol just tastes like burning (eg whiskey) so it's not like alcohol actually "tastes good". It's the other stuff from fermentation that makes beer taste good. So long as the substitute doesn't taste BAD and there's ways to reproduce all the other good taste from beer I could see it working.
6. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by cecom · 2013-11-11 12:47 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Oh, please, spare us the pretentiousness. Of course the main reason people drink is to get intoxicated. That is why wine exists. You may like to pretend that you enjoy it purely for the taste, but that is horseshit. As a society we have cultivated a "taste" for wine/single-malt scotch/whatever simply to justify our alcoholism and to make it more varied and fun.
7. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by SleazyRidr · 2013-11-11 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Try Texas-Select Non-Alcoholic Beer. If you can stomach most American "Beers" then that one is pretty close to the real thing.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
8. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  the main reason people drink is to get intoxicated.
  In anglosaxon and nordic countries, this is true. That's not the case in mediterranean cultures. You should travel a little more before asserting your viewpoint as universal truth.
9. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by khellendros1984 · 2013-11-11 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  You'd also have to reproduce the burning and the scent to really replicate alcoholic drinks. Otherwise, you're just making a new drink, not necessarily a replacement for the old one.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
10. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by iMadeGhostzilla · 2013-11-11 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  As a thought experiment, imagine a bar where a glass of wine is being sold for $7 and a glass of this non-alcoholic-but-intoxicating-wine-substitute that has a slightly unpleasant taste but the same effect for $6. By your theory, most people would buy the latter, whereas I think it's easy to imagine that very few actually would do that.
11. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by cecom · 2013-11-11 14:01 · Score: 0
  
  Really, moron? I happen to be from the Mediterranean...
12. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:14 · Score: 0
  
  Grats on adopting anglosaxon poor alcohol habits while keeping mediterranean (nonexistent) work ethics.
13. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:23 · Score: 0
  
  I think his interest is the people that end up in hospitals. He doesn't care about the people that like the taste. He isn't targeting that audience. This is one of the reasons weed should be legal. I know people that smoke instead of drink just to avoid the hangover. And its good cause when they drink they go overboard.
14. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by bitMonster · 2013-11-11 14:41 · Score: 2
  
  Ridiculous.
  Please explain why I frequently have 1 beer or 1 glass of wine in an afternoon or evening. I weigh 205 pounds and this doesn't intoxicate me at all. I find this behavior common amongst my friends and family.
  Also, maybe you should read about the history of fermentation. It's a natural, self-limiting process that preserves and concentrates calories. That might have been useful for something else, no?
15. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, wine exists because the majority of water wasn't safe to drink(and still isn't.)
  You are an idiot.
16. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by jones_supa · 2013-11-11 16:42 · Score: 2
  
  The one beer or glass of wine gives you the buzz too, that's why...
17. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:45 · Score: 0
  
  Will Prof Nut's concoction taste this good?
  I know it's a rhetorical question but can't stand not answering with a decided *NO*. I've tried both "near beer" and "non-alcoholic wine" and neither tastes anything like the real thing. They aren't even poor substitutes; they're horrible.
  Professor Nut seems to think that the only reason people drink is to get drunk. He definitely needs to expand his circle of drinking companions as well as what he drinks.
  Lastly, I would be afraid that his cure would be worse than the disease. This sounds like the next "date rape" drug.
  Done with your old man rant? Good.
  So first of all, what the fuck does your post have to do with David Nutt's ethanol substitute? You've not tried it, so what exactly is the justification for your rant? Even the crappiest oldman rants usually have one.
  As for the cure being worse than the disease: hardly. Alcohol causes more problems than all other drugs combined, and is one of the most physically addictive drugs in existence.(more physically addictive than cocaine).
18. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by DaveAtFraud · 2013-11-11 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  And I would buy the $30 glass of Opus One (depending on the vintage, of course).
  This also replies to the idiot you were replying to. Some people have no taste and can't understand people who do.
  Cheers,
  Dave
  
  --
  They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
  Ben
19. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by DaveAtFraud · 2013-11-11 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  "Beer" selection here usually consists of:
  Left Hand Brewing Company' Milk Stout
  New Belgium 1554 Black Ale
  Deschutes Black Butte Porter
  Deschutes Obsdian Stout
  We like a few others but have trouble finding them.
  The only time I drink yellow, fizzy beer is when I'm working outdoors in the summer. I still enjoy the German bob-sledder's comment at the Utah Olympics: "American beer is proof that you can dilute water."
  Cheers,
  Dave
  
  --
  They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
  Ben
20. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 18:19 · Score: 0
  
  This... I've been sober for years now, but occasionally take a drink on social occasions; no matter how expensive the wine is or how much coca cola you add to the scotch it still tastes like ass.
21. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by G-forze · 2013-11-11 21:51 · Score: 2
  
  coca cola you add to the scotch it still tastes like ass.
  That's your problem right there. You destroy good scotch by adding cola.
  
  --
  "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
22. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by taylorius · 2013-11-11 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that getting drunk *IS* the primary reason alcohol is as popular as it is. The (lovely) taste of certain drinks is a real attraction for sure, but if it wasn't for the alcohol, no-one would have bothered spending lifetimes honing the recipes to such perfection.
23. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  This sounds like the next "date rape" drug.
  I think alcohol will always remain the #1 "date rape" drug.
24. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Agent0013 · 2013-11-12 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  If there are ways to reproduce the good taste, then why don't they do that with the non-alcoholic beer and wine? And veggie burgers taste just like real beef too, right? I don't think it is as easy as you think it is.
  
  --
  
  -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
25. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by bingoUV · 2013-11-12 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Possibly they understand the reason behind the "taste". Lots of food items could taste horrible by themselves. Put another way, good and bad taste are just our interpretation of the taste.
  It is the positive association with satiation that makes us think it tastes "good". With alcoholic drinks, it is the pleasant mild intoxication while having the drink also contributes. Some drinks have both satiation and intoxication - beer for example has carbohydrates.
  Read about "cultivated" taste some time. It works on the same principle. And there are rare exceptions due to mental make up where positive/negative associations find very difficult to create a taste - same in food. Some people just can't cultivate a taste for some kind of food. Much of "party" food/drink is typically consumed when otherwise having a good time - which again adds to an illusion of "good taste" - which is nothing but positive association.
  So yes, the $$$ drinks (see conspicuous consumption), and "taste" (positive association) all are part of your pretentiousness.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
26. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by 3.5+stripes · 2013-11-12 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, 150+ years ago in Italy wine was not primarily an intoxicant, it was non insignificant part of their daily caloric intake (quite probably valid in France and Spain as well). Beer in Europe was one of the few ways to avoid waterborne disease before proper sanitation existed.
  Scotch and other things, yeah, I think you have a point there.
  
  --
  
  He tried to kill me with a forklift!
27. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by iMadeGhostzilla · 2013-11-12 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  So in another universe where beer, wine, and liquors do not exist and billions of people have not been exposed to and conditioned by their (pleasant and unpleasant) effects, from physiological and psychological ("spirits" are call that for a reason) to social, this alcohol-free, temporarily-intoxicating-but-currently-without-evidence-of-other-harm product stands a chance?
  Now even if this universe, if a glass of that product were sold for $1, in a crappy bar, there would be buyers. Or if it were sold for $30, in an up-scale bar, there might be buyers. But long term, IMO there is very low chance that it would be anything more than a quick fad, and hence it cannot justify the investment.
28. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by DaveAtFraud · 2013-11-12 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Possibly they understand the reason behind the "taste". Lots of food items could taste horrible by themselves. Put another way, good and bad taste are just our interpretation of the taste.
  It is the positive association with satiation that makes us think it tastes "good". ...
  Sorry, I don't buy it. The easy counter-example is a wine tasting of several different wines with different prices. I will like some and not like others due to characteristics of the wine and what I like and don't like will probably not correlate to the price. Each wine will have its own distinct flavor and characteristics because of possibly different varietals (type of grape), different wine making techniques, different micro-climates where the grapes are grown, different soils, etc. This is true even when the wines are all of the same varietal. You can also run the same tasting experiment using the same vineyard but across different vintages and have the same result: I will like some better than others.
  No conditioning involved. No differential association of one wine with having fun at a party and another having a horrible time. Likewise, while I enjoy some excellent wines, my observation is that you can always find an excellent wine if you spend enough. Much more interesting is trying various inexpensive and moderately priced wines to find the hidden gems. One of my favorite table wines at the moment is a $6.99 a bottle blend from the Puglia region of Italy. Quite yummy and dirt cheap. The only down side of this is you try a lot of plonk between the gems.
  Cheers,
  Dave
  
  --
  They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
  Ben
29. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by airdweller · 2013-11-12 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  "Really, moron? I happen to be from the Mediterranean..."
  "Of course the main reason people drink is to get intoxicated. That is why wine exists. "
  1. I don't care where you are from, but everyone I know (both in Europe - which includes Italy and France - and USA) drinks wine for the taste.
  2. If people only cared about getting drunk, they would just drink vodka (or any other "hard liquor").
  3. Drinking wine to get drunk is idiotic.
  4. If you think that intoxication is the only reason wine was invented, I have a surprise for you. It's called Google. Use it wisely, young padawan.
  "As a society we have cultivated a "taste" for wine/single-malt scotch/whatever simply to justify our alcoholism and to make it more varied and fun."
  Since when is Russia considered the Mediterranean?
30. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by bingoUV · 2013-11-12 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  " And there are rare exceptions due to mental make up where positive/negative associations find very difficult to create a taste - same in food. Some people just can't cultivate a taste for some kind of food."
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
31. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by bingoUV · 2013-11-12 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  You fail to give any evidence for why it cannot justify the investment, except what appears to be a "gut feeling" argument.
  It's an accepted fact that humans "invented" beer in Africa and wine in Eurasia, long long ago. Before there was a "civilization", so to speak. Yet wine is enjoyed in Africa and beer in Europe and Asia. 300 years ago, beer was as much a stranger in Europe as the hypothetical drink from TFA is a stranger to the world today. If beer has found acceptance in Europe in spite of not being " exposed " and " conditioned " to beer before that, this drink can "succeed" too.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
32. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by occasional_dabbler · 2013-11-12 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent! I had to google Natural Ice but you deserve your +5 Funny :-D
  
  --
  "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
33. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by occasional_dabbler · 2013-11-12 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Did I really need to add tags? Maybe I told it wrong.
  
  --
  "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
34. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, this sounds like elitist bullshit.
  I have tried dozens of types of alcohol and they all taste awful to me. I am one of these people not able to metabolize alcohol and get no positive feeling from drinking it.
35. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by mcgrew · 2013-11-12 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Of course the main reason people drink is to get intoxicated.
  There are only two kinds of people I have ever heard say that -- teetotalers who look down on any use of alcohol, and alcoholics. Drinking a Guiness with your meal will not intoxicate you, neither will a glass of wine with your steak and potato.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
36. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by mcgrew · 2013-11-12 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  I see you've never drank a beer or glass of wine.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
37. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by DaveAtFraud · 2013-11-12 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  How about some less emotionally charged examples? Here are a few:
  Filet Mignon (or any decent steak) vs. pink slime
  Fresh tuna steak vs. canned tuna
  Wild caught sockey or king salmon vs. farm raised Atlantic salmon
  Real half and half vs. Coffeemate liquid (or similar)
  Real whipped cream vs. Coolwhip (or similar)
  Real mashed potatoes vs. Instant mashed potatoes
  Real rice vs. minute rice
  Real oatmeal vs. instant oatmeal
  I could go on for quite a while with the "real" vs. instant/convenient but I think this list is sufficient to make the point. Several of the items in the list would be very difficult to tell from their right hand column counterpart using laboratory techniques but the taste and texture difference is huge. So, it isn't just wine (or alcoholic beverages in general) that we're talking about here. There are lots of things where the imitation is, at best, a poor substitute. No positive or negative asociations here just I tried stuff from both columns and found the stuff in the right column wanting.
  I can only hope that Prof. Nut's reserach gets nominated for a Ig Nobel. He desrves it.
  Cheers,
  Dave
  
  --
  They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
  Ben
38. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Hognoxious · 2013-11-13 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  He might be Asian.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
39. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by iMadeGhostzilla · 2013-11-13 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Most investments sort of need a gut feeling argument, and evidence needs to be given to justify it, not to not justify it, but let me try nevertheless,
  - the pain from the current "market alternative" -- beer, wine, liquors -- is insignificant compared to the attachment to it (social, psychological, taste-wise, some might even enjoy alcohol in part because of its dark side)
  - the current alcoholic beverage technology and market is extremely well established, probably the most established of all times, which makes it nearly impossible to displace -- the habits of buying and consuming, the places, the industry, all of it is incredibly engrained in the society. Eg. lots of people are attached to their tablets/phones but the habit is new and something else can replace it; with alcohol, most of us has have had it and often enjoyed it pretty much all of our adult lives at the least.
  Now if he invented a *pill* that can be taken before drinking that would eliminate the bad side effects, that would be a different story.
40. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Hognoxious · 2013-11-13 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  Having a meal with Guinness is redundant.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
41. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by mcgrew · 2013-11-13 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, Guinness can be filling. That's what I have when I eat at D'Arcy's and wind up taking half the meal home.
  Well, it isn't just the Guinness, their portions are American sized. But yeah, two or three pints and who needs dinner?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
42. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by bingoUV · 2013-11-13 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  - the pain from the current "market alternative" -- beer, wine, liquors -- is insignificant compared to the attachment to it (social, psychological, taste-wise, some might even enjoy alcohol in part because of its dark side)
  Not sure what you mean by "alternative". It is the alcoholic drink market you are still talking about?
  
  - the current alcoholic beverage technology and market is extremely well established, probably the most established of all times, which makes it nearly impossible to displace
  No one is talking about displacing it. Unless your argument is that inclusion of whiskey in a predominantly rum and wine drinking market is "displacing" any market. This new drink would just be one more of the options. And, since it can possibly be tasteless, be added to any food/drink, which are otherwise extremely tasty - rendering any objections to taste irrelevant. In case it is not tasteless, since its taste is unknown (obviously), objections to taste is extremely premature.
  
  -- the habits of buying and consuming, the places, the industry, all of it is incredibly engrained in the society. Eg. lots of people are attached to their tablets/phones but the habit is new and something else can replace it; with alcohol, most of us has have had it and often enjoyed it pretty much all of our adult lives at the least.
  This is the argument against EVERY invention, ever. Enjoy your horse carriage rides. No, walking dozens of miles everyday in search for prey.
  But unlike cars, which didn't fit well in stables, this new invention fits reasonably well within existing bars / liqour companies / department stores etc. Laws would need modification, like with any other psycho-active substance including lots of prescription medicine.
  
  Now if he invented a *pill* that can be taken before drinking that would eliminate the bad side effects, that would be a different story.
  TFA doesn't mention this can't be a pill. Actually, a mainstream media article about this science piece I read recently has "pill" in the headline!
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
43. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by bingoUV · 2013-11-13 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  How about some less emotionally charged examples?
  Can you give examples of examples I gave that you deem "emotionally charged"?
  Some brand examples you give are not available in market I frequent, so can't say much about them. Rest seem to be focussed on convenience / shelf life. Nutt is talking about neither of these, so you'd have to explain why these examples are relevant. If lack of harmful effects is being considered a form of "convenience", it is very very different type of convenience from that of your examples. Almost opposite, as your example "substitutes" are generally accepted to have more harmful health effects , or at least less good effects, than the original. Being not "fresh", or "natural" etc.
  
  I could go on for quite a while with the "real" vs. instant/convenient but I think this list is sufficient to make the point
  Sure. Make a different point than what we are discussing.
  
  Several of the items in the list would be very difficult to tell from their right hand column counterpart using laboratory techniques
  On the other hand, this new substance Dr Nutt is talking about is very easy to tell from presently available alcoholic drinks using laboratory techniques. Look ma - no alcohol. So you might want to change your examples?
  
  So, it isn't just wine (or alcoholic beverages in general) that we're talking about here. There are lots of things where the imitation is, at best, a poor substitute
  This is not necessarily an imitation in taste. This is an imitation in intoxication. So if it turns out to be undetectable by taste/texture/finish etc., you could add it to a non-alcoholic drink/food that is known to be extremely tasty, and get the effect of taste (of the other food/drink) and intoxication (from this new substance) - 2 in 1. Consumeristic society just laps up 2 in 1, right?
  Why do you presume it must taste like wine to be tasty? If you think wine (alcoholic beverage, in general) is the only tasty substance ever invented, you have a lot to explore in the taste buds department despite your claims to the contrary. And if not, objecting to an unknown (yet) substance with an unknown (obviously) taste is highly premature.
  Yes, if you drink a non-alcoholic substance with an expectation of taste/flavour/finish of an alcoholic substance - you are going to be disappointed. But it is the expectation that is wrong, not the substance.
  
  I can only hope that Prof. Nut's reserach gets nominated for a Ig Nobel. He desrves it.
  Misinterpretation of the purpose of activities of most Nobel prize winners could lead to an Ig Nobel.
  Though I am far from advocating a Nobel for Nutt - there is a long way from seeking investment to achieving Nobel-worthy practical application from a scientific achievement.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
44. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by DaveAtFraud · 2013-11-14 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  How about some less emotionally charged examples?
  Can you give examples of examples I gave that you deem "emotionally charged"?
  Some brand examples you give are not available in market I frequent, so can't say much about them. Rest seem to be focussed on convenience / shelf life. Nutt is talking about neither of these, so you'd have to explain why these examples are relevant. If lack of harmful effects is being considered a form of "convenience", it is very very different type of convenience from that of your examples. Almost opposite, as your example "substitutes" are generally accepted to have more harmful health effects , or at least less good effects, than the original. Being not "fresh", or "natural" etc.
  
  I could go on for quite a while with the "real" vs. instant/convenient but I think this list is sufficient to make the point
  Sure. Make a different point than what we are discussing.
  But that's why we are arguing in different directions. For me, any substitute for wine (or good beer, or single malt scotch, etc.) has to taste like the original. I consume those beverages for the taste; not the alcohol. Likewise, I don't consume the substitutes I mentioned for non-alcoholic items even though they are less expensive, more convenient, etc. My reason for mentioning these items was to make the point that I (and lots of other people) will not consume the substitute even if it eliminates some of the bad side effects of "real" alcoholic beverages.
  
  Several of the items in the list would be very difficult to tell from their right hand column counterpart using laboratory techniques
  On the other hand, this new substance Dr Nutt is talking about is very easy to tell from presently available alcoholic drinks using laboratory techniques. Look ma - no alcohol. So you might want to change your examples?
  But that is an extremely important point that you are missing. I chose the examples to be substitutes that are claimed to be "just as good as the real thing." They're not. Likewise, I would be very surprised if someone could come up with a "carrier" that imitates good wine, beer, etc. for Prof. Nut's alcohol substitute. That his alcohol substitute is not alcohol is not the point. It's the flavor of the beverage and whether that beverage tastes as good as the "real thing" that matters.
  
  So, it isn't just wine (or alcoholic beverages in general) that we're talking about here. There are lots of things where the imitation is, at best, a poor substitute
  This is not necessarily an imitation in taste. This is an imitation in intoxication. So if it turns out to be undetectable by taste/texture/finish etc., you could add it to a non-alcoholic drink/food that is known to be extremely tasty, and get the effect of taste (of the other food/drink) and intoxication (from this new substance) - 2 in 1. Consumeristic society just laps up 2 in 1, right?
  Why do you presume it must taste like wine to be tasty? If you think wine (alcoholic beverage, in general) is the only tasty substance ever invented, you have a lot to explore in the taste buds department despite your claims to the contrary. And if not, objecting to an unknown (yet) substance with an unknown (obviously) taste is highly premature.
  Yes, if you drink a non-alcoholic substance with an expectation of taste/flavour/finish of an alcoholic substance - you are going to be disappointed. But it is the expectation that is wrong, not the substance.
  But for this substance to be at all of interest to me or a lot of other people, the imitation of taste is the only factor that matters. If you can't provide the same taste and experience, all Prof. Nut is doing is creating yet another recreational drug. It just happens to be suitable for consumption as a beverage as opposed to taking a pill or something that is injected.
  
  --
  They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
  Ben
45. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by bingoUV · 2013-11-14 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Someone asks whether it will taste as good as current alcoholic beverages, and you say "no", without knowing its taste. You should participate in Olympics for jumping to conclusions.
  And in the case it turns out to be tasteless, you are basically saying no non-alcoholic beverage can ever taste better than any alcoholic beverage, except maybe the worst. That's just stupid.
  Then you point out "substitutes", that don't taste as good as the originals. That helps you conclude that this won't taste as good too. Except that this is NOT supposed to be a substitute in taste.
  You drink wine for the taste? Great. Wine will not stop existing even if his research fructifies.
  Yes the bar is high. People aim for difficult things. You have yourself set a high bar for jumping to conclusions.
  And what's wrong with creating another recreational drug? Why would that deserve an Ig Nobel?
  I guess your argument boils down to that you insist on misinterpreting the purpose of his research, so he deserves an Ig Nobel.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
46. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-15 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  It's not really that simple...
  Many people talk about how they initially hate beer/wine/spirits/coffee/etc. but eventually develop a taste for it. I suspect that the drug content of these drinks does contribute to the development of taste for it. HOWEVER, once they have developed a taste for it, it is a real taste. They do enjoy the taste, without the drug content. The question is if they were conditioned to like it over time based on the effects of it or if they really would have ever started to enjoy the taste if not for the effects.
  Personally I used to hate IPAs, but eventually developed a liking for them. Same with coffee. I am almost certain that the reason was the effect of these drinks on me, but I do now enjoy both of those.
Obvious Investor by rueger · 2013-11-11 11:39 · Score: 1

Dunno, but it looks like these guys would be an obvious choice. Does the good Dr accept Bitcoins?

--
Three Squirrels
Already Exists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:39 · Score: 0

The drug "GHB" does exactly this.
Unfortunately, high doses can cause coma. And, it is illegal.
1. Re:Already Exists by Xicor · 2013-11-11 11:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  everything that does anything similar is illegal... just look at weed...
2. Re:Already Exists by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-11 12:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The thing is that most of the "bad effects" of alcohol, e.g. lapsing judgment, are also the "good effects". It's all about context.
3. Re:Already Exists by Cryacin · 2013-11-11 12:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I guess everyone who said it would take a nut to come up with this was right.
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
4. Re:Already Exists by alvinrod · 2013-11-11 13:17 · Score: 2
  
  A high dose of anything will cause negative effects, if not death. You can even kill yourself from drinking too much water. The problem with some drugs is that the lethal dose isn't too far off from the common dose to experience the effect. Things like alcohol and GHB fall into that category, where the lethal dose is less than an order of magnitude than the effective dose, which make them somewhat dangerous.
5. Re:Already Exists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  That also depends on tolerance, though. As I type this I've consumed 12 drinks tonight, and will consume more. That could kill an inexperienced drinker, but as I'm of Irish ethnicity and have been drinking for years this sort of thing isn't unusual. I've met guys that can drink me under the table; easily 20+ drinks isn't beyond their reach, and without any falling down or embarrassing themselves.
6. Re:Already Exists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:33 · Score: 0
  
  Is there such a thing as too high a dose of wisdom or knowledge?
7. Re:Already Exists by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-11-11 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  The drug "GHB" does exactly this.
  Unfortunately, high doses can cause coma.
  
  Unlike alcohol?
  
  And, it is illegal.
  Sure is.
8. Re:Already Exists by skirmish666 · 2013-11-11 15:07 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder what the LD/50 of sand is...
  
  --
  Sigger than your average
9. Re:Already Exists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, you can't OD on weed. You can OD on butane hash oil or other concentrates, but that is like comparing heroine to the poppy plant itself.
10. Re:Already Exists by compro01 · 2013-11-11 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  2 kilograms per kilogram?
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
11. Re:Already Exists by icebike · 2013-11-11 15:26 · Score: 2
  
  everything that does anything similar is illegal... just look at weed...
  Weed's only illegal because you ALLOW it to be.
  Washington and Colorado have made it not illegal, Oregon and Alaska likely to to follow soon, with a whole raft of other states after that
  So instead of whining about it, start collecting signatures.
  Personally, I'd rather drink than smoke.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
12. Re:Already Exists by gl4ss · 2013-11-11 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  citation? or you mean eating so much hashish that it fucks up your stomach/you do something stupid? or suffocating due to breathing in only smoke for too long in some crazy weed breathing apparatus?
  which is quite different from OD'ing on coke or alcohol in which you just drop dead from the stuff itself, right in the middle of the night of partying, without the person doing anything else stupid than taking 16 shots of jagermeister - and the thing with alcohol is that the killing dosage varies so much nobody is going to stop you from drinking potentially lethal amounts in a bar, certainly not the bartender at least if you can behave yourself(which is not a surefire indication of if you're going to drop dead from it or not).
  (and by citation I don't mean link to some nutjobs "I took a sniff of hashish and spent 3 weeks in lala land(because I drunk 24/7 during the period) warning story page, but like, to an actual case of somebody's body failing solely because he took too much thc - since there's plenty of cases of alcohol poisoning).
  oh and to the actual article.. it's not a problem to find a substitute drug at all. the problem is solely to get the substitutes legalized. alcohol prohibition itself isn't feasible because you can make alcohol if you have food, simple as that.
  *) disclosure: I quit drinking because I don't want to repeat acute pancreatitis, but man, a drinking substitute has to be at least as fun as drinking!
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
13. Re:Already Exists by afxgrin · 2013-11-11 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  And it would be damn expensive to do that.
14. Re:Already Exists by afxgrin · 2013-11-11 16:08 · Score: 2
  
  The risk with GHB is that when consumed with alcohol the reaction is very very bad. So the issue is, if we were to supply GHB-based beverages on the market, even with a very controlled low dose, once mixed with alcohol the results can be instant blackout (the reason why GHB is used as a date rape drug), profuse vomiting, coma, seizures, and death. You're essentially asking to end up in the ER if you do this combination to even a bit of excess.
  I personally know people who had the attitude of "oh i'm experienced using GHB, I can control myself from drinking too much alcohol while on it" ... right there is half the problem, once some people start drinking the subsequent drinks are consumed with less judgment - surprise surprise considering it inhibits your sense of judgment.
  So we're not talking about high doses here, the LD50 for GHB is kind of low, combine that with alcohol and it's even lower.
15. Re:Already Exists by tragedy · 2013-11-11 16:19 · Score: 2
  
  Tolerance is a mixed bag. You're still likely to be messing up your liver long term. Not to mention that heavy drinkers, _especially_ those with a high tolerance, are at a high risk of an alcoholic stroke.
16. Re:Already Exists by Hamsterdan · 2013-11-11 16:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Alcohol is *NOT* on the lower spectrum regarding addictiveness.
  (you can die from alcohol withdrawal)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal#Prevention_of_brain_damage
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
  
  --
  I've got better things to do tonight than die.
17. Re:Already Exists by ozmanjusri · 2013-11-11 17:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Cannabis:
  In summary, enormous doses of Delta 9 THC, All THC and concentrated marihuana extract ingested by mouth were unable to produce death or organ pathology in large mammals but did produce fatalities in smaller rodents due to profound central nervous system depression.
  The non-fatal consumption of 3000 mg/kg A THC by the dog and monkey would be comparable to a 154-pound human eating approximately 46 pounds (21 kilograms) of 1%-marihuana or 10 pounds of 5% hashish at one time. In addition, 92 mg/kg THC intravenously produced no fatalities in monkeys. These doses would be comparable to a 154-pound human smoking at one time almost three pounds (1.28 kg) of 1%-marihuana or 250,000 times the usual smoked dose and over a million times the minimal effective dose assuming 50% destruction of the THC by smoking.
  Thus, evidence from animal studies and human case reports appears to indicate that the ratio of lethal dose to effective dose is quite large. This ratio is much more favorable than that of many other common psychoactive agents including alcohol and barbiturates (Phillips et al. 1971, Brill et al. 1970).
  http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/LIBRARY/mj_overdose.htm
  http://www.oregon.gov/pharmacy/Imports/Marijuana/StaffReview/ReschedulingCannabis-NOTES_3-10.pdf
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
18. Re:Already Exists by fractoid · 2013-11-11 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, high doses can cause coma. And, it is illegal.
  Sounds like alcohol in the '20s.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
19. Re: Already Exists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 18:26 · Score: 0
  
  Also, these effects are mostly learned and social responses. In different cultures, people with the same high BAC display widely varying "effects" of intoxication.
  So finding a molecule that produces the same effects ought to be easy. Maybe that's Nut's plan - get people "high" on his mystery substacnce and then reveal it doesn't actually do a thing.
20. Re: Already Exists by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-11 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Too much alcohol just makes me feel dizzy, and a little sick. I can see how this numbness could be exploited to "escape" reality, but I neither need nor want a chemical to escape anything. If I want to have fun, I'll do it with all my wits about me.
21. Re:Already Exists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 22:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. You often get killed for knowing too much.
  
  Some people even kill themselves because they can't deal with what they know,
22. Re:Already Exists by ubergeek · 2013-11-11 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  And the fact that GHB is probably highly neurotoxic. There hasn't been a decent primate (non-human or otherwise) study completed yet, but the work done on rats is not encouraging (massive cell death in both PFC and hippocampus). If you're using GHB recreationally, I would seriously recommend reconsidering.
23. Re:Already Exists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Ask an accident victim (if he/she lived to talk about it) what they think about context and point of view.
24. Re:Already Exists by RaceProUK · 2013-11-12 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, you can't OD on weed
  You can, just like you can OD on water or oxygen. You'd need a monstrous amount though.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
25. Re:Already Exists by 3.5+stripes · 2013-11-12 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  You'd have to have someone apply it to you, unless you think you could eat a half kilo of sticky golden tar.. don't forget that one of the very early side effects of excessive cannabis usage (at a point nowhere near OD also) is unconsciousness.
  
  --
  
  He tried to kill me with a forklift!
26. Re:Already Exists by 3.5+stripes · 2013-11-12 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Look into green dragon then :)
  
  --
  
  He tried to kill me with a forklift!
27. Re:Already Exists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  then drink your weed or eat it. most smokers i know, in a state where it is illegal, would prefer to not smoke it, but its just not economical to make edibles at this point.
28. Re:Already Exists by fauxjargon · 2013-11-12 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  Which is why brownies were invented.. Can't stand green dragon, I don't react well to simultaneous alcohol and pot consumption. However, thanks to drug testing in my industry, I am no longer able to indulge. I think the number one problem we will see with legal marijuana is the lack of a test that distinguishes between intoxication and recent use. Imagine if alcohol gave positive test results for weeks after consumption. Even if pot is legalized in my province I won't get to enjoy it because of my employer. My employer has some ground to stand on, as I work in a safety-sensitive position and although there's no problem with me drinking after work because I will test negative in the morning - if I were involved in an accident and tested positive for THC nobody would be able to prove I wasn't high when I caused the accident.
29. Re:Already Exists by kiehlster · 2013-11-12 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, if you're at the store, can you pick up a nut case on the way home this evening?
30. Re:Already Exists by photo+pilot · 2013-11-12 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  That dog and monkey had to set some world record for being stoned as fck!
31. Re: Already Exists by gzuckier · 2013-11-12 06:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I have a high tolerance Tonight I have consumed many drinks and nothing hs happenef to n y et I am still siber and fyully sgt jcnn
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
32. Re:Already Exists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Seek. Help. Now.
33. Re:Already Exists by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-11-12 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  citation? without the person doing anything else stupid than taking 16 shots of jagermeister
  16 shots of Jagermeister is an excellent example of stupidity. I think people who would do that would drink brake fluid.
  legal disclaimer: Since I know ther are people her that probably drink Jag, please do not under any circumstances try to consume brake fluid, or use it as a substitute for Jagermeister
  Vicks formula 44 might be a good substitute though.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
34. Re:Already Exists by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-11-12 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  That dog and monkey had to set some world record for being stoned as fck!
  Wiped a whole town out of Fritos chips.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
35. Re: Already Exists by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-11-12 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Too much alcohol just makes me feel dizzy, and a little sick. I can see how this numbness could be exploited to "escape" reality, but I neither need nor want a chemical to escape anything. If I want to have fun, I'll do it with all my wits about me.
  The Ethanol - you're not doing it right.
  Getting shit faced is for teenagers, college kids and severe alcoholics, and if you are dizzy, you are way past what you should have consumed. Lost your wits? Yikes! should have stopped a long long time ago.
  Properly consumed in small amounts, it is relaxing and enjoyable. A couple beers, some wine, or a mixed drink or two is actually good for you.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
36. Re:Already Exists by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-11-12 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder what the LD/50 of sand is...
  Depends on the route of ingestion.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
37. Re:Already Exists by Cederic · 2013-11-12 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, you haven't even asked what he's drinking. Ginger Beer isn't terribly high percentage by volume after all.
  Whereas I've had half a pint of Baileys and Butterscotch Schnapps and I can assure it, it's gorgeous.
  Fuck the alcohol effects without the downsides, give me the sugar content and taste without the alcohol effects or the downsides. I drink stuff that tastes nice, not because it makes me drunk.
38. Re: Already Exists by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-12 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's what I mean: what I would consider a "reasonable" amount does nothing except make me feel a little less alert, then a little more makes me feel slightly tingly, and too much makes me feel dizzy/sick. There is no point at which I feel merry, or relaxed.
39. Re:Already Exists by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-11-12 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on how you measure addictiveness. If you compute it by dividing the number of addicts by the number of users, it's a hell of a lot less addictive than nicotine.
40. Re:Already Exists by Hamsterdan · 2013-11-13 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  As a smoker , hell yes. It's a whole lot harder to stop smoking than drinking
  
  --
  I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Proffessor Nut? by davydagger · 2013-11-11 11:41 · Score: 1

Proffessor Nut?
you don't say.
1. Re:Proffessor Nut? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 18:48 · Score: 0
  
  No, Professor Nutt, I say.
Less healthy? by mrspoonsi · 2013-11-11 11:41 · Score: 1

It is known that certain forms of alcohol (real ale, Wine) have anti cancer elements, drinking moderately extends life. With all this removed you are just left with the drug.

Perhaps the one which reverses the effect of being drunk has more promise (ready to drive home), but again if abused, as I am sure it would be, the kidneys still have to work, if the person is able to drink more it is perhaps less healthy.
1. Re:Less healthy? by im_thatoneguy · 2013-11-11 11:55 · Score: 2
  
  You only need to drink like 1oz of wine to get those benefits. You might as well just take a tablespoon of booze and get the best of both worlds.
2. Re:Less healthy? by cmdr_tofu · 2013-11-11 15:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yet alcohol is a risk factor for developing cancer of the throat, mouth, and basically the rest of the digestive tract. The anti-oxidants in wine are also readily available (without risk-factor alcohol) in the form of grape juice or grapes.
  http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/alcohol
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_cancer (3.6% of cancer cases and 3.5% of cancers deaths are attributed to alcohol)
  Research into a healthier alternative (maybe added to a high anti-oxidant blueberry juice) is certainly worthwhile.
3. Re:Less healthy? by airdweller · 2013-11-12 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Juice also has tons (figuratively) of sugar. I'd stick with the fresh berries.
Not just this research. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've heard the drinks industry is allegedly involved against the decriminalization of pot. For obvious reasons.
I'd consider pot an already researched and much better alchohol substitute too, but each to their own.
1. Re:Not just this research. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  We saw this first hand in denver, although it was on a smaller scale but from the mayor himself. Hickenlooper owns one of the biggest bars/brewerys in downtown denver and was very anti-pot before it got legalized in colorado. The mayor didnt even bother to show up to the duel proposed from the head of the legalization movement, the first time back in 2004, when he proposed to go hit for chug and see who was left standing to prove it was safer and should be legalized
2. Re:Not just this research. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 19:25 · Score: 0
  
  Pot is not the same experience. Some people like alcohol and don't like pot. But even if you like both, they are different drugs and best in different situations. Pot is good for just chilling with friends. Hanging out, watching tv, talking, playing video games, maybe being a bit active, going shopping, playing disc golf, whatever. This will depend a lot on the strain of pot too. That is not what alcohol is best used for. Alcohol is best for going out, socializing, especially for meeting and talking to strangers. It's good for dancing. It's good for hooking up. These are different situations. Mixing the two is tricky of course. If you don't mix them right, you will end up in a non ideal situation and possibly have a bad time. You might end up feeling sick. Or you might end up feeling anti-social. Or you might end up feeling exhausted and need to go to bed. In general, alcohol makes you want to leave the house, and pot makes you want to stay in. They are opposite drugs in this way.
3. Re:Not just this research. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  It may end up as a supplement rather than a substitute. I much prefer my pot after/during drinking as it emphasises the buzz.
  And just to swerve a few stereotypes about users, I work in R&D at a major global software/infrastructure company.
4. Re:Not just this research. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  Because they couldn't sell legal pot, too? Those rumors never made sense to me. Why would they be anti-legalization if it would give them a hot new product?
Or, another idea for an alcohol substitute by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:43 · Score: 0

legalize weed.
neuropsychopharmacologists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:45 · Score: 0

"Prof Nutt is one of the country’s leading neuropsychopharmacologists..."
Would that word even fit on a Scrabble board?
Taste vs Effect by Lanforod · 2013-11-11 11:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't drink Alcohol for the effect/buzz etc. I drink it for the taste. I love a cold beer, or nice rum n coke, a scotch on the rocks, or a glass of pinot noir, all depending on the situation. The buzz can be nice, but that's more what the teenagers drink for, IMO.
1. Re:Taste vs Effect by Anne_Nonymous · 2013-11-11 13:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  What's interesting is that the alcohol is such an important part of the taste of these drinks. I did an unfortunately large amount of research to find my wife a decent tasting NA beer to drink while pregnant (yes, I know there's still some alcohol in NA beer). And even the best of them (IMHO Thomasbrau, by Paulaner), just didn't taste right without the alcohol. I'd say the same of red wine where I did less extensive tasting and could find no NA wines that were even in the acceptable range.
2. Re:Taste vs Effect by chameleon3 · 2013-11-11 13:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't drink Alcohol for the effect/buzz etc. I drink it for the taste.
  I love the taste of alcohol, too, but the buzz is part of the reason we got to liking it in the first place-- simple classical conditioning.
3. Re:Taste vs Effect by Jason+Levine · 2013-11-11 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  Interestingly, I can't stand the taste of alcohol. I'm not sure why, but beer, wine, and any other alcoholic beverage just tastes awful to me. I can stand some mixed drinks where the alcohol flavor is masked, but that's about it. I also can't stand anything carbonated - feels like it's burning my tongue.
  Granted, I don't think I'd be the market for the alcohol substitute since I wouldn't be looking for the intoxicating effects of alcohol in the first place.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
4. Re:Taste vs Effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 20:07 · Score: 0
  
  It's an acquired taste, very dependent on experience, but also dependent on serving temperature and most of all, on the quality. I didn't like alcohol, especially beer, when I started out. In the beginning, I drank alcohol just for the social effects. So I learned to tolerate beer, and then I liked it a bit, and now I like it a lot. Those beers that I learned to like when I was younger, now I hate them. I only really like craft beer now. Taste is a much bigger reason for drinking. Same goes with wine and spirits. Wine is tricky, it tends to be more expensive and take a lot more experience. Whiskey is my favorite. I can drink Scotch neat no problem, as well as other high quality whiskeys. You don't taste the alcohol, you taste the flavor. You don't know what you are missing. There is so much pleasure in a glass of Johnie Blue. That stuff is very expensive. I was only able to afford it because of a special discount they have on holiday gift packs. I bought it expecting to be disappointed. I was not. It's on another plane of existence to every other drink I have had. There is an experience beyond delicious. Think of like the best steak of your life, combined with a Godiva chocolate, combined with a hit of weed, while being hugged by a beautiful women. That's what every sip of Johnie Blue feels like on top of it's nice taste. If you don't learn to tolerate alcohol, you will never experience this. It is sad.
5. Re:Taste vs Effect by Neil+Boekend · 2013-11-11 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  I find the new alcohol-free Weizen beers to be quite good, as a designated driver drink for example.
  Erdinger Alkoholfrei suits my taste well. I really like the normal Erdinger so that was a safe bet.
  Bavaria 0.0 wit (Google translated version) is a daily "relaxing drink" for me.
  There are many alcohol free weizen beers nowadays: Paulaner, Schneider, Franziskaner (German) and many others.
  Google for alkoholfrei weizenbier, although that would demand some experience in the German language (as this is where all Weizen beers come from).
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
6. Re:Taste vs Effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  If you drink for the taste then why do you drink cold beer? The cold reduces the sensitivity of your taste receptors so you aren't enjoying the full flavour of the beer if it is cold.
7. Re:Taste vs Effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  for the taste ... scotch on the rocks
  
  Uhuh ...
8. Re:Taste vs Effect by antdude · 2013-11-12 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  I hate the alcohol part. I love fruit juice though.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
9. Re:Taste vs Effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  The buzz can be nice, but that's more what the teenagers drink for, IMO.
  Wow. You really think that teenagers are the only ones drinking for the buzz?
  "IMO" doesn't make your statement correct.
What about those who don't get drunk? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:50 · Score: 0, Interesting

No, really, what about those that alcohol has no effect over?
I currently drink once in a blue moon, just because I don't get drunk. I get from the state of "I'm drinking" to the state of "I have a passing hangover like the afternoon of the next day", and only after an hour of drinking. I drink vodka - about 400ml to get me feel something and at about 500ml I am practically sober with alcohol converted to god knows what, but do not experience any pleasant or unpleasant effects any more.
1. Re:What about those who don't get drunk? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, really, what about those that alcohol has no effect over?
  I currently drink once in a blue moon, just because I don't get drunk. I get from the state of "I'm drinking" to the state of "I have a passing hangover like the afternoon of the next day", and only after an hour of drinking. I drink vodka - about 400ml to get me feel something and at about 500ml I am practically sober with alcohol converted to god knows what, but do not experience any pleasant or unpleasant effects any more.
  Bullshit. You are not somebody who doesn't get drunk. You are somebody who doesn't realize they are drunk. There are plenty of people like this out there. You're still drunk, you just don't know it. Try drinking 400ml of vodka, then ask an experienced cop to give you a sobriety test.
2. Re:What about those who don't get drunk? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  Actually I did.
  They had me for one hour in the cold doing monkey stuff and when they finally gave me the breathalyser is showed 0.0 much to their surprise.
3. Re:What about those who don't get drunk? by Kielistic · 2013-11-12 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Your friends scribbled "Vodka" across a bottle of water and then spent the rest of the week laughing at you behind your back. You aren't going to come to a place like Slashdot making magical claims about being immune to alcohol and have anyone think you're anything more than an idiot.
Nutt, not Nut by Okian+Warrior · 2013-11-11 11:50 · Score: 5, Informative

First of all, it's Professor David Nutt, not "Nut"
Second of all, it's the same Professor who was a British government advisor, who was sacked for "criticising politicians for distorting research evidence and claiming alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than some illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis."
Seems like a scientist with integrity. Perhaps this is less the risible ramblings of a madnam, and more he's at the "...then they laugh at you" part of fighting the good fight.
(Unless, of course, you think LSD and cannabis are more damaging than alcohol and tobacco, in which case feel free to poke fun.)
1. Re:Nutt, not Nut by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:11 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Thank you, came here to make that point.
  Yes, Prof Nutt is a remarkable sane, evidence based, thinking person. That's why he got fired by the UK government, he looked at the evidence and told the truth. That didn't mesh.
  A large amount of the political pressure was from the then-hysteria over Ecstacy (MDMA), mostly led by the papers. One of his conclusions was that the sheer scale of usage, and the relatively few deaths (probably less than 10 high profile ones from memory) meant that it was statistically safer than many prescription drugs, and certainly safer than alcohol and nicotine, and that was without any controls on production and distribution whatsoever.
  I tried Ecstacy once. Really pointless drug in my opinion (I'm a beer and a joint man), but you can't argue with his logic on that one. Don't discount him, he's one of the most realistic thinkers when it comes to humans and their enjoyment of psychoactives. I'd put him on a par with Ford and the motor car, if any of the current leaders in the field change society's approach to the issue it'll be him.
2. Re:Nutt, not Nut by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  First of all, it's Professor David Nutt, not "Nut"
  Second of all, it's the same Professor who was a British government advisor, who was sacked
  So, one morning, on the bullettin-board it read: "Professor Nutt sacked".
3. Re:Nutt, not Nut by Pav · 2013-11-11 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Read it again... he was saying the opposite.
Get Proctor & Gamble on the Phone by Pollux · 2013-11-11 11:52 · Score: 2

After their success with Olestra, I'm sure they have eager investors on speed-dial with money to burn on the next artificial-vice-substitute.
1. Re:Get Proctor & Gamble on the Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:48 · Score: 0
  
  After their success with Olestra, I'm sure they have eager investors on speed-dial with money to burn on the next artificial-vice-substitute.
  As it turns out, Olestra is actually a pretty safe "fat/oil substitute" - it even has some surprising health benefits: namely, it's more-or-less the only existing solution for removing dioxines from the body.
We have to do this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:52 · Score: 0

We need all the alcohol we can get to use for fuel. While we're at it, we need to come up with a substitute for food so food crops can be diverted to make food. Oh I know! Soylent Green!
it's Nutt, you nut by SuperElectric · 2013-11-11 11:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Former member of the UK government's drugs advisory panel, until some pol fired him for pointing out (correctly) that the health risks of horseback riding outweigh those of doing ecstasy. He's the author of Drugs Without the Hot Air, a fantastic book. http://boingboing.net/2012/06/20/drugs-without-the-hot-air.html
and 3... 2... 1... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 11:56 · Score: 0

Politicians funded by the alcohol industry attack new chemical as 'most dangerous threat to humanity ever' and work to have it added to schedule 1 drug list
Higher alcohols... by jasno · 2013-11-11 11:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

There are many substances that effect our bodies in ways that are similar or complimentary to ethanol. Many of those substances are already present in fermented products like wine and beer. Some of those are higher weight alcohols(i.e. - fusel oils) like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tert-Amyl_alcohol or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryptophol. There are other components too, such as the chemicals found in hops. Most of these compounds do not metabolize into acetaldehyde so they do not result in a traditional hangover.

--

http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
1. Re:Higher alcohols... by Kochnekov · 2013-11-11 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  How about diethyl ether?
2. Re:Higher alcohols... by pla · 2013-11-11 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Just don't go chugging it around gaslights. Killer burps.
Speaking of drunk... by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2013-11-11 11:58 · Score: 0

Is /.'s server giving anyone else a hard time -- like logging them out with unusual frequency and/or not showing some of the paragraph breaks & spaces in preview/post mode that they visibly put there while typing? The last few days, I've been logged out 3-4 times, had to write "<br><br>" in my posts to keep random paragraphs from running together in preview/post, and force a non-breaking space in some places because similarly random spaces in my posts aren't showing up outside the text box. (No, I didn't change any settings...)

--
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
1. Re:Speaking of drunk... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yr on GCHQ /.
  GCHQ /. cant hold its smoke. That's what it is.
  CAPTCHA: "schooled"
I think by olip85 · 2013-11-11 11:58 · Score: 1

you should drink for the taste and not the feeling. If you drink only for the feeling, you might be looking at problems no too far in the future..
1. Re:I think by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  most alcohols are an acquired taste, isn't doing it for the feeling despite thinking it tastes horrible pretty much how every teenager starts?
2. Re:I think by HornWumpus · 2013-11-11 13:54 · Score: 2
  
  Those of us with German parents started acquiring a taste for beer well before our teenage years.
  Germans have a product called 'kinderbeer'. Sweet and malty with a light hoppy flavor.
  To say nothing of the kirshwasser in the whipped cream, wine in the sauce etc etc.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Synthehol by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:00 · Score: 0

Even the Picard wouldn't drink that crap.
weed & ativan by lambent · 2013-11-11 12:07 · Score: 1

weed & ativan. there, research done. we can all go home early.
Yeast by forevermore · 2013-11-11 12:15 · Score: 1

Or maybe it's because it's very easy and cheap to get yeast to produce your alcohol for you. Might be ok as a replacement for distilled spirits, but imagine how expensive synth-beer would cost if manufacturers had to pay some chemical company for the added synthehol. Not to mention how it would be nearly impossible to replicate the flavor (think non-alcoholic beer).

--
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
1. Re: Yeast by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 21:38 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, in terms of chemical engineering, it's a lot harder to run a brewery than chemical plants. Beer has to sit around for months before you drink it too.
Just pay alcoholics to breed by fatphil · 2013-11-11 12:16 · Score: 1

I don't get hangovers. This is a genetic trait, shared by many serious alcoholics (rather than just opportunist ones like pop-stars), related to the balance between different alcohol-processing metabolic pathways in my body.

If you are interested in my genes, send me some money and your address, and I can stick a sample in an envelope for you. Group discounts negotiable. If you all accidentally raise sociopaths, or in fact if anything at all happens, I take no responsibility at all.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
1. Re:Just pay alcoholics to breed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  I also have the "no hangover" trait, and it's generally been a huge pleasure. I never really considered the danger that it can enable alcoholism, though. I'm going to have to watch out for that (serious alcoholism on 1/4 of my family tree). Thanks for the heads up.
2. Re:Just pay alcoholics to breed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  I don't get hangovers.
  Like all problems in life, yours can be solved by drinking more.
3. Re:Just pay alcoholics to breed by turtledawn · 2013-11-11 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  same here, no hangovers thanks to generations of alcoholics pruning the family tree. Fortunately I find the feeling of being too-drunk an adequate deterrent.
  I am _not_ offering samples as the process would be significantly more challenging and unpleasant for me than for fatphil here. :-)
  
  --
  Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
This Exists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 12:19 · Score: 0

Benzodiazepines, Phenibut, and pretty much anything that directly or indirectly affects GABA receptors. The problem isn't the side-effects; the problem is the very thing that makes it pleasurable.
With effects? by nurb432 · 2013-11-11 12:26 · Score: 1

Good luck getting that past the FDA. They frown on new 'mind alternating' chemicals.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
For the taste by pithawat · 2013-11-11 12:34 · Score: 1

People saying the love beer for its taste. Have you seen any stocked a fridge full of non-alcoholic beers?
1. Re:For the taste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Have you sampled what passes for non-alcoholic beers?
2. Re:For the taste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  You either have no taste for beer or have not tasted the non-acoholic offerings if you think that they're in any way a nice substitute.
3. Re:For the taste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  not in my fridge, and for the same reason i dont stock it with budweiser, anything "lite", corona, suntory (the cheap one), whites, etc: because i dont like how they taste. i, and many others also purchase seasonal, regional, limited-run, novelty, and microbrewery beers. why? to enjoy the wide variety of tastes.
4. Re:For the taste by Riddler+Sensei · 2013-11-11 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, I'm too busy drinking the beer that makes me feel good.
5. Re:For the taste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  People saying the love beer for its taste. Have you seen any stocked a fridge full of non-alcoholic beers?
  Non-alcoholic beers are absolutely vile.
6. Re:For the taste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 20:47 · Score: 0
  
  Non-alcoholic beers don't taste the same. Non-alcoholic beers are low end beers made worse. If quality beers came in a non alcoholic version, tasted identical, and sold much cheaper, I would buy some. Good beer, even after adjusting for alcohol concentration, costs at least twice as much as bad beer and can get much higher than that. If taste wasn't the primarily motivator, why would people spend so much money on the fancy stuff? Not just beer, but spirits. An 18 year old scotch costs three times as much as a 10 year old scotch, yet both would get you equally drunk, and you have the same hangover effect.
  If there was such a thing as a good tasting non alcoholic beer, which would have a lot less calories in it without the alcohol, and it sold for a reasonable price without the alcohol, like $1.69 per bottle, well, I'd drink one of those almost every day. Remember, the ones saying they like the flavor are not the ones buying $20 cases of beer. They are the ones buying beer that would run 60, 80, $100 per case. The most expensive beer I have bought so far would run $180+ per case. That price is from the brewery if you can go there. Since it's so rare, by the time you can find it, if you can find it at all, the price has been jacked up a lot more.
  We aren't rich people. We have just decided that we would rather have 2 bottles of good beer instead of 8 bottles of bad beer. We are trading the alcohol for more flavor.
RTFM - benzodiazepines by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 13:01 · Score: 1

Most of the articles skimp on this detail, but the Professor's magical substance is a chemical analog of benzodiazepines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzodiazepine
They're well tolerated in the short term and often even used as part of alcohol detox treatment ... but in regular, long term use can be more seriously addictive and destructive. In other words, it'll work great for those occasional drinkers who don't need it and its no good for those heavy drinkers who could have benefited from a real "synthehol"
I have the opposite by Powercntrl · 2013-11-11 13:11 · Score: 1

Little bit of alcohol and it's like insta-hangover for me. To make matters worse, I can't stand the vile taste of alcohol, no matter what it's mixed with. I used to think this was a bit of a curse considering how many social activities involve drinking, but with how expensive alcoholic beverages have become, maybe it's not so bad.

--

---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
POT by Charliemopps · 2013-11-11 13:13 · Score: 1

"Scientist Seeks Investment For "Alcohol Substitute" "
Yea, it's called POT. We've had it for a very long time.
1. Re:POT by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to get a government grant for doing "research"
Terrifying side effect by PPH · 2013-11-11 13:21 · Score: 2

The intoxication wears off.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Chemical basis for gambling addiction by Any+Web+Loco · 2013-11-11 14:08 · Score: 4, Informative

Hi - my partner works in problem gambling and (according to her) there's reasonably strong evidence for a biological (read:chemical) component to gambling addiction. I think the wikipedia article even touches on it. Yep, it does.
1. Re:Chemical basis for gambling addiction by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 20:59 · Score: 0
  
  Well, in the sense there was a biological component to my decision to post this comment, you're right I guess.
2. Re:Chemical basis for gambling addiction by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  Everything about humans is biochemistry (with a dose of physics). But in this case, "physical addiction" means that there are major biochemical processes outside your brain's reward neurons that will depend on a specific chemical such as alcohol. Withdrawal means that those processes go berserk, e.g. by breaking down necessary chemicals instead of the toxins they're supposed to break down.
3. Re:Chemical basis for gambling addiction by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  Addiction is physical withdrawal, habituation is psychological. When you're talking about an animal, it all comes down to chemistry; all we are is bags of water and chemicals. Thought itself is a chemical process, as is fear, love, hate, etc.
4. Re:Chemical basis for gambling addiction by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-11-12 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Hi - my partner works in problem gambling and (according to her) there's reasonably strong evidence for a biological (read:chemical) component to gambling addiction. I think the wikipedia article even touches on it. Yep, it does.
  What I had heard is that there is a sort of spectrum. People like myself, who do not like gambling, have no particular reaction to winning, and are all pissy about losing. Normal people get a but of a mental buzz from winning, but only winning. People who would be addicts get that same buzz from almost winning, such as say a slot machine ending up only one symbol short of the jackpot. These folks brains get a similar buzz from that, as they would if they hit the jackpot.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
We already have alcohol free beer. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:47 · Score: 0

It sells so well, doesn't it?
When people go drinking, they don't complain about staying drunk too long, they complain, oh, shit, there goes my buzz, now I have to walk home sober.
"subjectively indistinguishable" by Hartree · 2013-11-11 14:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

"subjectively indistinguishable from alcohol intoxication"
So to do that, too much would have to make you pee a lot, fall down the stairs and wake up in your own vomit, but no hangover?
Now there's a selling point for you.
1. Re:"subjectively indistinguishable" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 00:27 · Score: 0
  
  There also has to be the rush of dopamine and euphoria at very high doses. Otherwise, I'm not switching.
Already got that. by wowwser · 2013-11-11 15:14 · Score: 1

It's called Synthehol - http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Synthehol With everything else that they have gotten from Star Trek is this not just one more thing?
bac by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 15:26 · Score: 0

Yes, the amount matters, but the peak BAC is key. The hangover is primarily (but not entirely) due to dehydration. If you drink over a long period, you are less likely to be consuming adequate water. But the liver damage is related more to peak BAC than to total consumption. One guy drinks two beers a day every day, the other drinks seven beers a week, all at once. The latter is doing more damage even though it is half the total quantity. Asking your liver to filter all that at once is hard on it, slow and steady it can keep up with.
Not a problem for us Irish by Patent+Lover · 2013-11-11 15:45 · Score: 1

Sorry, I have Irish genes. I haven't had a hangover in 20 years. And yes, I drink like an Irishman.
1,4-B by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 15:54 · Score: 0

a number of these substances are already available legally online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,4-Butanediol is one of the better ones
all GABA agonists are addictive and will have negative side effects to abusers, even if you don't get a hangover.
Phenibut by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:00 · Score: 0

amazon.com
'nuff said
Soma? by smaddox · 2013-11-11 16:01 · Score: 1

Where's the soma?
Although I guess you could argue salvia is basically soma, but it's now illegal in (I'm pretty sure) every state. I'm still confused why alcohol and tobacco have been excused from the morality legislation. I guess they just got the lucky break of being the state approved soma.
1. Re:Soma? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Alcohol and tobacco have "been excused from morality legislation" because they are too popular to outright ban, have you forgotten what happened when the US tried it back in the 1920s?
2. Re:Soma? by brianerst · 2013-11-12 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  We have a federal agency called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (and Explosives). They all fall into the "barely legal and we'd really prefer you didn't have access to them" category. If marijuana ever becomes legal at a national level, they'll just move it from DEA jurisdiction to ATF.
Baclofen by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:03 · Score: 0

Let me guess. One of the drugs he proposes is Baclofen?
enlightenment by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

I now understand a shitload of anime that never made sense with regards to this until now, thank you.
I could never understand why they used red face to mean tipsy, I was like "why would even an uptight character be embarassed to be drunk, thats the one time they can let loose and won't give a fuck what other people think until the next day" because in real life none of my friends get red faced when they get shit faced.
Granted I will look at the ones with asian backrounds more closely now, assuming I'm actually sober at the same time which isn't likely as I'm mostly a social drinker. It all makes sense now!
Let me Guess. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 18:05 · Score: 0

Let me guess. .. MONSANTO will soon be releasing Synthahol
British Drunken Youth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 19:15 · Score: 0

Goddam, this will be like the 90's in Ibiza, everywhere this time.
Why? by SuperDre · 2013-11-11 20:41 · Score: 1

Being drunk without the negative symptoms would only cause more problems IMHO. The negative symptoms make sure (at least some) people think about what they are doing. A lot more people would be drunk all day.. Just live with the consequences of drinking regular alcohol...
Also I don't understand why 'drink'companies would have a problem with a substitude alcohol, they've been looking for it for quite some time, all it will do is give them more ways to get people to drink..
Mutually exclusive by wonkey_monkey · 2013-11-11 20:59 · Score: 1

without having to suffer the negative effects of alcohol
subjectively indistinguishable from alcohol intoxication.
Make your mind up.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-11-11 22:32 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Troubling aspect of this work by ubergeek · 2013-11-11 23:47 · Score: 1

First of all, I'd like to say that I like Prof. Nutt and the work that he's done. In particular his lead authorship on Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse and Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis represent a great public service.
But frankly this effort seems misleading. Either he's misrepresenting the potential of such a drug, or he's deluded himself. While I can easily imagine a drug that could be qualitatively similar to alcohol, though less harmful to the health of the user, I am aware of no popular recreational drug (outside of a small class of hallucinogens) that is completely non-neurotoxic. Prof. Nutt of course knows this. In particular, any drug that manipulates the excitation-inhibition balance as its primary action is almost certainly going to lead to habituation when used chronically and therefore will cause neuroexcitotoxicity when withdrawn.
Furthermore, any claims regarding lack of addiction potential should also be regarded sceptically. All widely used GABAergic drugs (ethanol, benzodiazepine, GHB) that I am aware of possess significant addiction potential. This may be avoidable, if the new drug were appropriately designed, though I cannot say that with certainty since I am not an expert on the binding properties of such molecules. But I should point out that the binding properties that give them their "desirable" effects also will cause them to bind to the interneurons of the VTA (Ventral tegmental area), part of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system --- which is believed to be the initial locus of all drug addictions. For more information on this see Drug-Evoked Synaptic Plasticity Causing Addictive Behavior, Christian Luescher 2013 (JNeurosci).
Anyway, I think there are probably good reasons to prefer a tailor-made alcohol substitute, but I find it very strange that Prof Nutt is choosing to promote his efforts in this way. Given his history I would expect him to be a little more rational about how he promotes the work. On the other hand, given how irrational the public and the government are regarding drugs, maybe it's more reasonable to engage in a bit of propaganda. Unfortunately I think it goes against the spirit of his efforts in the last years.
Cut out the Middle-Man by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-11-12 00:39 · Score: 1

Where is my droud?
Dont want to be drunk, I want the taste! by YoungManKlaus · 2013-11-12 01:13 · Score: 2

What I'd really need is a prefect replication of beer and whine without alcohol ... I love the taste but personally dont care about the alcohol much.
tea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 02:50 · Score: 0

what about ma huang?
Pentium FDIV bug by tepples · 2013-11-12 03:51 · Score: 1

How would "RU-Pentium" work? Would it keep the embryo's cells from dividing correctly?
Re: AvitarX's collected wisdom #1 - #5 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 04:03 · Score: 0

I don't know that I agree with the fact that lsd is safer than alcohol. Some people definitely have their brains fried from relatively little use.
I don't know that I agree with cheese being cheaper than jewelry. Some cheeses definitely are pretty damn expensive.
I don't know that I agree with women being more feminine than men. Some men I've seen definitely looked almost like a woman.
I don't know that I agree with fur coats being warmer than microbikinis. Some people I've seen in the latter were smoking hot.
I don't know that I agree with actual logic being more logical than non-sequitur vagaries. Some of my sentences in the distant past definitely seemed to be somewhat meaningful to the topic at hand.
Just smoke weed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 04:18 · Score: 0

Come on, we don't need a big expensive project for this.
Why no development of the idea recreational drug? by swb · 2013-11-12 04:28 · Score: 1

I'm surprised big pharma hasn't done this already. I suspect that Western ideals of work ethic and morality are really the hindrance.
I would think it would be possible to develop a compound that has the criteria for the ideal recreational drug.
1) Short duration -- effect wears off after ~3 hours.
2) Self-limiting dosage -- rapid diminishing returns of repeated dosing. Perhaps a 10-20% increase in effect with a second dose, but little or no gain with subsequent or increased dosage, either in terms of increased psychoactive effect or duration of action.
3) This is the wrong term, but a long "half life" that makes repeated dosings ineffective within 18-24 hours of a previous dose. Combined with #2, this would make it difficult to abuse by taking it all the time and mitigate the habit forming nature of it by forcing a "down" period before the drug's psychoactive effect can be felt again.
4) A psychoactive effect that is more tranquilizing/calming/hypnotic than energizing or stimulating but without being too somnambulant. This should mitigate some of the social issues faced with stimulants like cocaine, amphetamines or even alcohol.
Obviously it shouldn't have a realistic overdose potential or synergistic effects with any CNS depressants like opioids, alcohol or benzo-type sedatives.
Strangely it seems like cannabis is a good starting point, since it has some of these properties already -- the more you use it, the less the high seems to be, it has almost no overdose potential, and its effect is more sedating than stimulating, and it doesn't have any CNS depressant synergies.
Yes, and very shortly ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-11-12 04:43 · Score: 1

... we will perfect the exercise pill, as well. After all, there's no reason anyone should be inconvenienced by the consequences of their actions.
I'll just sit back, enjoy a GMO meal, a glass of nuohol, and do a VR hike of the Pacific Crest Trail.No actual backbone required.
To Boldly Drink by cstacy · 2013-11-12 05:17 · Score: 1

Ethanol and synthehol: http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/synthehol.htm
Story from 2009: http://io9.com/5434752/real+life-synthehol-will-get-you-buzzed-but-never-drunk
Trekkie: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Synthehol
booze by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 07:25 · Score: 0

I read thru these comments and am so impressed at how smart y'all are, I am a small town md hence must post anonymously for security purposes. You can get in a lot of trouble for this type of porn here if the churches don't like your comments. While some of you are witty others are deliberately wacky, obviously just to disturb the poop a bit so it smells better.
If A takes position A and she always does it is a given.
then B who has always taken position A must now take position "c" since position "C" might destroy the trap now laid.
I am not being anything but admiring your collective intelligence
Tj
You can take your... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 09:13 · Score: 0

Synthohol and SHOVE IT!!!!