Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientist Seeks Investment For "Alcohol Substitute"

Posted by samzenpus on 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."

17 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. Not all good by houstonbofh · · 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 · · 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.

    2. Re:Not all good by fey000 · · 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.

    3. Re:Not all good by jrumney · · 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.

    4. Re:Not all good by PopeRatzo · · 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.
    5. Re:Not all good by Altus · · 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

    6. Re:Not all good by Charliemopps · · 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?

    7. Re:Not all good by s.petry · · 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.

  2. Not just this research. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Re:Already Exists by Xicor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    everything that does anything similar is illegal... just look at weed...

  4. Taste vs Effect by Lanforod · · 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 chameleon3 · · 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.

  5. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by DaveAtFraud · · 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
  6. Re:Already Exists by Joining+Yet+Again · · 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.

  7. Re:You had me at ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When a government scientist gets sacked for stating an obvious fact you know things are fucked.

  8. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by cecom · · 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.

  9. "subjectively indistinguishable" by Hartree · · 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.