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."

28 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. You had me at ... by bigjocker · · 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 NettiWelho · · 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)

    2. 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.

    3. Re:You had me at ... by Anne_Nonymous · · 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.

  2. 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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?

    5. Re:Not all good by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    6. Re:Not all good by germansausage · · 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.

  3. As someone with a high tolerance... by neminem · · 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.)

  4. Already exists ! by bob_super · · Score: 5, Funny

    "the effects can be quickly reversed"
    It's called RU-486

    *ducks*

  5. 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.

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

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

  7. 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.

  8. Nutt, not Nut by Okian+Warrior · · 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.)

  9. it's Nutt, you nut by SuperElectric · · 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

  10. Higher alcohols... by jasno · · 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/
  11. Re:I Have a Glass of 2006 Ribera del Duero Here... by Trepidity · · 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
  12. 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.

  13. Re:Already Exists by Cryacin · · 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
  14. Chemical basis for gambling addiction by Any+Web+Loco · · 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.

  15. "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.

  16. Re:Less healthy? by cmdr_tofu · · 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.

  17. Re:Already Exists by Hamsterdan · · 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.
  18. Re:Already Exists by ozmanjusri · · 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."
  19. Re: Already Exists by gzuckier · · 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.