Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Powdered Alcohol Approved By Feds, Banned By States

Posted by timothy on from the nanny-states-plural dept.

StikyPad writes Powdered alcohol was approved for sale by the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, but that hasn't stopped several states from introducing their own legislation to ban the substance, including Alaska, Louisiana, South Carolina, Vermont, New York, Virginia, Ohio, and Iowa. The utility of powdered alcohol is said to be in weight reduction, particularly for transport on foot when hiking and camping, but lawmakers cite fears about the potential of abuse by minors and spiked drinks.

123 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Becasue... the children! by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 3, Informative

    I for one am sick of the fucking children. No, its not good enough that you need to be a certain age to purchase this stuff. Nope. Must deny it to the legal adults becuase little Johnny just might snap some up while nobody is looking.

    NANNIES

    1. Re:Becasue... the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not the real reason, they don't want anyone sneaking booze into place where they'd otherwise spend money on beer and drinks. Like stadiums, concerts, etc.

      Don't believe everything a politician tells you, they get money from Bud, Coors, and Jack Daniels.

    2. Re:Becasue... the children! by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      That's not the real reason, they don't want anyone sneaking booze into place where they'd otherwise spend money on beer and drinks. Like stadiums, concerts, etc.

      Don't believe everything a politician tells you, they get money from Bud, Coors, and Jack Daniels.

      then why don't Bud Coors and Jack Daniels just make their own branded powdered alcohol.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    3. Re:Becasue... the children! by duck_rifted · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because that's not the real reason either. The bans on powdered alcohol followed stories about people doing really stupid stuff with it, like snorting it, trying to smoke it, seasoning food with it (and getting more drunk than expected, later than expected), etc etc. It's not worry about kids; it's worry about simpleton adults who like to experiment with stuff before knowing anything about it.

      In Louisiana, another reason is that the ban might create another way to arrest people. Louisiana wants as many inmates as possible for slave labor.

    4. Re:Becasue... the children! by mcl630 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They weren't actually stories of people doing those stupid things, the maker (Palcohol) suggested doing those things on the website:

      http://www.theverge.com/2014/4...

    5. Re:Becasue... the children! by slew · · Score: 1

      Because that's not the real reason either. The bans on powdered alcohol followed stories about people doing really stupid stuff with it, like snorting it, trying to smoke it, seasoning food with it (and getting more drunk than expected, later than expected), etc etc. It's not worry about kids; it's worry about simpleton adults who like to experiment with stuff before knowing anything about it.

      FWIW, all sorts of crazy stuff is already happening with cannabis edibles in Colorado. Here's the fear and loathing article that made the rounds...

      Maybe there's a good reason to pause given the public doesn't really know how to handle this stuff yet...

    6. Re:Becasue... the children! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FWIW, all sorts of crazy stuff is already happening with cannabis edibles in Colorado. Here's the fear and loathing article that made the rounds...

      Maybe there's a good reason to pause given the public doesn't really know how to handle this stuff yet...

      The former argument doesn't lead to the latter. People have been using Cannibis in its various forms for at least several hundred years. It simply isn't true that we don't know what to do with it. The information is everywhere.

      Morons will be morons, no matter what tools they use to demonstrate it. That should NOT be a restriction on the rest of us.

    7. Re:Becasue... the children! by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      Good point. But they've spent billions on brands and convincing the public that everything in their liquids is good and necessary. However, I'm betting it's more the distributors and retailers that don't want it. They're comfortable with what they have. There probably won't be a big increase in overall alcohol sales, so anything that sells instead of traditional spirits might not go through their channels. Why take a chance? Just get the buddies in the legislature to nip it in the bud, as Barney would say. There's not yet an big organized resistance to the powder by parties worried about health or social consequences, so there's got to be some reason for legislators to move on it. Follow the money.

    8. Re:Becasue... the children! by ranton · · Score: 1

      That's not the real reason, they don't want anyone sneaking booze into place where they'd otherwise spend money on beer and drinks. Like stadiums, concerts, etc.

      Don't believe everything a politician tells you, they get money from Bud, Coors, and Jack Daniels.

      then why don't Bud Coors and Jack Daniels just make their own branded powdered alcohol.

      Because the stadiums, concerts, etc. still couldn't charge a 5x markup when the alcohol is sold at the venue.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    9. Re:Becasue... the children! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The former argument doesn't lead to the latter. People have been using Alcohol in its various forms for at least several hundred years. It simply isn't true that we don't know what to do with it. The information is everywhere.

      Somebody here is really good at making attractive straw-man arguments. I wonder who it could be?

      No, we haven't had powdered alcohol for hundreds of years. We have, cannibis. My comment was specifically about why a comparison with Cannibis was not terribly appropriate.

    10. Re:Becasue... the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And I say let them, in the name of human evolution, preferably before they breed.

    11. Re:Becasue... the children! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The weird thing is I can't see much in common between the states that want to ban it. New York, Alaska, South Carolina?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Becasue... the children! by duck_rifted · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are four ban triggers that I can think of. In places with very high population density, letting people freely access stuff that not only can they do really stupid things with but probably will isn't a great idea because it will probably hurt, kill, or otherwise negatively impact more people. That makes New York an easy one.

      Louisiana is an easy one too. Most of the people in Louisiana who aren't conservatives are felons, whether they're criminals or not. It just sort of seems to end up that way here, but we can probably guess that the process has some help. When I say "conservatives," what I mean is, "either rich of deeply theocratic." It's not so much that the constituency demanded the ban as they would have been out for legislator blood the first time some stupid stuff happened and Little Johnny Farmer Baptist got hurt.

      Alaska is an easy one too. It's still mostly unsettled, and it's an effing cold place. Alcohol is a vital commodity out in the cold because it's an antiseptic, a painkiller, and it can make a person feel warm when they're not. So, two things about that. First, we can probably guess (though it isn't said) that the alcohol industry has a lot of pull in Alaska. Second, when you live in a place that can get stupidly dangerous due to natural factors that can be an everyday thing, doing more stupid stuff with chemicals is stupid^2.

      Three states, three influences. I have no idea about South Carolina, but I have one more idea about a ban trigger: constituency pressure. It would be hard to guess how much of the influence was actual pressure from voters versus anticipated pressure, but I bet it's a similar situation as in Louisiana (though probably for totally different reasons).

      If I'm right, then California will ban it after scientifically proving it's unhealthy for reasons none of us have thought of, Texas will ban it if they're paid to, Florida will ban it if the GOP says it should, and New Jersey will eventually make Powdered Alcohol Day a state holiday. Every other state will probably shrug and ignore it -- except for beverage manufacturers. You know, the only people who have a really good reason to buy the stuff to begin with.

    13. Re:Becasue... the children! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well the intended purpose seems questionable too. For hiking and camping?
      If you are hiking in a condition where weight is an issue, you need pure water to stay hydrated, even sport drinks are a bad idea. Alchol will just dehydrate you faster. Also even simple hiking trails have some places for tricky footing, even if you are a bit buzzed you can hurt yourself.

      The type of camping trips where you just sit around the fire, are also ones where you just drive up to the spot so you can just bring the heavy good stuff.

      If they can come up with a more practical explanation then hiking and camping, then I can see states opening it up. Otherwise it is just an excuse to sell a product and have people look the other way while they sneak it to places where you should need a drink.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    14. Re:Becasue... the children! by fafalone · · Score: 2

      I don't see them banning liquid alcohol because some raging jackasses inject it and suitcase it.

    15. Re:Becasue... the children! by cptdondo · · Score: 1

      But the maker has added bulking agents. You'd have to snort a lot - and I mean a lot - to make anything happen. No doubt some idiot would try this, but really, this is a great idea who's time had come.

      I would love to take some with me on backpacking trips.

    16. Re:Becasue... the children! by cptdondo · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't backpack much, do you? Carrying a liter of alcohol in a backpack is a huge weight, no matter what condition you're in. The less weight you have, the more fun it is.

      And yes, most of use use some sort of poowdered sports drink, often to hide the taste of the water we get from streams and lakes, even after filtering.

      As a backpacker I really support this. There's nothing like sitting arond dinner at night, nad having a drink under the stars.

    17. Re:Becasue... the children! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for all the additives and fillers, I'd be interested in its properties as part of a dry-cure seasoning....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    18. Re:Becasue... the children! by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Well the intended purpose seems questionable too. For hiking and camping? If you are hiking in a condition where weight is an issue, you need pure water to stay hydrated, even sport drinks are a bad idea. Alchol will just dehydrate you faster. Also even simple hiking trails have some places for tricky footing, even if you are a bit buzzed you can hurt yourself.

      The type of camping trips where you just sit around the fire, are also ones where you just drive up to the spot so you can just bring the heavy good stuff.

      If they can come up with a more practical explanation then hiking and camping, then I can see states opening it up. Otherwise it is just an excuse to sell a product and have people look the other way while they sneak it to places where you should need a drink.

      When they come up with a filter that can filter alcohol out of a stream or standing water, your complaint will be valid.

      H2O as a compound, is all over the damn place and can be treated at a camp site.

      Alcohol isn't.

      You don't know shit about camping OR hiking.

    19. Re:Becasue... the children! by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      We haven't had modern cannabis strains with highly concentrated THC for hundreds of years either. The shit the Indians used to chew on was ditch weed.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    20. Re:Becasue... the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      we may not have had powdered alcohol for long, but we have had alcohol in various forms for more than just hundreds of years, we have had it thousands of years

    21. Re:Becasue... the children! by Jon_S · · Score: 3, Informative

      You carry the same amount of alcohol whether you carry the dehydrated stuff or a bottle of grain alcohol. Actually, the dehydrated stuff is heavier since you also are carrying the polysaccharide to which the alcohol is adsorbed.

      If you want to get drunk in the woods, you need the millions of molecules of C2H5OH which weighs the same no matter if you bring it in pure (well, the 95% azeotrope probably) or adsorbed to sugar.

    22. Re:Becasue... the children! by cptdondo · · Score: 1

      True. Everclear, however, is illegal in many jurisdictions. it's hard to get anything more than about 100 proof. Then there are the handling issues and the waste - ethanol is flammable, and you have to pack out the bottle/plastic jug.

      It would really be interesting to see this for real.

    23. Re:Becasue... the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are never an adult, not in this place. The aristocrats see you as a helpless infant and you'll hurt yourself at the first opportunity were it not for their benevolent restraint on your actions. With the vast array of overreaching, idiotic laws, I'm surprised people still hold any amount of respect for the law generally.

    24. Re:Becasue... the children! by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 2

      We've had hash, which is concentrated resin (where all the psychoactive chemicals are) for hundreds of years, and just because the feds were testing ditch weed doesn't mean the actual good stuff didn't exist (ask any old hippie about proper thai stick, or acapulco gold).

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    25. Re:Becasue... the children! by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      South Carolina because half the counties in that state don't allow alcohol sales on a sunday.. the bible belt is so tight it's cutting off circulation there.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    26. Re:Becasue... the children! by bored_engineer · · Score: 1

      Alaska has local option for alcohol imports*. Many of the villages ban it, but many still see a steady flow of booze. It would be impossible to control alcohol movement into villages if it could be smuggled in small sachets.

      I'm not trying to run down that Alaska is dangerous, as I've certainly known people maimed or killed by cold or bears.

      *For many of the villages, anything they don't make or harvest locally is brought in by barge, plane or barter with other villages 10s of miles away by trails. Much of Alaska has no connection to the road network.

    27. Re:Becasue... the children! by friesofdoom · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      The cyclodextrins can absorb an estimated 60 percent of their own weight in alcohol.

      That makes it about 37.5% alcohol, or slightly weaker than most vodkas.

    28. Re:Becasue... the children! by jfengel · · Score: 1

      trying to smoke it

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      I'm sorry, that's just so funny. What were they expecting?

      I'm going to have to get some of this just to see what happens when you light it. I bet it's very pretty. It's just going to be well away from my FACE when I do it.

    29. Re:Becasue... the children! by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I've been thinking of doing some backpacking, and had been wondering it if was a good idea to carry some everclear with me. Pleasantly relaxing taken orally (with water), and useful externally (especially when the internals accidentally become external).

      Question: can it also be used to make the water safer? If I were to mix it up as, say, a beer-grade solution (4%), would it be a more enjoyable alternative to filters and chlorine? (Googling has been less than useful; most of what I get is the fact that you can't drink while taking giardia medications.)

    30. Re:Becasue... the children! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      we need to stop outlawing darwin awards

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    31. Re:Becasue... the children! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      yeah we have, stop buying the federal propaganda

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    32. Re:Becasue... the children! by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      and really. is it really that bad to try to keep dangerous products out of the hands of kids?

      As a PARENT - no, it is the right thing to do.

      As a government? no, thats the parents job

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    33. Re:Becasue... the children! by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Don't forget injection

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    34. Re:Becasue... the children! by unrtst · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen ANY studies claiming that the potency in available strains of cannabis has remained the about the same for the past 10-40 years, let alone for hundreds of years.

      I HAVE seen LOTS of studies that seem quite legitimate and performed by impartial groups (ex. universities) that show THC levels have increased significantly. Here's one example from a quick google search: http://medicalmarijuana.procon...
      1978 : 1.37% average
      1988 : 3.59% average
      1998 : 4.43% average
      2008 : 8.49% average

      In addition, most of the strains I've seen available lately have been around 15-20% THC (based on wikileaf's info). wikileaf also notes the average sativa strain is 12.5% THC. That's a medical MJ site, which also has a recreational marketplace search subsite (http://www.recreational.wikileaf.com/), so it should be fairly trustworthy information for the current state of things.

      So, even if I don't believe the 1978 figure because it's old, I have a fair level of confidence in the values reported for 98, 08, and present, which shows 3-4x potency increase over 20 years.

      Based on your /. login, maybe you have more/better info? Care to share? Though, based on your uid, you probably haven't been around long enough to remember way back then.

    35. Re:Becasue... the children! by unrtst · · Score: 1

      There's also high proof stuff available readily, though not up at the everclear level. For example of a really common one, bacardi 151.

      IMO, the hiking reason fails for a different and very simple reason:
      * It's not worth it unless its really good.

      The big claim is that weight is the factor for why you would want to pack powdered alcohol. I'd really like some clear facts on that first. Parent post links shows the 37.5% alcohol by volume for the powered stuff, so I don't know why it wouldn't weight any less than 80 proof vodka (for example). Is it just that it's not a liquid and doesn't need a glass bottle? A plastic bladder would solve that problem.

      Anyway, lets say it does weight a little less, but it still has weight. You still need to add liquid to it, which you may be able to filter from a stream, but then you're drinking stream water + powdered alcohol. I see very little hope in that being any good. And what's the end goal there? Are you trying to get blackout dunk? If so, that's fine, but you shouldn't be hiking to remote locations to do so. Are you just trying to enjoy a delicious beverage while gazing at the night sky? Then I'd be surprised if you wouldn't be better served by bringing a small flask of a high quality whiskey (or whatever your preference).

      The craziest part is simply that site. All those really poor arguments and defenses on the front page - why not just talk about the positive aspects and sell the product? The one I laughed at the most was regarding snorting it:

      Listen, people can snort black pepper....so do we ban it? No, just because a few goofballs use a product irresponsibly doesn't mean you ban it. But even the goofballs won't snort Palcohol due to the pain the alcohol would cause. It really burns. Imagine sniffing liquid vodka. Second, it's impractical. It takes approximately 60 minutes to snort the equivalent of one shot of vodka. Why would anyone do that when they can do a shot of liquid vodka in two seconds?

      1. Why is he talking about black pepper?!?! What about cocaine, the obvious comparison to snorting a powder?

      2. Imagine snorting vodka? I've done it (I don't do it regularly). It does burn, but people do it, usually when they're not making good decisions. It's actually dangerous because you are not simply metabolizing it; it enters your blood faster and more directly.

      3. "impractical"? "take 60 minutes to snorth teh equivalent of one shot of vodka"? See #2... you don't need to snort a whole shot. Drops can be enough. So yes, I'm pretty certain this stuff will get snorted all over the place. I've seen lots of people snort pixie stix back in they day for no other reason than because they can and it hurt.

      4. Why would anyone do that when they can do a short of vodka in two seconds? This is his argument? Why would someone abuse my drug when they could quickly consume some other drug?

      It's going to happen. There's no argument it won't. It's stupid, but so are many of the use cases and arguments here.

      His argument that, "airlines can reduce the weight on an airplane", is just stupid. They'd have to mix it with liquid, so they'd have to carry an equivalent amount of liquid for mixing it, and they'd also have to care the powder, and the combined weight of those is greater than pure alcohol. If I'm overpaying for booze on a plane, I want the real thing. There's a first class / coach argument to be made here as well.

      FWIW, I don't think it should be banned. I think there's loads of better ways to market this stuff though. Food prep, medical, manufacturing, remote temp locations (ex military or research camps), etc are all interesting areas. Why is he trying to sell it as a drinking replacement? I'm simply not going to:
      * buy powdered drinks in a bar
      * buy powdered booze to keep at home (standard booze doesn't go bad any faster, and probably has a longer shelf life)
      * carry powered booze on vacations to lands that don't allow alcohol
      * pretend powdered booze is what I want after a long day of hiking

    36. Re:Becasue... the children! by Do+You+Smell+That · · Score: 1
      As a frequent hiker, I couldn't leave this one alone. The linked paper is about sterilization in health-care, but it quickly comes to (emphasis mine):

      Chemical Disinfectants

      Alcohol

      Overview. In the healthcare setting, "alcohol" refers to two water-soluble chemical compounds—ethyl alcohol and isopropyl alcohol—that have generally underrated germicidal characteristics 482. FDA has not cleared any liquid chemical sterilant or high-level disinfectant with alcohol as the main active ingredient. These alcohols are rapidly bactericidal rather than bacteriostatic against vegetative forms of bacteria; they also are tuberculocidal, fungicidal, and virucidal but do not destroy bacterial spores. Their -cidal activity drops sharply when diluted below 50% concentration, and the optimum bactericidal concentration is 60%–90% solutions in water (volume/volume)

      http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/disi...

      Keep in mind that alcohol is a disinfectant however it is not an effective sterilizing agent as some things can survive. Alcohol is not very effective against bacterial spores. Sterilization implies that there is no living organism left whereas disinfection eliminates or reduces the harmful organisms present.

      --
      I'm not good at making signatures...
    37. Re:Becasue... the children! by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

  2. Following instructions? by thieh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder how many people will actually follow the instructions in mixing these things back to booze. Somehow I am inclined to believe people do not want to follow the instructions and swallow the stuff with as little water as physically possible.

    1. Re:Following instructions? by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I plan on mixing it with dehydrated water.

    2. Re:Following instructions? by ralphsiegler · · Score: 4, Informative

      it's just a polysaccharide with alcohol in it, the particular one they use can absorb 60% its weight in alcohol. You're still going to only get the alcohol of a standard drink whether you eat the starchy stuff straight up or put it in a quart of water.

    3. Re:Following instructions? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "You're still going to only get the alcohol of a standard drink whether you eat the starchy stuff straight up or put it in a quart of water."

      Only if you consume the starchy stuff at a rate as slow as consuming the amount of water you are intended to put it in.

    4. Re: Following instructions? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      I had some of that once. Never could figure out what to add.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    5. Re:Following instructions? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      ObStevenWrightQuote

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re:Following instructions? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      You must have never seen someone shotgun a beer.

      I've seen a LOT more people down a flight of shooters than shotgun six beers in a row though.

      And for this powder... i dunno... I could see people just eating it straight and letting it dissolve in their stomachs... or getting it moist and shoving it up their asses.

      And I can definitely see them sneaking it it into schools, onto planes, into sports venues etc ... not that any of these things don't happen with alcohol now. But if you make it easier it will happen more.

      People are stupid.

    7. Re:Following instructions? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The obvious question - do you drink it or snort it?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Following instructions? by erice · · Score: 1

      it's just a polysaccharide with alcohol in it, the particular one they use can absorb 60% its weight in alcohol

      So, how is this helpful for anything? If you want concentrated alcohol just do that. Sure, it's still liquid but it weighs 40% less than this powder and lightweight containment of liquids is a solved problem.

      Sure, it might not taste good but reports are that the powder taste pretty bad too and involves otherwise unnecessary ingestion of questionable chemicals.

      It looks to me like the only purpose is to make an end-run around liquor control laws. I'm sure the manufacturers banked on not paying the usual alcohol taxes either.

    9. Re:Following instructions? by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Only if you consume the starchy stuff at a rate as slow as consuming the amount of water you are intended to put it in

      Possibly but likely not. The problem or possible stumbling block is that the body doesn't take up the alcohol equally and has gag reflexes if too much is detected. I'm not aware of this powdered stuff defeating any of that.

      Anyways, the stomach is very poor in absorbing alcohol where the intestines are much more efficiency. I forget the actually percent, but I believe its 80% or better of the alcohol is absorbed by the intestines rather than the stomach. Now, if you have ever eaten before or during drinking you will find you don't get as drunk as quickly as if you started drinking on an empty stomach. This is because the stomach determined food is present and processes it before allowing it to pass to the intestines. It locks the alcohol into the less efficient system until such time the stomach releases the food and then the intestines will absorb quickly.

      It's also why in most states, there is a time limit between getting pulled for a DUI and when they give biological tests to determine the exact levels (breath or blood or urine or whatever is in vogue now) even though most areas ignore the time limit and if a cop asks if you have anything to eat, some will likely fumble around past the time limit in order to ensure your stomach releases and you have absorbed more alcohol into your system.

      Sorry about that tangent, but the starch will likely lock the stomach up like food would where the water or liquid would pass through in a shorter period of time. So in essence, it will likely either be the same as if you ate something or quicker with the liquid as it passes through to where it can be absorbed more readily. You may however, avoid the gag reflex with the powdered stuff until the body actually absorbs it and actually consume more without knowing it which is where I suspect one of the concerns might be.

      And no, that is not a complete theory of operation and I am not a PHD or anything, I just studied ways to get drunk faster years ago in college. There may be flaws in my understanding but the principles of the operation should be close enough for layman's terms.

    10. Re: Following instructions? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever since I heard the "dehydrated water" joke, I thought it would be a brilliant name for a water-purification powder, like the stuff you use while camping.

      Instant water, just add water - but the water you add doesn't have to be clean, and the water you get is drinkable. Memorable brand if nothing else.

    11. Re:Following instructions? by slew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I plan on mixing it with dehydrated water.

      Unsurprisingly, they also have powered water...

    12. Re: Following instructions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Live on the wild side and try it with DHMO.

    13. Re:Following instructions? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      In my driver's ed class 35 years ago they actually mentioned in passing people imbibing alcohol by insertion at "the other end".

    14. Re:Following instructions? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      What questionable chemicals? The polysaccharide is a bunch of glucose stuck together. You can find recipes for the "powdered alchohol" on the web, by the way. Maltodextrin (which is doubtless what they're using) is used in various recipes for absorbing fats, for example. Just happens to also absorb booze.

    15. Re:Following instructions? by dissy · · Score: 1

      The obvious question - do you drink it or snort it?

      First one, then the other.

    16. Re: Following instructions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It looks to me like the only purpose is to make an end-run around liquor control laws. I'm sure the manufacturers banked on not paying the usual alcohol taxes either.

      I'm so glad you're sure. Now go to a (possibly THE) manufacturer's website and watch the video where there owner says he wants his product to be taxed and regulated just like liquid alcohol, because his product is still alcohol. http://www.palcohol.com/

    17. Re:Following instructions? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      Make Pixie sticks out of them.

    18. Re:Following instructions? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's weird, I didn't realize anything got absorbed by your stomach.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Following instructions? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Is it any easier to sneak than a mini vodka bottle?

    20. Re:Following instructions? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

      The stomach is very bad at absorbing, due to the fairly smooth and acid-proof lining, but small molecules can slip through. Like ethanol or water.

    21. Re:Following instructions? by Mjlner · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many people will actually follow the instructions in mixing these things back to booze. Somehow I am inclined to believe people will ignore the instructions and will swallow the stuff with as little water as physically possible.

      There... FTFY!

      --
      Lemon curry???
    22. Re:Following instructions? by friesofdoom · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      The cyclodextrins can absorb an estimated 60 percent of their own weight in alcohol.

      That makes it about 37.5% alcohol, or slightly weaker than most vodkas. Perfectly safe to drink/eat neat.

    23. Re:Following instructions? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Around here, that's called "snow".

  3. Dangers by aoism · · Score: 1

    So they are concerned about pretty much the exact same dangers that exist with alcohol currently? I just came back from Japan. Drinking age is 20 (I think) but pretty much no one cards you. I didn't see groups of 15 year olds stumbling in to the J-rail track.

    1. Re:Dangers by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I just came back from Japan. Drinking age is 20 (I think) but pretty much no one cards you.

      In Japan, like in many other countries, alcohol is just a drink. It isn't a symbol of masculinity, and you don't prove you are "cool" by getting plastered like Americans do. America has stupid alcohol laws because Americans are stupid about alcohol.

    2. Re:Dangers by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      In Japan, like in many other countries, alcohol is just a drink

      No.

      Sixty percent of [the country's 3M) problem drinkers are salaried businessmen who claim that getting drunk with clients or coworkers is part of their job and a mark of company loyalty.

      --
      I come here for the love
    3. Re:Dangers by aoism · · Score: 1

      I DID see a lot of drunken or passed on Salarymen (and 1 or 2 office ladies), but this isn't about irresponsible adults, its about the children. Won't someone please think of the children?!

    4. Re:Dangers by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Alcohol was invented so that even ugly people could have sex.

    5. Re:Dangers by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      America has stupid alcohol laws because Americans are stupid about alcohol.

      Or perhaps the reverse - Americans are stupid about alcohol because America has stupid alcohol laws....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Dangers by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      there's a genre of Japanese porn about those drunk OL, by the way

    7. Re:Dangers by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Actually it is a more complex social interaction then that. Japan is an extremely uptight culture and alcohol relaxes you. Being relaxed with your clients & coworkers is a critical component of business there and the alcohol is used as an excuse. But their alcohol is often watered down and many of them are acting drunk rather than being drunk.

      There is a huge backlash if you let yourself go to far in Japan.

    8. Re:Dangers by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The "children" argument is bogus, but it is the cheapest way to "justify" any kind of prohibition. The majority is to stupid to notice.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Dangers by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not as awesome as 'Drunken Businessman Challenge' was.

      I've only seen a couple of episodes. Not on youtube. They 'recruit' the very drunkest of Japanese businessmen off the last subway for a game show.

      The stole some challenges ('Take the Bra off the Mannequin') right out of 'Upper Class Twit of the Year'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Dangers by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Not true at all. Japan has a very significant macho culture and drinking excessively is seen as a sign of manliness. I know, I worked for a Japanese company for ten years.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  4. Re:Imagine the burn... by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    Actually I tried snorting powdered alcohol a few times when I was in Japan.

    It doesn't burn at all, you should try it. Hits you fast, right in the face.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  5. Re:legitimate use by Gizan · · Score: 2

    You go to bars where they actually measure the alcohol they serve you? Wow you are getting ripped off.

  6. Spiked drinks? by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    How exactly are you supposed to stick this thing in someone's non-alcoholic drink and them not notice the taste? Or are they talking about adding more alcohol to my martini - in which case, yes please.

    They only people that need to worry about this are the teachers at a high school dance. And we all know how effective they are at stopping kids from drinking....

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Spiked drinks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Spiked drinks are incredibly rare and are cited as a bullcrap scare tactic to further an agenda.

    2. Re:Spiked drinks? by flopsquad · · Score: 2

      You know what? I think you're right.

      I was about to launch into this counter story, "Well, one of our high school teachers actually had her coffee spiked with ecstasy and wigged out" etc etc. Then it occurred to me that this didn't actually happen on our watch.

      It was some apocryphal account of events that had happened "a few years ago"... looking back, it has the same hazy mythical quality as the one about the goat that those "sometime in the late 70's" seniors actually got on the roof, and the one about the mechanical whiz kid who actually took apart our principal's car and rebuilt it in the courtyard.

      Like for real. Really happened, dude, my older brother knew the guy.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    3. Re:Spiked drinks? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      How exactly are you supposed to stick this thing in someone's non-alcoholic drink and them not notice the taste?

      Isn't it part of the "powdered aclohol" thing that there isn't any flavour included? And hiding the taste of alcohol itself is easy: sugar. (That's why it's so easy to start your drinking career with Alcopops or Apfelkorn) Try for yourself: Mix Vodka (or Korn) and sugared Ice Tea. Even at 1:1 ratio you won't be able to taste any alcohol. Despite jugging down something with 25% pure alcohol content.

      Someone once hammered really bad with that drink. I knew what I was drinking, but had no idea of how much alcohol I've been drinking in a really short time.

      Or are they talking about adding more alcohol to my martini - in which case, yes please.

      If you want something stronger than martini, then why just don't order something stronger?

      All the stuff I read here (and in some other places) from snorting or eating the powdered version right down to the vodka tampax is just disgusting. If you don't want to drink, simply don't drink. It's not about getting plastered as fast as possible. It's about enjoying a good wine, beer or whisky, too.

      --
      bickerdyke
    4. Re:Spiked drinks? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      LOL. I initially thought you were talking about teachers drinking at a high school dance...

    5. Re:Spiked drinks? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I have fairly sedate friends, but one got into overdose territory at a party where somebody kept spiking his drinks. He was drinking responsibly and keeping track of how many drinks towards his limit, and didn't realize he was exceeding it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Re:Imagine the burn... by Gizan · · Score: 2

    "Can I snort it? We have seen comments about goofballs wanting to snort it. Don't do it! It is not a responsible or smart way to use the product. To take precautions against this action, we've added volume to the powder so it would take more than a half of a cup of powder to get the equivalent of one drink up your nose. You would feel a lot of pain for very little gain. Just use it the right way." From the maker.

  8. Marketing Hype. by painandgreed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You could get even lighter and easier transportability by taking Everclear or some other near 200 proof alcohol and adding flavoring to add to your water. Palcohol is just the same thing that is bound to a powder, most likely tapioca maltodextrin. Similar process is already used in some cooking recipes. You can already make it yourself. It's not some neat way to make alcohol any lighter or more compact.

    1. Re:Marketing Hype. by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Mix with Tang to make a Powdered Screwdriver

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:Marketing Hype. by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Mix with Tang to make a Powdered Screwdriver

      You mean a powdered Buzz Aldrin.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    3. Re:Marketing Hype. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Some states won't let the 94% version be sold. So just get your fix here Plastic recyclable bottle, 94% alcohol, convenient screw top, 18 and over to purchase.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Marketing Hype. by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 2

      So you could take more than 2 oz. through TSA? Sounds like a win.

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    5. Re:Marketing Hype. by adolf · · Score: 1

      Because Quebec is always closer than...oh, wait, it's not.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    6. Re:Marketing Hype. by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Do you really want a white powder in your suitcase when flying?

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  9. California wins! (So far.) by neminem · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they won't ban it - I think the concept is pretty darn cool, and had been looking forward to trying it since I heard about the company like a year ago. I really don't see what all the fuss is about - safety-wise it doesn't really do anything you can't already do with regular booze.

    I am academically curious whether you could get drunk by consuming it in capsule form, or if it *has* to be dissolved to work.

    1. Re:California wins! (So far.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot, like everyone else that thinks it's cool.

      It is a scam. Anyone who knows anything about chemistry knows that ethanol is a liquid at room temperature. The product in question is merely polysaccharide filler mixed with a small enough quantity of alcohol that it binds to the crystal lattice without separating out as a liquid.

      This is not some uber-concentrated alcohol as it is marketed: "for weight reduction while camping", please. How does carrying round a bunch of crappy filler with your alcohol make it lighter?

      This product should be banned, not because it's dangerous, but because it's so fucking dumb, that anyone stupid enough to buy it shouldn't be allowed to consume alcohol.

    2. Re:California wins! (So far.) by Cramer · · Score: 1

      How is it lighter? Because it leaves behind the water usually present in any booze. (and the heavy glass bottle in which it's sold.) That said, who in their right mind wants to drink ("eat") 100% pure ethanol? (or nearly that, since it's bound to some sugar) Most of the enjoyment of alcohol is the flavors the alcohol can extract from things.

      As for "camping", a plastic bottle of 100% ethanol, in liquid form, would be a smaller and lighter means of getting the same mass to the top of a mountain. (and it would be FAR more useful, to boot.)

    3. Re:California wins! (So far.) by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      You're the one with failing mental abilities, the amount of ethanol that maltodexrin can aborb and still feel dry is epic. Most your booze 80 proof and less is water, of course this will weigh less. Some AC are so fucking dumb, they should be banned

    4. Re: California wins! (So far.) by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      But you won't need even water if you carry the alcohol in liquid form. That's even lighter as you don't need a filler!

      --
      bickerdyke
    5. Re:California wins! (So far.) by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      You're better with 98% alcohol. It's impossible to get pure alcohol by freezing or distillation alone, and for the sake of that 2% water, you end up adding some pretty nasty substances to entrap the water.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    6. Re:California wins! (So far.) by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      This product should be banned, not because it's dangerous, but because it's so fucking dumb, that anyone stupid enough to buy it shouldn't be allowed to consume alcohol.

      People in the US tend to default to not banning things just because someone else thinks its dumb.

    7. Re:California wins! (So far.) by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Hopefully they won't ban it - I think the concept is pretty darn cool, and had been looking forward to trying it since I heard about the company like a year ago.

      I've been hearing about it since college (which was farther back than I care to admit). If you want to try it just google "make powdered alcohol" and look up the recipe. It's going to tell you to go on Amazon, buy some tapioca maltodextrin and some Everclear, mix, and sift. Ta da! Powdered alcohol. Experiment to your heart's content.

    8. Re:California wins! (So far.) by neminem · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I'm probably going to be way too lazy to actually do that, but still, that is useful information, I thought it would have been a way more chemistry-magic-ful process than that, given how hush-hush they've been. :p

  10. So much for... by jomcty · · Score: 1

    So much for that overbearing Federal Government meddling in our lives?

  11. Re:Imagine the burn... by trout007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hits you fast, right in the face.

    We named that "drink" The Chris Brown.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  12. Re:Imagine the burn... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "Don't do it! It is not a responsible or smart way to use the product ... Just use it the right way." From the maker."

    Agreed. Don't waste it. The responsible and smart way is to shoot it up. Anything else is just irresponsible waste, and constitutes alcohol abuse (excuse the pun.)

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  13. Can you get this in concentrated form? by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 2

    Never mind the powdered form, what about getting the liquid in concentrated form?

    "Palcohol" is not ethanol, but the highly intoxicating 2-methyl, 2-butanol, which is about 30x as potent at causing intoxication as ethanol. Despite being termed one of the "toxic alcohols", it probably has lower chronic toxicity than ethanol, as being a tertiary alcohol, it cannot be oxidised to toxic aldehydes/ketones.

    1. Re:Can you get this in concentrated form? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      "Palcohol" is not ethanol, but the highly intoxicating 2-methyl, 2-butanol, which is about 30x as potent at causing intoxication as ethanol. Despite being termed one of the "toxic alcohols", it probably has lower chronic toxicity than ethanol, as being a tertiary alcohol, it cannot be oxidised to toxic aldehydes/ketones.

      Seriously? Traditionally, powdered alcohol has been made by trapping ethanol inside cyclodextrins. Why would anyone produce a non-ethanol based powdered alcohol when there are much safer alternatives already known and understood. Oh, wait... because the pre-existing method is out of patent, and they want patent protection... right?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    2. Re:Can you get this in concentrated form? by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 2

      It is possible to sorb ethanol into a dextrin. The problem is that the volume/mass of sorbent is much larger than the amount of alcohol that can be bound.

      So, if you want to bind 10 ml of ethanol (approximately 1 shot), then you may need 100 grams of powder. Which makes the product of limited value.

      If, however, you want something iso-intoxicating to 10 ml of ethanol, you can reasonably safely do that with about 500 ul of 2-methyl, 2-butanol, which could be sorbed in 5 grams of powder. The latter is a practical product which meets the description of "palcohol"

    3. Re:Can you get this in concentrated form? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Reports claim the right sugars will absorb ethyl alcohol to 60% of their own weight. Your 10ml of ethanol is 7.89g, and multiplying that by 10/6 gives 13.15g of sugar needed. This is clearly why it only makes sense as a premixed cocktail -- no spirits have that sort of ratio of sugar to alcohol.

      It still sounds interesting as a drycure ingredient.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    4. Re:Can you get this in concentrated form? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      It still sounds interesting as a drycure ingredient.

      Ooops. I hadn't thought about the volatility of alcohol. Turns out sugar-encapsulated alcohol evaporates very, very easily.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  14. Re:legitimate use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You go to bars? Wow you are really getting ripped off.

  15. Re:Try doing some research... by F1re · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    ...there is no sig...
  16. Re:Sugar in a gas tank is bad... by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Well, the alcohol probably wouldn't do much - after all most gas in the US is at least 10% ethanol already. The sugar it's bound to though... that could cause problems.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  17. Hey babe? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Want to snort a line of Scotch?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. Re:Try doing some research... by Immerman · · Score: 2

    On the other hand kool-aid and vodka in a sugary drink bottle will go unnoticed almost anywhere.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  19. Re:Imagine the burn... by sjames · · Score: 1

    You should definitely not snort goofballs.

  20. Re:Imagine the burn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can also pour that powder directly into your ass. We called that drink the Richard Gere.

  21. Re:legitimate use by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    I'm struggling to find a legitimate use for the aisle of cocktail mixers at the local liquor store....

    give it a rest, people have been mixing all kinds of shit with booze from ancient times when it was first invented (likely Egyptian beer cakes)....get over it

  22. Re:Imagine the burn... by trout007 · · Score: 2

    Only those of us over 40 will get that.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  23. Pat Traver's said it best by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    Now I can finally snort whiskey and drink coke...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... (Pat Travers Band)

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  24. Nature imitates art by Argos · · Score: 1

    Lover Come Back.

  25. Make your own! by Mjlner · · Score: 1

    I have a recipe for powdered alcohol:
    - 15 g dry yeast
    - 5 kg sugar

    To use it:
    1) Mix with 20 litres of water in sufficiantly large container.
    2) Flavour according to taste (optional)
    3) Cover but do not seal. For optimal results, use airlock.
    4) Keep in room temperature for 1-2 weeks.

    Enjoy!

    --
    Lemon curry???
  26. Several thousand years by aepervius · · Score: 2
    "People have been using Cannibis in its various forms for at least several hundred years."

    It dates to much longer than that. Cannabis usage in the "western" world date back to 400+ years, but in Asia minor and neighbor region it is much longer :

    The oldest written record of cannabis usage is the Greek historian Herodotus's reference to the central Eurasian Scythians taking cannabis steam baths.[40] His (c. 440 BCE) Histories records, "The Scythians, as I said, take some of this hemp-seed [presumably, flowers], and, creeping under the felt coverings, throw it upon the red-hot stones; immediately it smokes, and gives out such a vapour as no Grecian vapour-bath can exceed; the Scyths, delighted, shout for joy."[41] Classical Greeks and Romans were using cannabis, while in the Middle East, use spread throughout the Islamic empire to North Africa.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  27. Re:Imagine the burn... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    It doesn't burn at all, you should try it. Hits you fast, right in the face.

    Erm, so *why* should I try it exactly? It sounds like you get drunk fast without any of the flavour or other pleasant sensations.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  28. And what does this mean ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    ... for open container laws?

  29. Powdered Water by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    That would be awesome.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  30. Re:21st Amendment by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the result was just what the Constitution was written for: states can pass their own laws, but can't discriminate against out-of-state producers (which would be an attempt to impede interstate commerce in the most strictly Constitutional way).

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes