Star Trek's Synthehol Now Possible? 509
[TheBORG] writes "Professor David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Bristol in the UK, believes that there is no scientific reason why 'synthehol' (a science-fictional substitute for alcohol that appears in Star Trek:The Next Generation television series) cannot be created now. It will allow drinkers to experience all of the enjoyable, intoxicating effects of alcohol without unpleasant side-effects like hangovers." Of course, there's still the real deal, Romulan Ale, for when you want a splitting headache in the morning.
Drugs. (Score:5, Funny)
Actually (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Actually (Score:2)
Re:Actually (Score:5, Informative)
As for taste, I get the feeling it didn't simulate it all that well (considering Scotty's reaction to it on that TNG episode. I'm a geek, but not geek enough to know the episode number).
TNG 6x04 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:TNG 6x04 (Score:5, Funny)
Lonestar: What the hell was that?
Dot: That was my virgin alarm!
Re:Actually (Score:4, Informative)
Synthetic scotch... Synthetic Commanders...
No, it doesn't (Score:5, Informative)
Robert: "Your synthehol...never leaves you out of control, isn't that so?"
Picard: "That is so."
Robert: "This will. Now there's something I'd like to see."
Picard: "What's that?"
Robert: "I venture you've probably never been drunk in your entire life."
The episode you're remembering is Relics. Data does claim that synthehol, "simulates the appearance, smell, and taste of alcohol, but the intoxicating effects can be easily dismissed." I suppose you could interpret "easily dismissed" as "easily shaken off" but given the evidence from other episodes, I interpret it as him saying that the intoxicating effects are so low that they can be dismissed as inexistent.
Re:Actually (Score:3, Funny)
Aye but this is no mere mortal yer talkin' about laddie. This is Scotty, who kin tell ye which hour of the day a 60 year old scotch was bottled before the glass is off the table!
Re:Actually (Score:5, Funny)
Sinthehole = personal entertainment device for Slashdot geeks.
One may lead to the other, but I don't think they're the same thing.
MadCow
Nutt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nutt? (Score:2)
Re:Nutt? (Score:2)
Beg to differ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A psychopharmacologist is interested in why and how chemicals interact with the brain and nervous system, so it's quite within his mandate to speculate on how something like 'synthehol' should theoretically be possible. Invariably you tend to find that postgraduates in the UK have to write papers on how something is theoretically possible in order to attract funding for research.
These papers are in the public domain, so if some Sci-Fi fan for LiveScience breaks the news with the sensationalist title "Hangover-free Buzz: Star Trek's Synthehol Now Possible" while at the same time quoting passages from the paper like "Some "partial agonists" of GABA-A receptors already exist; bretazenil and pagoclone were developed as anti-anxiety drugs. These drug molecules are instantly reversible by the flumazenil, used as an antidote to overdoses of tranquillisers.", I'd wager that you should be shooting the messenger here, not the scientist.
Re:Nutt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to stomp on a good put down, but the only reason many things are possible today is because someone wrote "pointless" articles about them when they were only theoretically possible.
Inspiration (Score:5, Insightful)
Every good inventor has had to have some kind of inspiration to actually make the invention. Sometimes necessity is the mother of invention — the inventor needs a particular device or effect, so he creates it — but sometimes they don't realize there is a need, or they don't have a basis to work from. Some brilliant researcher could be looking at the paper, smacking his forehead and crying "Now why didn't I think of that?" and proceed to apply his research in anti-anxiety drugs to create alcohol without negative effects. Sure, it's the end result guy who gets the patent (or, if the first guy is clever enough to pull off a very general patent, he may get it), but it was the inspiration of the person who posted the theoretical idea that got things off of the ground.
Heck, you see it all the time in programming. Someone points out a theoretical vulnerability in an encryption algorithm and next you know, someone's posted a practical implementation. Personally, I wonder if the original poster was trying to avoid DMCA lawsuits [slashdot.org] by getting someone else to be their catspaw, but the idea is there.
Re:Nutt? (Score:2)
How About... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How About... (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand, Romulan Ale doesn't leave you reeling like a man being mugged in a meadow, doesn't eat through the table when spilled, and never ever made anyone yell Pheoww in minor thirds.
Re:How About... (Score:3, Informative)
But I'm Canadian you insensitive clod!
We can buy them legally. Hence why every convenience store in Niagara Falls, Ontario has gigantic signs saying "CUBAN CIGARS" for all the nice American tourists.
Re:How About... (Score:5, Funny)
the cigars, that is, not the adolescents
Re:Don't panick but ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't panick but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How About... (Score:5, Funny)
Star Trekkin. (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, I really, really want my own replicator.
Re:Star Trekkin. (Score:2)
Admit it: you want to replicate 7 of 9. Right?
Re:Star Trekkin. (Score:2)
Yah, alcohol (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if only they could get rid of the part of alcohol that makes people act like assholes.
Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but a major effect of alcohol is disinhibition. That's what it does, heck, that's a major reason for drinking it ("dutch courage" and all that"). So it makes people more prone to say what they think.
Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:3, Informative)
And thus we have -- "Alcohol, the cause of and the solution to all of life's problems."
Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, I'm waiting for the alcohol that eliminates unpleasant side effects like; intoxication.
As a friend of mine noted, as we watched the tables, chairs and fists flying around the bar:
"Now there's a good idea, why don't we mix big, stupid people with alcohol?"
Or, as an alcohol counselor friend of mine noted when I asked him why some people seemed to like getting wasted when all it does is make you feel like absolute shit:
"Ah, well, you're not an alcoholic."
He also noted that after 40 years in the business he could tell a lot about people by their drug of choice; and that alcohol was the drug of choice of people who were essentially unhappy and wanted to be numbed.
There is a phrase, however, for ingesting depressants to be "happy":
Vicious Cycle.
KFG
Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:5, Interesting)
You have some good insights into the problems of the addict, even if you don't or can't understand what it's like to be one, as you imply.
The underlying drive of the addict is not so much to feel good as it is to feel differently from what ever base state they are used to feeling (unhappiness). Any feeling is better than the underlying feeling of unhappiness, even total lack of feeling. (It's interesting that at the same time, many drunks tend to extreme emotions of anger or sentimentality.)Some of us have drugs of choice, such as alcohol, speed, marijuana, etc., while others of us will imbibe anything and everything they can get their hands on.
I wonder if anyone will ever be able to create an alcohol that is safe for alcoholics to drink. Even if they can find away not to trigger the physical craving response by some subtle manipulation of the molecules, how can they remove the powerful psychological urge?
I could ramble on, but in short, I don't think this represents any sort of cure for alcoholism. It might be a great boon for non-alcoholics to enjoy, but this won't stop the progressive spiral of destruction of a person addicted to alcohol.
Anyway, I just thought I'd share that with you. You've always seemed like the decent sort, KFG.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:5, Interesting)
I like your comment, so I'll post my story. I've suffered from social anxiety since I was 15 or so and, like most people with this problem, quickly found that alcohol kicked the anxiety away. Being aware of the potential problem I could get into if I started drinking regularly I did some research, and found what at the moment looked like a panacea: GHB. No hangover and presumably no addiction. Little did I know that 2 years down the road of using it daily I'd face a living hell trying to quit. Not so much the psychological aspect (it had long stopped being enjoyable) but the physical dependency. I made it and had to spend 2 years with psychotherapy to learn how to live with anxiety. The anxiety is no longer a problem and I can lead an almost normal life now. I live on my own and have a good paying work. I've never had a date though and, being 30 already, have mostly given up. To get to the point, not being to function with the aid of a drug is a situation people who don't need it can't imagine.
I want to wish you good luck in kicking alcohol. Things like having a pet and listening to music helped me a lot.
ghb is patented for alcoholism (Score:4, Interesting)
If you take GHB, it removes the physical urge to drink alcohol. It also makes you happier. Overall, the psychological urge to drink is greatly diminished. In fact, US Patent 6,436,998 [uspto.gov] covers GHB as an alcoholism treatment.
For the sake of comparison, how badly did you want to get drunk the last time you exercised? If you've never felt GHB, it is like a five mile run in a bottle.
Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, what did he say about the other drugs?
Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately that substance is illegal in most places, the only place I know where you can legally enjoy it is the Netherlands.
Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:3, Insightful)
I talked with a cop about it and got this answer: First of all, they only sell weed and none of the "hard" stuff. Second, people who only weed will get only weed that way, and they get OK stuff, no junk. Third, it cuts away from the street dealer's income, and those guys DO sell the bad shit. And finally, at least that way they can keep an eye on the market and make sure none of the REALLY weird shit makes it into
Oh no... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh no... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh no... (Score:2)
Re:Oh no... (Score:2)
Considering it will require at least 3 named psycho-active drugs, in delicate balance, I doubt it's going to be easy for a student, or a drug company, to just cook up in a lab.
(2) If it was available by perscription only, there would be a person who would act as a source on campus just for the sheer profit of it.
Sure thing, but as soon as one of them dies a horrible death from the side effects of the medicines involved, hopefully they'
Re:Oh no... (Score:3, Interesting)
But anyway, if hangover keeps you from drinking, good for you!
Re:NO! NO NO NO! You've got it backwards! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hangovers do not prevent people from drinking.
Hangovers do prevent people from going to class or work the next morning.
The thing about drinking is that people forget fairly quickly what a hangover feels like... And go... "Oh what is one beer going to do to me! Mmmm... This buzz feels good. Another one can't hurt!"
Of course 6 beers, 2 shots of jadger, a 5th of tequila, and then 4 hours later... Your alar
It'll never happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, if alcohol didn't have the added guise of also being a food, and being impossibly easy to create on your own it'd be illegal now.
Re:It'll never happen... (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, pot is cheap, it's easily home grown, and some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes. And since there really isn't a political lobbying force trying to get this "much needed pharmacutical" on the market legally... Hell, even with some doctors pushing its obvious medical uses, it's still been a tough sell.
Think about Opiods. Then think about how much money has been made using synthetic opiates. The fact remains, the market for synthetic drugs is much greater than the market for naturally occuring drugs due to the corporate and political climates in this country, and because it's easy to convince people with vague symptoms that they have some disease and need a medicine to treat it.
Re:It'll never happen... (Score:2)
Re:It'll never happen... (Score:4, Informative)
ugh. I hate when people bring this one up. Yes smoking a pack or marijuana is worse than smoking a pack of cigarettes. Luckily a 'pack' of joints is an unbelievable amount of substance. Where a smoker could easily smoke a pack a day, if one smokes good pot the dosage [erowid.org] is MUUUCH smaller. I can get quite intoxicated every night, including sharing a couple nights with my girlfriend for a week and only use 1 gram/week.
Basically what I'm getting at, is how long does one gram of tobacco satisfy an average smoker?
And also how safe are synthetic "alcohol"? (Score:2)
Atleast our bodies know how to deal with alcohol and get it out of the system. What biological "units" have understood how to handle "synthehol"?
Re:It'll never happen... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It'll never happen... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think we're ever gonna be able to get rid of NASCAR now.
Re:It'll never happen... (Score:5, Informative)
No darling, it's an order of magnitude 'stronger' (higher THC) then a generation ago.
False. There is no proof that marijuana on the market today is, on average, stronger than that in the mid or early 80's, or even 70's/60's. You're buying the B.S. that the U.S. Gov'ts failing drug czar's office wants you to buy. If you look at the figures they use to try and promote this myth, you will realize a few things. First of all, the method used to determine the concentration of THC way-back-when was inconsistent, it was not always used on fresh stashes, but rather very stale stashes (THC breaks down over time) and even on feral hemp, which containts hardly any THC. So on average, they claim that marijuana of the past had less than 1% THC content. There's a problem with this though. You can't get stoned on 1% or less THC. You're brain doesn't notice it. So either the hippies of the past were hallucinating the effects of marijuana (which I wouldn't entirely rule out considering the high use of acid...), or else, you got it, there was more THC in marijuana back then than the officials want you to think there was.
Second of all, there are anectdotal researches that show that with older age, lower doses of THC have higher effects on the brain. That is one reason why people that were hippies back in the 60's find todays marijuana to be stronger. It's not really stronger, they're just getting a much better ROI thanks to their aging.
And finally, lets just pretend for a moment that marijuana IS much stronger today. Say, 10 times stronger. It still wouldn't matter. Unlike alcohol, where drunk people consume more and more and next thing you know they're wasted, marijuana does not have these effects. Users stop smoking after a certain level of intoxication is achieved. Individual users will have different requirements. Some would want to get a mild buzz, others may want to get stoned off their ass. Either way they'll stop smoking after they achieve that level. The total intake is the same. So what you may be able to say is that high THC varieties are SAFER than old, low THC varieties, as the total amount of smoke ingested is LESS.
With that in mind do you think comparing what is on the market today with that of 40 years ago is particularly accurate?
Again, no I wouldn't, if your comparison involves logical falacies and down right illogical thinking. The basic FUD spread by the drug czar is that:
Today's marijuana has more THC, so it is more dangerous than previous hippy generations had it.
The problem here is that the underlying assumption is that THC and marijuana in general is dangerous. This has not been proven. At all. Not in the slightest. There have been no fatalities from recreational use of marijuana. Smoking and driving, while undesirable, does not have the same effect as drinking and driving. Traffic accidents involving parties that were ONLY smoking pot are actually less likely than totally sober traffic accidents. Taking a sample of traffic accident fatality victims that had traces of THC in their blood (I'll skip the fact that the sampling method is inacurate), the majority of these people also had some other intoxicating agent present, alcohol being at the top of the list.
Wouldn't you be just a bit concerned about any neuropharmacological agent that was delivered in a random dose, from implicitly suspect sources, that had been bred up so quickly with such little good research?
There is more than enough anectdotal and scientific proof that marijuana is not dangerous. However, you have a point. Black market marijuana may not be terribly safe, due to the nature of it being entirely un-regulated in it's final sales form. There could be plenty of insecticides used on it, or, like there have been a few (very few) reports of angel dust laced marijuana. That angel dust will REALLY fuck with you.
What you put into y
Re:It'll never happen... (Score:3)
You're a bit off base with that last sentence there. You're confusing branding with the wider market of the generic product itself. Budweiser is not spending millions of dollars on advertising to keep people intersted in drinking beer, they're doing it to keep people interested in drinking Budweiser! Even if beer commercials went off the air tomorrow you wouldn't see a significant drop in
One good reason it'll never happen... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One good reason it'll never happen... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh wait, aren't those the two drugs with the highest market value outside of painkillers (opioids or NSAIDs)? Believe it or not, there is a market for this stuff, as a huge percentage of this country suffers from alcoholism, and a lot of people that are a year away from need
Re:One good reason it'll never happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... lets see: Prozac [prozac.com], Ritalin, Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil, Pexeva, Zoloft, Elavil, Norpramin, Tofranil, Aventyl, Pamelor, Wellbutrin, Cymbalta, Effexor...
Re:One good reason it'll never happen... (Score:2)
LOL. Family hour commercials on network television.
It already exists (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It already exists (Score:2)
Re:It already exists (Score:2)
Re:It already exists (Score:2)
You're saying that pot has the same effects as alcohol but without the hangover? It seems to me the effects of these two substances are quite distinct. I'm not saying they have nothing in common, but they work on quite different systems in the brain, and it's quite easy to tell apart someone on alcohol from someone on marijuana (from a 1st or 3rd person point of view). Each of these states of consciousness are useful in their own way, but they are not the same state; one does not adequately sub
risk of psychosis and anxiety (Score:3, Funny)
Plus of course regular heavy use may bring on the more feared long term addiction to tie dyed clothing, Grateful Dead, and believing one to be living in California in the late 1960s...
#1 Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people, by Cécile Henquet, Lydia Krabbendam, Janneke Spauwen, Charles Kaplan, Rosel
Re:risk of psychosis and anxiety (Score:5, Interesting)
They're pretty much both anti MJ propaganda pulled out by people who were against the reclassification of marijuana in britain. Strange how they suddenly got done right around when the reclassification became news.
Re:risk of psychosis and anxiety (Score:3, Informative)
When people get hallucinations long after taking LSD ('flashbacks') that's not the LSD, people who get random hallucinations are drawn to/self-medicating with LSD.
There are vastly higher rates of disorder A amongst people who take drug B. There can only be one explanation; people with disorder A are drawn to drug B. Honestly..
If you want to smoke it then fin
Yeah it's called "opium"... (Score:5, Interesting)
We can also thank our anti-drug culture the practice of adding things such as acetaminophen to opiates (e.g., vicodin and oxycodone) to make sure it destroys your liver if you become addicted (as a "deterrent"). Given this, I don't think the government, or whoever decides such things, would be terribly pleased with a readily available drug with the "positive" effects of alcohol and none of the negative effects. If this really shows up, don't be surprised if it is simply labelled a "designer" drug and made highly illegal.
Not deterrents (Score:2)
Distill out the hydrocodone from a vicodin and take it and you'll be sorely disappointed..
You've never done opium, before, obviously. (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Opiates constipate you (Immodium AD, loperamide, is an opiate)
2. Smoking opium is harsher on the lungs than marijuana.
3. Opium is far, FAR more addictive than alcohol (witness China and Turkey with their opium wars way back in history)
4. Once hooked to strong opiates, the general recourse to getting off of them is an even worse medication (methadone) as opposed to counseling and Antabuse prescriptions for alcohol addiction.
5. Opium can and will kill you, or get you killed.
6. Opium screws with your system more than alcohol. The only reasons more die from alcohol than opium are embarassingly simple - Alcohol's far easier to obtain, it's legal, and people get really stupid off of it, and therefore do stupid things.
Re:You've never done opium, before, obviously. (Score:4, Insightful)
And let me tell you why you're dead wrong, from personal experience and extensive studies of psychopharmacology. The risks of dependence are certainly there, but the health consequences of such dependence are in fact negligible... you'll note the lack of severe health consequences in long-term pain patients. Your interpretation of your personal experience does NOT supercede research on sample sizes far greater than yours.
1. Opiates constipate you (Immodium AD, loperamide, is an opiate)
WOW, huge side effect there. Alcohol destroys your liver and tobacco causes cancer. I'll take constipation, thanks.
2. Smoking opium is harsher on the lungs than marijuana.
It may be "harsher", but please point me in the direction of a study showing it's actually more harmful as opposed to simply more uncomfortable. Also, that's why the vast majority of opium is converted to pill or powder extracts.
3. Opium is far, FAR more addictive than alcohol (witness China and Turkey with their opium wars way back in history)
I don't know about the "FAR" with alcohol, but I do know it's FAR LESS addictive than nicotine. While substances derived from the alkaloids of opium do by far exceed alcohol in addictiveness, they are still less addictive than nicotine. That includes heroin. Look it up.
4. Once hooked to strong opiates, the general recourse to getting off of them is an even worse medication (methadone) as opposed to counseling and Antabuse prescriptions for alcohol addiction.
Methadone, while more addictive, is not nearly as reinforcing and does not produce much in the way of euphoria. Therefore it can be effectively used to step off. Other medications are being used that are superior to methadone. Antabuse is less effective for alcohol abuse than medications for opiate abuse are, counseling even more so. Counseling for opiates does exist, and many people can taper off their dose. Furthermore, abruptly stopping drinking while strongly physically dependent can kill a healthy adult, this is not observed with opiate dependence (but the withdrawal is still quite severe).
5. Opium can and will kill you, or get you killed.
Oh what a load of bullshit. So can alcohol, tobacco, marijuana (but not from toxicity), and virtually every drug, including over-the-counter ones. If you're irresponsible about it, there's plenty of ways to get killed with a whole lot of activities. Opiates, from a clinical standpoint, are FAR less likely to be fatal than just about every other psychoactive substance class out there, legal and illegal. Participating in the illegal consumption of a drug presents its own risks, but these are outside of the effects of the drug.
6. Opium screws with your system more than alcohol. The only reasons more die from alcohol than opium are embarassingly simple - Alcohol's far easier to obtain, it's legal, and people get really stupid off of it, and therefore do stupid things.
Again, what a complete and utter load of unresearched bullshit. Toxicity from opium isn't even in the same league as toxicity from alcohol. Especially notable is opiums (and almost all derivatives on the market, licit or illicit) lack of neurotoxicity contrasted to alcohol's repeatedly demonstrated strong neurotoxicity. Not to mention hepatoxicity, which opium again lacks. Alcohol impairs your judgment more than opium, by a huge margin.
GHB (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:GHB (Score:4, Insightful)
In the name of science (Score:5, Funny)
Cool (Score:2)
Personally, I'm waiting for phasers (replace paintball with stuns, much more fun) transporters (bank/vault walls? what?) and protoplasers (Sealing orifices shut "accidentally" - whoa.).
Economically feasible? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds like GHB (Score:3, Informative)
with much smaller dosage and few side effects. it works on gaba receptors like
alcohol does.
Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Great so.... (Score:3, Funny)
Synthenol Cristal? I'll take 4 cases.
How soon Brave New World is forgotten (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm going to say this: Nutt's drug would send civilisation down the tubes faster than you can imagine. Why? Because at the moment anybody who is at the bottom of the heap will often try to forget their misery with drugs. The drugs cause vast social damage and cost, encouraging crime. As a result, society is aware of the problems and has to take steps to address them - often unsuccessfully because neocons and "libertarians" (sociopaths) will attribute any cause to social problems other than ones that might require them to change their behavior. But even just locking up two million people costs them tax dollars.
Now imagine a drug as described. Fine for well adjusted middle and upper class individuals. But the poor and the maltreated will take it to forget their problems, and because there won't be any resulting social costs they will just be forgotten about. Right up until the infrastructure stops working. Or the rich start dying of the diseases being spread around by the poor drug users who don't care.
Marx described religion as the opiate of the masses, i.e. it was used to keep them quiet and obedient. This drug really would be the opiate of the masses. The problem is that most of us identify with the rulers not the masses (especially when we are young and think life is easy.) But, in reality, most of us fall into the classes decribes by Marx as the "masses." Bear that in mind.
Re:How soon Brave New World is forgotten (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How soon Brave New World is forgotten (Score:3, Informative)
Cocaine, anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
[I]n 1884 [...] Sigmund Freud published his work Über Coca, in which he wrote that cocaine causes:
So getting hammered is STILL the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny thing here. For me alcohol is a flavour and texture component of my favorite drinks. The volatility and solvent properties of ethanol make most alcoholic drinks impossible to fake--dealcoholized wines are wretched, non-alcoholic beer if carefully done can rise to the level of almost mediocre, and dealcoholized hard liquor is an oxymoron.
For me and many others, the "enjoyable" effects are not the "intoxicating" effects, and in fact the latter often fall under the category of "unpleasant side-effects."
This is just another drug to get stoned on. Big deal. Personally, I'd stick to mushrooms.
Just what we need... (Score:5, Funny)
Pointless to make it... (Score:3, Insightful)
By all rights, alcohol should be considered a drug. It is a drug. It's just that it has such a unique relationship with our society that it's essentially "grandfathered in"--the one time they tried to regulate it as a drug, it caused so much trouble that they ended up deregulating it again.
But a "synthetic alcohol," regardless of whether it's supposed to act just like alcohol without the bad side-effects, would not be the same thing as alcohol--so it would probably never be available in lieu of alcohol.
Furthermore, I'm not sure how they could incorporate it into beers, wines, or liquors, given that the character of the beverages is created at the same time the alcohol comes into being naturally. (Unless they could somehow genetically engineer yeast to make the synthetic stuff instead of the real stuff.) So what you're talking about is basically a synthetic form of Everclear.
Re:Pointless to make it... (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the rampant crime, gang warfare, police corruption, toxic homemade hooch, etc? Yeah, I'm glad we've left those problems in the past. Our modern drug regulation is the envy of the world!
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
The same could be said about Slashdot but you still post in here.
Alchohol is a waste of time and money (Score:5, Funny)
The same could be said about Slashdot but you still post in here.
Only when I'm drunk!
Re:Great... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great... (Score:3, Insightful)
So... how many people in excess of typical norms have to die before they realize this was a bad can of worms to open?
How many people have to use alcohol responsibly before you realize that for the vast majority of people it's not "a bad can of worms to open"?
Sorry if I seem a tad against the idea... but I think alchohol is a waste of time and money that could better be used to improve oneself and the society in which they live.
Spoken by someone that's probbably never had a hard day and needed to relax. Do
Re:Great... (Score:2)
Or by someone that is way too tightly wound to ever relax.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Funny)
And there are also those of us who never use it for stress reduction, but do use it to celebrate! I like a quote I heard from a pastor one day "Jesus turned water into wine, and evangelical christians have been trying to turn it back ever since"
Re:Great... (Score:2)
The only bad part is that when you outlaw alcohol, only outlaws will become alcoholics
I think drinking is one of the single stupidest things anyone could ever do. I also believe the drinking age should be lowered to 18, possibly 16. I also believe you should be able to buy crack at your local store. The problem comes when you think your beliefs regarding morality should be imposed on others.
Re:Who'd use it? (Score:2)
(It's likely to be so expensive that otherwise, nobody would consider it anyways, thanks to the delicate balance of drugs required to make this stuff work. Not to mention possible side-effects...)
Re:Who'd use it? (Score:2)
Most people drink to get drunk... wow... maybe in high school or college, but that's a decided minority of the population.
I guess though, it depends on how you define "drunk". A slight buzz isn't bad, but most people I know (who are adults) don't still enjoy the falling-down-drunk that they did when they were younger. They drink for the social aspects, they drink for the taste, they drink to relax after a long day (but not to get "drunk"), and maybe a few drink out of habit.
What's wro
Re:Who'd use it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I do. I quite enjoy scotch, but rarely have more than one or two a week... I do drink it purely for the taste (one drink is hardly enough to get a buzz, let alone get drunk). When I drink beer, I also rarely have more than one. As difficult as this may seem to you, it's fairly normal with most people I know. My generation (born in early 70's if you ask) doesn't seem to have the "drink a few every night after work" mentality that our parents did. Maybe I live in an exceptional microcosm... who knows.
As for fruit juice... I don't particularly like the taste, sorry. If it were as complex and enjoyable as Oban or Lagavulin, maybe I'd buy it by the gallon.
MadCow.
fighting hangovers (Score:2, Informative)
Re:fighting hangovers (Score:3, Interesting)
Haven't had a serious hangover since my student days. I've felt like shit some days but no headache, no sickness, etc.
The other best hangover cure is a bit more extreme - dialysis. When I was on that I could get absolute shitfaced the night before and be cured of the results completely by
Re:My Preference... (Score:5, Funny)
No wait. It does that everywhere.
Witty but useless comment defeated! Argh!