Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Star Trek's Synthehol Now Possible?

Comments Filter:
  • Star Trekkin. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RandomLinguist ( 712026 ) <.onelinguist. .at. .gmail.com.> on Friday April 14, 2006 @03:25AM (#15127818) Homepage
    It seems to me sometimes that we focus more on trying to make the 'cool' tech and gadgets from the tv shows of our childhood than making new innovations sometimes. I wonder if it actually inhibits science to try and make it fit to fiction, or whether fiction really is the best inspiration.

    On the other hand, I really, really want my own replicator.
  • by ROBOKATZ ( 211768 ) on Friday April 14, 2006 @03:54AM (#15127897)
    and it's illegal. Well ok, it's not at all the same type of high, but the health side effects from opium use are negligible compared to alcohol. Alcohol and tobacco are only legal because they're already legal, and there are (as already has been demonstrated) social, economic and political consequences for changing our stance on these. If they had just suddenly been introduced today, no way would you would be able to legally manufacture, sell or possess them.


    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.

  • GHB (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, 2006 @03:59AM (#15127909)
    Actually there is a very good substitute for alcohol, gamma-hydroxybutyrate (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ghb/ [erowid.org]). It is toxic at high dose (and mixed with alcohol), but at normal levels it feels the same as alcohol and is much healthier and without the hangover effect...

  • by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Friday April 14, 2006 @04:01AM (#15127914)
    Wow, I'm glad those drug companies aren't making a shitton of money on drugs that we don't need like anti-psychotics and anti-depressants, because the way you make it sound, the government would _never_ let those drugs come to market.

    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 needing a liver transplant could be helped down from the habit early enough to keep them from needing invasive surgery and a lifetime of anti-rejection drugs.

    Of course, this stuff's still going to be hella expensive (due to the number of psycho-active drugs neccesary, and because of the amount of testing it will require), and doubtful the FDA would EVER consider it for OTC usage..
  • Re:Oh no... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hclyff ( 925743 ) on Friday April 14, 2006 @04:06AM (#15127925)
    Maybe it's just me, but when I'm drinking I never think about hangover until I get it. As long as I'm not in that cursed 'am I dead yet?' stage known as hangover, it's just some mildly unpleasant thing I know I will have to go through at some point later.

    But anyway, if hangover keeps you from drinking, good for you!
  • by bunbuntheminilop ( 935594 ) on Friday April 14, 2006 @04:16AM (#15127948)
    I don't think you would be able to organically synthesise anything and then expect to put it 5% in a aqueous solution, and STILL make it for less than $1 a bottle.
  • Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, 2006 @04:38AM (#15127988)
    I'm posting this anonymously, because I'm an addict.

    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.
  • Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:5, Interesting)

    by visgoth ( 613861 ) on Friday April 14, 2006 @05:33AM (#15128100)
    For anyone who's a daytrip away from say, Vancouver, BC, then its also quite obtainable, and pretty much legal to consume. There's a number of "amsterdam style" cafes there that let people spark up. Not that I know this first hand, I err, heard it from a friend of a friend...
  • by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 ) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Friday April 14, 2006 @05:57AM (#15128148) Homepage
    Also when you *do* drink make sure you have a pint or two of water before going to sleep. And keep a jug of water next to your bed so if you wake up with a raging thirst at 5am you can drink and avoid the worst effects.

    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 the wonders of modern technology..
  • by 3.5 stripes ( 578410 ) on Friday April 14, 2006 @06:10AM (#15128178)
    Those studies were a pile of crap, none of the participants were screened for psychosis before they started smoking, which leads to the inevitable question, would someone who is bordering psychosis possibly self medicate with marijuana? Correlation != Causation.

    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.
  • by Flying pig ( 925874 ) on Friday April 14, 2006 @06:16AM (#15128186)
    Huxley's world is where we are going. Caste genetically determined, with low caste individuals basically living in herds so the upper castes have something to look down on, and for those who don't like it, the drug soma. Which has basically the characteristics Nutt describes.

    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:Great... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Siffy ( 929793 ) on Friday April 14, 2006 @06:48AM (#15128242) Homepage
    excess of typical norms have to die before they realize this was a bad can of worms to open?

    Geez, how many people do you think alcohol kills every year? I'd be willing to bet it's less than the sum of road rage and psychopaths. A drink might have actually helped in both those cases. :)

    improve oneself and the society in which they live.

    We did. We invented alcohol. And people stopped dying of dysentery. At this point in the span of humanity, alcohol has probably still saved more lives than it has taken. You and I might not be here today if our ancestors hadn't had the stuff around as a disinfectant. DFO was the typical norm way back when, I'm all for technology that saves lives and has fun side effects.
  • Re:Yah, alcohol (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, 2006 @07:29AM (#15128304)

    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.

  • Health risk of an opiate NEGLIGIBLE?? Hello, anybody home? I've smoked plenty of opium, let me tell you that you're dead wrong. A few things I've learned from personal experience...

    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:Yah, alcohol (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, 2006 @12:00PM (#15129962)
    Drinking (or whatever) to escape is not what drives addicts, as you imply. It might underly abuse, and in turn might lead to addiction (i.e. it's a risk factor), but it's not typically described as the causative agent. Contrast meth with pot, for example. Both provide an escape, but crystal meth is terribly addictive and destructive, while smoking a fatty is not. The addictive effect seems more closely associated with a drug's downside than with it's upside. When you stop using your nasal spray, and your nose plugs up like it's full of glue, and you know a little whif will give you relief, it's hard to resist the temptation. You want to cure the headache and depression associated with your hangover? A little hair of the dog that bit you will do the trick quite nicely. What happens when the pot wears off? You might feel sleepy. Big whoop. That's not something most people feel they must urgently address with another toke.

    The problem with correlating addiction with escapism is that a lot of us think a little escapism isn't such a bad thing. But it's a problem when society paints all forms of escapism with the same broad brush and villifies the perpetrators. So we now have 'video game addicts', etc. Absolutely ridiculous, but also a stereotype that is firmly entrenched in our Dr. Phil pop culture.

    If you are trying to escape depression, as you say, just consider that perhaps your drug of choice is what's causing the depression. The fact that you think of it as a way to escape depression makes me think you might be caught in a circle of addiction that's bigger than you realize.

    A little escape from life is one thing. Using a drug to escape from the drug's own downside consequences is quite another.
  • by mshurpik ( 198339 ) on Friday April 14, 2006 @12:59PM (#15130465)
    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?

    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.

  • by soupforare ( 542403 ) on Friday April 14, 2006 @01:07PM (#15130530)
    Not to mention a lot of weed smokers that I know use vaporizers or water pipes... One of which isn't even really smoking, there's no burning going on.
  • Re:Drugs. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Crussy ( 954015 ) on Friday April 14, 2006 @04:08PM (#15132293)
    My only experience with kava comes from using it as an anti-anxiety supplement. As a high school senior worrying about SATs, I decided I would take a supplement of kava twice daily to see if it's effects really work. The wikipedia article notes:

    "Other interesting uses of kava include dispensation to military personnel (Fiji) to aid in vigilance and anxiety reduction; to provide concentration, focus, and muscle control before sports and music performances; to reduce the anxiety associated with public speaking and other public performances; use in corporate board rooms to aid in mental clarity, sociability and improved decision making."

    Whether it was placebo effect or not, the ~month I took kava provided unmatched sleep and a decent boost in mental clarity and concentration. My math SAT scores finally hit 790, not quite perfect, but a number I definitely should have reached earlier, and I felt fine.

    I stopped taking Kava because of the precautions of liver damage. Reading now that it is mainly FUD intrigues me, mainly because I remember feeling all in all better taking kava as a supplement.

    On a totally unrelated note, I have been intrigued by organic and drug chemistry for a long while, and noticed the following simularity [erowid.org] between MDMA (ectasy) and methysticin (one of the active ingredients in kava). The active group on many phenethylamines tends to be the 4 position of the phenyl ring and on MDMA there is a methylenedioxy on the 3 and 4 positions. This same structure occurs on methysticin, and I have long wondered if kava's narcotic effect comes from this similarity. However my highschool chemistry is far from enough to seriously evaluate this and I would love to hear if anyone has any idea.

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...