Alcohol without the hangover?(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Alcohol without the hangover?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/alcohol-benefits-no-dangers-closer-think
33 comments
Yup.
For a moment, I thought he'd made synthonol (that's one for Star Trek fans), but your explanation makes much more sense.
Here's the background:
UK drugs law places drugs on 3 levels of illegality.
Class 1 (e.g. heroin): very illegal. Strict punishments for possession.
Class 2 (e.g. marijuana): illegal. If you're caught with a small quantity, you'll probably be let off with just a caution.
Class 3 (e.g. body-building steroids): illegal to sell. Legal to possess in small quantities.
The law requires the Secretary of State, under the advisement of a panel of experts, to classify drugs according to the level of harm they cause. David Nutt was on that panel.
The panel advised, among other things, that marijuana should be moved to Class 3. And, for a time, that was what happened. It was actually legal to smoke marijuana in the UK. Then the government changed its mind, and moved marijuana back to Class 2. The panel resigned in protest. David Nutt complained especially loudly, and started comparing the risks of MDMA to horse-riding and so on.
Apologies for any errors. This is just from memory.
For a moment, I thought he'd made synthonol (that's one for Star Trek fans), but your explanation makes much more sense.
Here's the background:
UK drugs law places drugs on 3 levels of illegality.
Class 1 (e.g. heroin): very illegal. Strict punishments for possession.
Class 2 (e.g. marijuana): illegal. If you're caught with a small quantity, you'll probably be let off with just a caution.
Class 3 (e.g. body-building steroids): illegal to sell. Legal to possess in small quantities.
The law requires the Secretary of State, under the advisement of a panel of experts, to classify drugs according to the level of harm they cause. David Nutt was on that panel.
The panel advised, among other things, that marijuana should be moved to Class 3. And, for a time, that was what happened. It was actually legal to smoke marijuana in the UK. Then the government changed its mind, and moved marijuana back to Class 2. The panel resigned in protest. David Nutt complained especially loudly, and started comparing the risks of MDMA to horse-riding and so on.
Apologies for any errors. This is just from memory.
For a moment, I thought he'd made synthonol
There's also soma from Brave New World. Not sure if Aldous Huxley was the first to write about the idea, but it's hard to argue that he wasn't the first to bring it up well.
There's also soma from Brave New World. Not sure if Aldous Huxley was the first to write about the idea, but it's hard to argue that he wasn't the first to bring it up well.
No, cannabis briefly became a Class C drug which did not make it legal, or even decriminalised. Class C drugs in the UK carry a theoretical penalty of 2 years in prison for possession and 14 for supply and production. Though the sentencing guidelines are nowhere close to that.
The police do have a system of "cannabis warnings" over here which treats being caught along the lines of an official "don't do this again" unless you're either a child, keep being caught, or the circumstances warrant a straight up arrest.
The police do have a system of "cannabis warnings" over here which treats being caught along the lines of an official "don't do this again" unless you're either a child, keep being caught, or the circumstances warrant a straight up arrest.
> synthonol
Synthehol. Synthetic alcohol.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Synthehol
(Not nearly as interesting to engineers as the real stuff, which is apparently at its best when it's green.)
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/By_Any_Other_Name_(episode)
Synthehol. Synthetic alcohol.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Synthehol
(Not nearly as interesting to engineers as the real stuff, which is apparently at its best when it's green.)
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/By_Any_Other_Name_(episode)
What is wrong with using science in public policy - I really think the current war on drugs is pretty backwards (like a school without evolution, largely based on what people feel). People will put much more unsafe things in their bodies if it's all illegal. In fact given the amount of heroin coming out of Afghanistan since we invaded, a Canadian mayor and a UK Lord having been caught doing hard drugs - I think you have to ask is the problem everywhere and maybe we should take a different approach seeing as the current one isn't working?
Seems like quite a strong possibility, given his background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Dismissal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Dismissal
Sounds unlikely, as he has talked about this before - He told me after a talk 7-8 months ago that he is well capable of making such a drug but that he doesn't have the funding (and he wasn't even looking for funding or publicity yet).
I'd be quite surprised if he is just trolling them.
Please don't post pharmaceutical claims from the "Mother Nature Network." :-/
The Guardian article this was scavenged from is very light on details too.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/alcohol...
It looks to be a GABA agonist, which as HarryHirsch points out, are hardly pharmaceuticals with a history of low risk ...
The Guardian article this was scavenged from is very light on details too.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/alcohol...
It looks to be a GABA agonist, which as HarryHirsch points out, are hardly pharmaceuticals with a history of low risk ...
The drugs we are talking about are Bretazenil[1] and Pagoclone[2], which are more targeted than GABA agonists - they only bind to certain subtypes of the GABA receptor. They are also claimed to be partial agonists , meaning even at maximum capacity they only stimulate the receptor to a fraction[3] of a full agonist. One the other hand The potential of abuse of Pagoclone claimed to be similar to that of valium(how did they measure that ?).
On the other hand, there's some interesting work on molecules that decrease dependence/tolerance.For example there's work on reducing morphine abuse potential using calcium/magnesium in rats[4].There's also conflicting research results regarding the effect of magnesium, glycine and zinc on the effect alcohol has on the NMDA receptor(which is supposed to be the main cause of tolerance)[5].
So maybe there's a combination that gives most of the benefits of alcohol , with a small dependence potential. Let's not get discouraged from this noble goal yet.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretazenil
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagoclone
[3]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Ago...
[4]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19658277
[5]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5284/
On the other hand, there's some interesting work on molecules that decrease dependence/tolerance.For example there's work on reducing morphine abuse potential using calcium/magnesium in rats[4].There's also conflicting research results regarding the effect of magnesium, glycine and zinc on the effect alcohol has on the NMDA receptor(which is supposed to be the main cause of tolerance)[5].
So maybe there's a combination that gives most of the benefits of alcohol , with a small dependence potential. Let's not get discouraged from this noble goal yet.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretazenil
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagoclone
[3]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Ago...
[4]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19658277
[5]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5284/
David Nutt, the author, is the Real Deal though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
The link to the Guardian article appeared earlier (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6720342) and was ignored by HN readers.
> It looks to be a GABA agonist, which as HarryHirsch points out, are hardly pharmaceuticals with a history of low risk ...
GHB[0], diazepam (benzo), phenobarbitol (barbiturate)....
GHB is in some sense safer than people think it is (the trouble is that overdoses are difficult to treat when they happen), but otherwise I'd agree - alcohol is in many ways one of the most dangerous drugs known to man, but sometimes it's better to stick to the devil you know.
[0] Common club drug, as well as a common date rape drug
GHB[0], diazepam (benzo), phenobarbitol (barbiturate)....
GHB is in some sense safer than people think it is (the trouble is that overdoses are difficult to treat when they happen), but otherwise I'd agree - alcohol is in many ways one of the most dangerous drugs known to man, but sometimes it's better to stick to the devil you know.
[0] Common club drug, as well as a common date rape drug
> "[0] Common club drug, as well as a common date rape drug"
GHB is used for that far less frequently than many people seem to think. The common date rape drug seems to be alcohol itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_rape_drug#Frequency_of_occ...
This realization is important because it changes what sort of caution should be used with drinks in clubs. First and foremost, it is important to have a strong grasp on how much ethanol your drinks have in them. Letting somebody order you an unfamiliar cocktail might not be a good idea if you don't have a solid grasp on how that extra drink will affect you (whereas conventional wisdom about date rape drugs might have you believe that accepting a random cocktail straight from the bartender is perfectly safe).
GHB is used for that far less frequently than many people seem to think. The common date rape drug seems to be alcohol itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_rape_drug#Frequency_of_occ...
This realization is important because it changes what sort of caution should be used with drinks in clubs. First and foremost, it is important to have a strong grasp on how much ethanol your drinks have in them. Letting somebody order you an unfamiliar cocktail might not be a good idea if you don't have a solid grasp on how that extra drink will affect you (whereas conventional wisdom about date rape drugs might have you believe that accepting a random cocktail straight from the bartender is perfectly safe).
> This realization is important because it changes what sort of caution should be used with drinks in clubs.
This is very, very sound advice!
I have a somewhat unusually high tolerance to alcohol, which means that by the time everyone around me is drunk as fuck, I'm just getting worked up, and I'm no fun at drinking contests. As a consequence, I have witnessed an unspeakable number of people leaving with people they just met (or worse, driving) when they were drunk beyond belief. Having a history of alcohol intake myself, I know perfectly well that you can be quite sure you're in perfect share when you're barely dragging your feet.
GHB may be fancy and slick, but I have often seen people who were so drunk that it wouldn't have had any obvious, immediate effect.
Obligatory disclaimer: my heavy alcohol intake coincided with a period when I suffered from, and actually sought treatment for depression. I never slipped into alcoholism, but drank heavily. I still drink, and still more than your average Joe, but when I feel I get dizzy, I switch to soda. "Stay away from the booze!" is not something I'd advocate, but being careful with the booze is an advice I give wholeheartedly and out of quite some sorrow experience. Your liver may well survive the intake, but your brain and your soul are a lot more fragile than they seem.
This is very, very sound advice!
I have a somewhat unusually high tolerance to alcohol, which means that by the time everyone around me is drunk as fuck, I'm just getting worked up, and I'm no fun at drinking contests. As a consequence, I have witnessed an unspeakable number of people leaving with people they just met (or worse, driving) when they were drunk beyond belief. Having a history of alcohol intake myself, I know perfectly well that you can be quite sure you're in perfect share when you're barely dragging your feet.
GHB may be fancy and slick, but I have often seen people who were so drunk that it wouldn't have had any obvious, immediate effect.
Obligatory disclaimer: my heavy alcohol intake coincided with a period when I suffered from, and actually sought treatment for depression. I never slipped into alcoholism, but drank heavily. I still drink, and still more than your average Joe, but when I feel I get dizzy, I switch to soda. "Stay away from the booze!" is not something I'd advocate, but being careful with the booze is an advice I give wholeheartedly and out of quite some sorrow experience. Your liver may well survive the intake, but your brain and your soul are a lot more fragile than they seem.
GHB is actually used as a drug to treat narcolepsy as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_oxybate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_oxybate
Thanks for pointing that out.
GHB is most often used recreationally (intentionally); I only mention it as a "date rape" drug because that's the context in which people are more likely to be familiar with the name.
I wholeheartedly agree, though - alcohol is the most insidious date rape drug around.
GHB is most often used recreationally (intentionally); I only mention it as a "date rape" drug because that's the context in which people are more likely to be familiar with the name.
I wholeheartedly agree, though - alcohol is the most insidious date rape drug around.
GHB taken responsibly can be enjoyable, but really isn't for people that are irresponsible. As bad as alcohol is, if you drink too much, you will likely vomit and still be in a conscious state. If you take too much GHB you can lose consciousness within minutes, and not recover for two or more hours. It's a shame that it is a banned substance, but in this case it really is to save people from their own stupidity.
It's been said before, but the most dangerous date rape drug is alcohol.
GHB is new and unfamiliar, so it gets the worse rap, but alcohol has pretty much everything an date rape drug would have: It induces a loss of inhibition, a loss of motor control, a loss of language skills, and loss of consciousness with retrograde amnesia[0]. It also has one very important factor working in its favor: Social acceptance. Nobody gives it a second glance.
[0] Retrograde amnesia is a loss of memories formed before the event; in this case, the event is the point at which the person loses consciousness entirely.
GHB is new and unfamiliar, so it gets the worse rap, but alcohol has pretty much everything an date rape drug would have: It induces a loss of inhibition, a loss of motor control, a loss of language skills, and loss of consciousness with retrograde amnesia[0]. It also has one very important factor working in its favor: Social acceptance. Nobody gives it a second glance.
[0] Retrograde amnesia is a loss of memories formed before the event; in this case, the event is the point at which the person loses consciousness entirely.
We already have benzodiazepines, which are a class of drug that fits the description here perfectly: they affect GABA without doing all of the other things that alcohol does, and they have an antidote (flumazenil).
Like many drugs, they put you at risk for impaired driving, disinhibited behavior, etc. People use them on the street and they can certainly come in with benzodiazepine withdrawal, which looks pretty much like alcohol withdrawal (both of which can be life-threatening, unlike most other types of withdrawal).
There is little reason to think that a new GABAergic compound would be "safe" by any stretch of the imagination. The proof will have to come in the form of clinical trials.
Like many drugs, they put you at risk for impaired driving, disinhibited behavior, etc. People use them on the street and they can certainly come in with benzodiazepine withdrawal, which looks pretty much like alcohol withdrawal (both of which can be life-threatening, unlike most other types of withdrawal).
There is little reason to think that a new GABAergic compound would be "safe" by any stretch of the imagination. The proof will have to come in the form of clinical trials.
Alcohol actually doesn't bind to the same site as benzodiazepines, which is why valium doesn't make you feel drunk. Something that mimics alcohol's binding behavior is in fact new.
It is true that alcohol and benzodiazepines (and barbiturates and z-drugs, for that matter) bind to different sites on GABA. While noteworthy pharmacologically, it does not address my comment about the organism-level effects of GABAergic stimulation.
'course it does - valium doesn't feel like being drunk.
There is every reason to think that one of the UK's leading authorities on drug science might have some interesting ideas in this space though.
The same story from 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6874884/Alcohol...
Very poorly written blogspam. Try the original link: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/alcohol...
I just want to point out that no matter how beneficial a drug is and even if it claims its minus the health risks, there is an inherent risk in taking any drug. Drugs can affect everyone differently and even a healthier version of something will have some effects, whether short or long term. Plus, if its just alcohol with no downside, the abuse of this drug seems like it would be rampant.
Although my comment might seem like I am against the drug, I am all for it. Especially from a business perspective.
Although my comment might seem like I am against the drug, I am all for it. Especially from a business perspective.
Good point. I'll also add that we're reasonably sure what alcohol does. We've been drinking it for thousands of years, and it's been extensively studied.
Does this drug have unknown side effects that outweigh the visible benefits? Only time and extensive testing will tell. Alcohol's already been through that gauntlet.
Of course, as with the parents comment, I'd love to see this work. Just don't assume that it's "safe" because we've shown it doesn't have X number of adverse effects we specifically looked for, within a limited timeframe.
Does this drug have unknown side effects that outweigh the visible benefits? Only time and extensive testing will tell. Alcohol's already been through that gauntlet.
Of course, as with the parents comment, I'd love to see this work. Just don't assume that it's "safe" because we've shown it doesn't have X number of adverse effects we specifically looked for, within a limited timeframe.
WTF? I don't know what drug is being sold in that article, but it's likely that it is a GABA agonist. And if it's that there is the risk of drug dependency. We know it because the benzodiazepines and barbiturates are quite addictive.
Alcohol can also be quite addictive. The question is whether people who wouldn't get addicted to alcohol would get addicted to this substance.
The referenced articles seem to repeat assertions that
this new drug may be {less|not} addictive
without providing {pharmo|neuro|pyscho}
reasons for those assertions.
My guess is that people will be able to find old or new ways to abuse or become addicted.
The idea of an antidote or antagonist is initially appealing, but we may see the pattern that made the narcotic antagonist nalaxone (Narcan) subject to abuse - people take a long lunch break, inject a narcotic, enjoy the buzz, and then use the antagonist before returning to work, supposedly no worse for wear.
Would someone who does the benzo-equivalent of a three-martini lunch and then takes the benzo-antagonist be ready to return to coding, planning, or digital networking no worse than they were when they left work?
Will the antagonist really convert someone who is too benzo'd to drive to someone capable of driving as well as their pre-impaired self?
How long will it take for societies to work out those details and differences?
This is something that has great potential, if it could replace ethanol without bad effects of ethanol - but to believe that it might have no bad effects seems naïve.
My guess is that people will be able to find old or new ways to abuse or become addicted.
The idea of an antidote or antagonist is initially appealing, but we may see the pattern that made the narcotic antagonist nalaxone (Narcan) subject to abuse - people take a long lunch break, inject a narcotic, enjoy the buzz, and then use the antagonist before returning to work, supposedly no worse for wear.
Would someone who does the benzo-equivalent of a three-martini lunch and then takes the benzo-antagonist be ready to return to coding, planning, or digital networking no worse than they were when they left work?
Will the antagonist really convert someone who is too benzo'd to drive to someone capable of driving as well as their pre-impaired self?
How long will it take for societies to work out those details and differences?
This is something that has great potential, if it could replace ethanol without bad effects of ethanol - but to believe that it might have no bad effects seems naïve.
Do you have any reliable references for this use of Naloxone as a "lunch hour fix-ender"? I'm led to believe the administration of it isn't particularly pleasant under any circumstances, and the risk of an excessive dose causing precipitated withdrawal symptoms is probably the worst.
Not to mention, the mere idea that you'd waste money by ending it early would send many users away laughing.
And if you have the money and time/connections to be sourcing Naloxone on a regular basis, why not just use a short-acting opioid like Fentanyl (or even just Heroin?)
In what ways would the 3-martini-equiv benzo + nominal antidote be worse than, say, 3 martini lunch? It seems like the problem is more with irresponsible people consuming drugs for recreation when they shouldn't, rather than the drugs themselves[1].
Giving such irresponsible people the ability to hide either consumption without totally reversing its effects would indeed be a net negative, but same can be argued of breath mints or dark glasses, neither of which are known to make you a better drunk-driver.
Overall, I'd be deeply surprised if there wasn't something objectively better than alcohol in every way, but agreed that it's going to take society a long time and a good number of missteps to accept and adapt to it.
[1] Ignoring for brevity the issues of dependence, addiction and tolerance that might require them to dose regularly, or risk even greater impairment or harm to themselves.
Not to mention, the mere idea that you'd waste money by ending it early would send many users away laughing.
And if you have the money and time/connections to be sourcing Naloxone on a regular basis, why not just use a short-acting opioid like Fentanyl (or even just Heroin?)
In what ways would the 3-martini-equiv benzo + nominal antidote be worse than, say, 3 martini lunch? It seems like the problem is more with irresponsible people consuming drugs for recreation when they shouldn't, rather than the drugs themselves[1].
Giving such irresponsible people the ability to hide either consumption without totally reversing its effects would indeed be a net negative, but same can be argued of breath mints or dark glasses, neither of which are known to make you a better drunk-driver.
Overall, I'd be deeply surprised if there wasn't something objectively better than alcohol in every way, but agreed that it's going to take society a long time and a good number of missteps to accept and adapt to it.
[1] Ignoring for brevity the issues of dependence, addiction and tolerance that might require them to dose regularly, or risk even greater impairment or harm to themselves.
I've been hit with Narcan. That shit is horrible and put me in instant withdrawals. The overlap of people who inject heroin and other opiates, who aren't already at risk of being put into withdrawals from Narcan would be exceedingly low, IMO.
It did save my life, though.
It did save my life, though.
> Would someone who does the benzo-equivalent of a three-martini lunch and then takes the benzo-antagonist be ready to return to coding, planning, or digital networking no worse than they were when they left work?
Sounds amazing, to be honest.
Sounds amazing, to be honest.
So it's going to be illegal as a controlled substance right? Our policies are so hit-and-miss that the chance of it being one of the three legalized drugs (coffee/tea, tobacco and alcohol), is miniscule.
It all depends on whether (and how long) the big players (Pharma, etc.) can profit off of it.
Case-in-point: we're starting to treat heroin dependence with a drug that is just as recreationally potent, and has similar risk of overdose[0], when we could just easily be treating it with heroin itself (diacetylmorphine maintenance[1]).
Currently, buprenorphine is the "right" drug to be addicted to, but even its makers started advertising its high addictive potential (in an attempt to push their new "safer" version, which is still under patent protection and therefore more profitable[2]).
At some point, we can only imagine that Reckitt Benckiser (the makers) will have milked as much as they can out of the drug, and we will declare buprenorphine a "bad" drug to be addicted to, just like heroin, and treat its addiction with the latest shiny, new drug.
We've seen this cycle many, many times. In fact, it's worth mentioning here that the word "heroin" was originally a Bayer trademark[3]. It was a cough suppressant invented as a "safer" over-the-counter substitute for the recreational bogeyman of the time: morphine.
How times change!
(By the way, I recognize that buprenorphine can be very helpful in treatment. this is not to say that buprenorphine is either right or wrong for everyone, just that the laws and policies that we construct around these drugs often represent financial interests more than they represent scientific or medical facts.)
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/health/in-demand-in-clinic...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Etymology
Case-in-point: we're starting to treat heroin dependence with a drug that is just as recreationally potent, and has similar risk of overdose[0], when we could just easily be treating it with heroin itself (diacetylmorphine maintenance[1]).
Currently, buprenorphine is the "right" drug to be addicted to, but even its makers started advertising its high addictive potential (in an attempt to push their new "safer" version, which is still under patent protection and therefore more profitable[2]).
At some point, we can only imagine that Reckitt Benckiser (the makers) will have milked as much as they can out of the drug, and we will declare buprenorphine a "bad" drug to be addicted to, just like heroin, and treat its addiction with the latest shiny, new drug.
We've seen this cycle many, many times. In fact, it's worth mentioning here that the word "heroin" was originally a Bayer trademark[3]. It was a cough suppressant invented as a "safer" over-the-counter substitute for the recreational bogeyman of the time: morphine.
How times change!
(By the way, I recognize that buprenorphine can be very helpful in treatment. this is not to say that buprenorphine is either right or wrong for everyone, just that the laws and policies that we construct around these drugs often represent financial interests more than they represent scientific or medical facts.)
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/health/in-demand-in-clinic...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Etymology
So what you're saying is that it all depends on whether the politicians whose palms are greased by the pharmaceutical companies have enough clout to even their debts.
Alcohol industry not interested? Transform it in a startup, buy rights to produce some sort of existing brand and show them otherwise. If it catches on, good for you. If it doesn't, apparently it wasn't a good idea. Complaining about how difficult it is to be accepted won't change the world. He has the hype already going.
I would argue your fundamental assumption that good ideas will always succeed is faulty. There are plenty of examples to prove it.
Cite them then.
"Want to go to the bar after work and pop pills?"
"Want to go to the arcade now that we don't have open containers to worry about?"
Easy two step process to avoid a hangover...
1. pace yourself (one drink every 45+ minutes) 2. drink water between alcohol drinks.
I usually don't have more than 2-3 drinks when I go out. Even when I was younger, and drank more, following the steps above I only ever had a hangover when I broke those rules.
1. pace yourself (one drink every 45+ minutes) 2. drink water between alcohol drinks.
I usually don't have more than 2-3 drinks when I go out. Even when I was younger, and drank more, following the steps above I only ever had a hangover when I broke those rules.
Alcohol production has thousands of years of refinement and tradition behind it- pretty hard to beat as a marketing establishment. If the majority of people were just after pleasurable effects we would have most likely shifted to a more effective drug a long time ago.
Maybe, but if this thing works it's way more appealing to me and I would quit completely alcohol. I've been looking for a healthier replacement but it's pretty hard to find.
To me proper beer in a proper bar is to a short-acting benzodiazepine what a proper meal is to Soylent. Drugs are part of human culture after all, like food, and part of the enjoyment comes from the social environment.
I don't think the health effects are that much of a concern. The liver is quite capable of dealing with alcohol consumed in moderation, and if you are drinking that much that you are getting worried about the state of your liver you should also worry how you are treating the people around you while continuously under the influence.
I don't think the health effects are that much of a concern. The liver is quite capable of dealing with alcohol consumed in moderation, and if you are drinking that much that you are getting worried about the state of your liver you should also worry how you are treating the people around you while continuously under the influence.
> I don't think the health effects are that much of a concern.
Very many people (especially in the UK) do not drink alcohol in moderation. Liver disease and cirrhosis is seen more commonly in young people than it used to be.
> and if you are drinking that much that you are getting worried about the state of your liver you should also worry how you are treating the people around you while continuously under the influence.
This appears to over-estimate the amount of alcohol needed to destroy a liver. A person does not need to be continuously drunk to severely damage their liver. Tolerance to alcohol would probably mean that they are not drunk all the time.
A woman drinking a glass of wine each evening, with an extra glass on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday is drinking (10 glasses of wine per week) is drinking something like 26 units a week, assuming a 200 ml serving size and a 13% ABV strength. WHO suggest that women drinking more than 14 units per week are at risk (although this is old advice) and men should drink less than 21 units per week. This woman will not see her drinking as anything extreme, and most people in the UK wouldn't see that as a worrying drinking pattern.
Current recommendations include some alcohol free days to allow the liver to repair itself.
Very many people (especially in the UK) do not drink alcohol in moderation. Liver disease and cirrhosis is seen more commonly in young people than it used to be.
> and if you are drinking that much that you are getting worried about the state of your liver you should also worry how you are treating the people around you while continuously under the influence.
This appears to over-estimate the amount of alcohol needed to destroy a liver. A person does not need to be continuously drunk to severely damage their liver. Tolerance to alcohol would probably mean that they are not drunk all the time.
A woman drinking a glass of wine each evening, with an extra glass on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday is drinking (10 glasses of wine per week) is drinking something like 26 units a week, assuming a 200 ml serving size and a 13% ABV strength. WHO suggest that women drinking more than 14 units per week are at risk (although this is old advice) and men should drink less than 21 units per week. This woman will not see her drinking as anything extreme, and most people in the UK wouldn't see that as a worrying drinking pattern.
Current recommendations include some alcohol free days to allow the liver to repair itself.
> Very many people (especially in the UK) do not drink alcohol in moderation. Liver disease and cirrhosis is seen more commonly in young people than it used to be.
The British problem is more of a social problem of really, really overdoing it on the weekend - Everything2 has a lovely writeup on the "vertical drinking establishment". If you substitute benzos for alcohol you may have less vomiting in the streets, but just as much fighting at chuck-out time.
There seem to be more cases of liver diseases in Britain than in other European nations. Since binge-drinking does not affect the liver quite as much as drinking smaller amounts more often, it seem that these are due to alcoholism. If you substitute benzodiazepines for alcohol, this wouldn't be much of an improvement, instead of a whiny, angry alcoholic whose life revolves around his stash you'd have a whiny angry benzo addict whose life still revolves around their stash. Their liver would be in better shape, though.
(Full disclosure: I have alcoholic family members and am deeply suspicious of quick cures)
The British problem is more of a social problem of really, really overdoing it on the weekend - Everything2 has a lovely writeup on the "vertical drinking establishment". If you substitute benzos for alcohol you may have less vomiting in the streets, but just as much fighting at chuck-out time.
There seem to be more cases of liver diseases in Britain than in other European nations. Since binge-drinking does not affect the liver quite as much as drinking smaller amounts more often, it seem that these are due to alcoholism. If you substitute benzodiazepines for alcohol, this wouldn't be much of an improvement, instead of a whiny, angry alcoholic whose life revolves around his stash you'd have a whiny angry benzo addict whose life still revolves around their stash. Their liver would be in better shape, though.
(Full disclosure: I have alcoholic family members and am deeply suspicious of quick cures)
Are we sure alcohol alone explains increases in liver problems? People are also increasingly fat and have poor diet related problems that would impact the liver.
The main risk factors for cirrhosis are alcohol and hepatitis B and C. The UK doesn't have a worse drug problem than the rest of Western Europe, consequently it must be the drinking.
The UK does have worse obesity problems than the rest of western europe, so parent asks a reasonable question.
Is obesity a factor in greater rates of liver disease?
Is obesity a factor in greater rates of liver disease?
Here is an analysis of the risk factors: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en...
This report from the British government says that virus hepatitis and alcohol are the biggest risk factors and that a strategy needs to be devised against these to fight chronic liver disease.
This report from the British government says that virus hepatitis and alcohol are the biggest risk factors and that a strategy needs to be devised against these to fight chronic liver disease.
The majority of beer consumed in, say, UK is not "proper beer" in any sense, it is huge bottles of ethanol-solution designed to be cheap and get people drunk, and with some coloring and flavoring to make it somewhat tasty. The same market can easily be filled by huge bottles of the same coloring/flavoring with short-acting benzodiazepine, if only it was legal.
"The majority of beer consumed in, say, UK is not "proper beer" in any sense, it is huge bottles of ethanol-solution designed to be cheap and get people drunk, and with some coloring and flavoring to make it somewhat tasty."
You drink American beer? Why?
You drink American beer? Why?
If those effective alternatives hadn't been made illegal.
But such a drug already exists, does it not? http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-compass-pleasure/201...
Sounds like an amazing breakthrough; I'd love to know more about this. How closely do the effects mimic that of alcohol? Can you overdose? Is there reason to believe that this could be similarly priced to alcohol?
> The only proven way to reduce alcohol harms is to limit consumption through increased pricing and limiting availability. Most governments have shied away from this...
This article lost me pretty early with these words. Here in British Columbia, Canada, minimum pricing is also in effect. I can tell you full well it does nothing to control consumption and, as with most prohibitions, only increases the amount of social problems. I've looked into the research proving it is effective and haven't managed to find any. I question where the author gets his facts.
This article lost me pretty early with these words. Here in British Columbia, Canada, minimum pricing is also in effect. I can tell you full well it does nothing to control consumption and, as with most prohibitions, only increases the amount of social problems. I've looked into the research proving it is effective and haven't managed to find any. I question where the author gets his facts.
I'd buy it immediately. Is there any webshop that sells this stuff?
It's a compound being experimented with in a university. It's not your run of the mill, garage created designer drug.
Plenty of street drugs are manufactured in university labs
I guess the question is how easily this thing can be studied for health effects. Ecigs look to be getting the kiss of death in the UK from the MHRA because of a lack of long-term studies, the only people who tried to get their ecigs up to a consistent and studied standard beforehand ran out of money as far as I know, so I'm not particularly hopeful that this'll manage to avoid regulatory hurdles.
>Ecigs look to be getting the kiss of death in the UK from the MHRA because of a lack of long-term studies
Doesn't look that way to me. It just looks like the MHRA has decided to regulate them.
Doesn't look that way to me. It just looks like the MHRA has decided to regulate them.
Still looks like they're trying to give it the kiss of death to me.
Relevant:
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/comms-ic/documents/websit...
Now, complying with regulation for medical devices is very expensive. Their high end estimate for the costs to a company that wanted to import _a_ product into the UK for sale sits at £266,000. A figure I consider to be rather optimistically low. And that assuming that
'57. Our MA cost estimates assume that applicants would not have to conduct expensive animal and post-market-authorisation human clinical trials to satisfy MHRA that the risks to health from long term inhalation of ENDS vapour are acceptable. However, this may not be the case and MHRA assessors might ask for these additional trials. The one-off costs of conducting these additional trials would probably run into several hundreds of thousands of pounds. '
A lot of the strength of the e-cig market is in its diversity, you can get a lot of different flavours, and a lot of different devices to get the experience you want. Which this sort of thing would make very costly. And it's worth noting that the MHRA is fairly blatantly against diversity in flavours, it's even mentioned as one of the things they'd do in options 1.
And all this in a paper that notes:
'The policy might only need to be marginally unsuccessful for it to be considered a costly failure. If the design and implementation of the policy has the effect of reducing access to NCPs (particularly ENDS) then it is possible that the number of successful quit attempts could decline. If there were no substantial countervailing health gains from improvements in safety, the policy’s overall impact could be highly negative.'
If they push this through to the hilt, I rather suspect that we'll end up with just the big companies trading their crappy little fake-cigs.
At this stage it's a matter of seeing how the EU breaks on the issue. With big tobacco attempting to kill off their competitors before they become large enough to defend themselves, BT being one of the few who can afford that sort of thing, I'm not hugely hopeful of that.
Relevant:
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/comms-ic/documents/websit...
Now, complying with regulation for medical devices is very expensive. Their high end estimate for the costs to a company that wanted to import _a_ product into the UK for sale sits at £266,000. A figure I consider to be rather optimistically low. And that assuming that
'57. Our MA cost estimates assume that applicants would not have to conduct expensive animal and post-market-authorisation human clinical trials to satisfy MHRA that the risks to health from long term inhalation of ENDS vapour are acceptable. However, this may not be the case and MHRA assessors might ask for these additional trials. The one-off costs of conducting these additional trials would probably run into several hundreds of thousands of pounds. '
A lot of the strength of the e-cig market is in its diversity, you can get a lot of different flavours, and a lot of different devices to get the experience you want. Which this sort of thing would make very costly. And it's worth noting that the MHRA is fairly blatantly against diversity in flavours, it's even mentioned as one of the things they'd do in options 1.
And all this in a paper that notes:
'The policy might only need to be marginally unsuccessful for it to be considered a costly failure. If the design and implementation of the policy has the effect of reducing access to NCPs (particularly ENDS) then it is possible that the number of successful quit attempts could decline. If there were no substantial countervailing health gains from improvements in safety, the policy’s overall impact could be highly negative.'
If they push this through to the hilt, I rather suspect that we'll end up with just the big companies trading their crappy little fake-cigs.
At this stage it's a matter of seeing how the EU breaks on the issue. With big tobacco attempting to kill off their competitors before they become large enough to defend themselves, BT being one of the few who can afford that sort of thing, I'm not hugely hopeful of that.
Hmm, it seems you're right. They aren't saying they're going to outlaw it. They're just going to regulate it to death.
I say "good luck". These things are rapidly approaching critical mass, and with tons of availability on the internet, all they're going to do is siphon the economic benefits into other countries.
I say "good luck". These things are rapidly approaching critical mass, and with tons of availability on the internet, all they're going to do is siphon the economic benefits into other countries.
That the incumbents are supposedly giving it the cold shoulder is such a lame angle. Who cares? Go out and make a great new product category!
I too can write an article claiming I have 5 magical new compounds that are untested, but have the properties I declare.
Sure, but do you have ethos of this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
[deleted]
Synthahol
This already somewhat exists naturally in the form of kava kava.
I have drank a fair amount of that; Before "survivor" went there I think it was the only thing the country of Vanuatu was widely known for. Although some claim only the Hawaiian varieties are any good. I hope they can improve on the taste of the raw product which can best be compared to muddy, slightly gritty, river water. Kava subjectively compares well to the claims in the article. The mouth numbness is a little weird. Every year or two I buy some; probably due for some more, soon.
No commentary at all about the proposed antidote or its possible properties? I suspect the most obvious interesting drug interaction would be the proposed antidote vs something similar yet different like good old fashioned ethanol.
No commentary at all about the proposed antidote or its possible properties? I suspect the most obvious interesting drug interaction would be the proposed antidote vs something similar yet different like good old fashioned ethanol.
If you want to improve on the taste mix it with mango powder, stevia and cinnamon (personal recipe). The mango powder kills the taste, the rest just adds some flavor. ;)
Phenibut is actually pretty close, except that it's still addictive (physically; the psychological component isn't that strong).
Ugh, not in my experience. Fun, for sure, but very easy to over do and end up sleeping far far too much.
Getting up the next morning if you use too much is difficult, but in my experience it's almost the opposite of a hangover; instead of the world seeming horrible and impossible to face, my bed is simply the most wonderful place I can imagine being. Keeping a caffeine pill next to the bed can be an effective countermeasure.
The author didn't mention if or why-not they are working on an antidote to alcohol itself. Anyone have any information on that?
It's hard. Ethanol is a pretty horrible drug in terms of how it works.
By allowing unrestricted consumption of any kind of drug or/and substance you will see the state of civilization you are in.
With absolutely no specifics this article is useless.
It's best to drink in moderation
HAH!
No hangovers.
No hangovers.
\o/
Beware anything you can't manufacture/grow yourself. If its fun, and you didn't cook it yourself: forget it. You're going to lose.
So you're saying I shouldn't eat souffles?
I'm saying you shouldn't wire yourself up to an industrial drug supply over which you, and your political representatives, clearly have zero sovereign control.
What he does want to do, however is to get the government into a knot with regard to its drugs policy. Nutt has always been for a drugs policy based solely on the harm that a drug would do. He wants drug policy to be stringently evidence-based.
So he starts talking about a drug with zero harmful side effects but with the enjoyable effects. He wants to try and goad ministers into talking about whether such a drug would be banned or allowed. So far the media hasn't really taken the bit between the teeth, however.