Safer Alcohol Substitute?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/b...fer-intoxicant

This is an interesting concept. Nutt is designing a drug derived from benzos (like Valium), that is meant to create a similar experience to alcohol, with less health implications.

Whilst I think the idea is really cool, and I'm all for harm reduction, I think, based on the moral/political response to e-cigs, its safe to say, he is going to have a hard time trying to release this and keep it legal and available.

I also have to say I'm not keen on him suggested he wants it to be an up-market drug, because that implies it will be expensive.... if you are really going for harm reduction, why would you market it only at the wealthy?

[NonIndigenous]

Originally Posted by Invert

I also have to say I'm not keen on him suggested he wants it to be an up-market drug, because that implies it will be expensive.... if you are really going for harm reduction, why would you market it only at the wealthy?

It's what I've noticed to be general capitalist economics. If something new is released, aim it at the wealthy first, squeeze out as much cash in return for as few products as possible, even if manufacturing costs are minimal anyway. Once the competition takes up the idea... then the prices drop, because they have to to stay in business. I've not really studied this in detail, just observation.

The problem is with patents... and with respect to pharmaceuticals and drugs in general I don't think they expire for 20 or so years. I'm not sure though. Maybe it's 10 years.

I generally speaking support capitalism, but this is an ugly downside that I'm personally ashamed off. When we're talking about TVs and luxury cars, fine. When we're talking about drugs and medicines which some people might desperately need... it's not really.

This is somewhat of a half-way case. I wouldn't say this substance sounds like a "basic need". Water is. Food is. Certain drugs are sometimes. But it comes down to how people define "basic needs" which is a different topic. I don't want to divert this.

[Coffee.]

Let me play devils advocate. Heroin was invented to be a safer, less addictive pain killer opposed to morphine. With that in mind, I don't think it's realistic for people to invent "healthier" addictive, recreational drugs. Alcohol in particular is fine in moderation. Why can't we just tell people to, uh, drink less?

[Gingerbread Latte]

Originally Posted by Traci

Let me play devils advocate. Heroin was invented to be a safer, less addictive pain killer opposed to morphine. With that in mind, I don't think it's realistic for people to invent "healthier" addictive, recreational drugs. Alcohol in particular is fine in moderation. Why can't we just tell people to, uh, drink less?

Because people don't listen

In the UK on all the advertisements for alcohol and on signs in various pubs/clubs/bars it always says "drink responsibly" but people just don't pay attention.

I don't think it's possible to change some people's attitudes towards alcohol, they'll drink as much as they want no matter what state they get in and then do it all again the next weekend. At least with this substitute it'll be less toxic so less likely to cause long-term issues such as cancer and liver disease.

I don't think it'll work so well though. A lot of people would still just choose alcohol, especially if this is going to cost more. In fact the only way I see this working well is if alcohol was suddenly prohibited but we all know that's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Traci

Let me play devils advocate. Heroin was invented to be a safer, less addictive pain killer opposed to morphine. With that in mind, I don't think it's realistic for people to invent "healthier" addictive, recreational drugs. Alcohol in particular is fine in moderation. Why can't we just tell people to, uh, drink less?

Because it clearly doesn't work. Despite increasingly strict alcohol consumption measures, alcohol is an increasing problem. Young adults in their 30s getting liver damage, etc, etc. I'm not saying not to bother trying to curb drinking. I was drinking ridiculous amounts for several years, and last year I decided to sort it out, and got drunk less times in the year than I used to get in a month. I feel better for it, but harm reduction is undeniably a tool we need to consider. Like needle exchange programs for those who inject drugs. Where we can't stop a behaviour completely, we can make it less harmful.

Also, we have better scientific understanding of how these things work than in the late 1800s... and for him to be able to succeed, he'd probably have a higher burden of proof toward its safety than many prescription drugs.

Originally Posted by BDF

It's what I've noticed to be general capitalist economics. If something new is released, aim it at the wealthy first, squeeze out as much cash in return for as few products as possible, even if manufacturing costs are minimal anyway. Once the competition takes up the idea... then the prices drop, because they have to to stay in business. I've not really studied this in detail, just observation.

This is where my issue is. He is acting like its about harm reduction, but your very point makes it seem profit driven. Fair enough if its profit driven, but I think he should be more up front about it, as its not obvious considering his history in drug research.

The problem is with patents... and with respect to pharmaceuticals and drugs in general I don't think they expire for 20 or so years. I'm not sure though. Maybe it's 10 years.

He wouldn't be releasing it as a pharmaceutical drug, so perhaps it would be a different patent. Though I think this is where he'll struggle the most, being allowed to release it as a recreational drug.

I generally speaking support capitalism, but this is an ugly downside that I'm personally ashamed off. When we're talking about TVs and luxury cars, fine. When we're talking about drugs and medicines which some people might desperately need... it's not really.

This is why you should have universal healthcare

This is somewhat of a half-way case. I wouldn't say this substance sounds like a "basic need". Water is. Food is. Certain drugs are sometimes. But it comes down to how people define "basic needs" which is a different topic. I don't want to divert this.

Well yes, this isn't intended to be a treatment option, and so recreational wants are not needs. though, in the long run, if alcohol could be more broadly replaced with a safer alternative, societies with alcohol problems would benefit.

[Coffee.]

Sorry, I didn't explain myself much. Here's a longer explanation.

I'm not against needle-exchange programs or other harm-reduction mechanisms, I'm actually very for them. For example, the bar I went to this week has a service that they'll let you park free overnight as long as you don't drive home drunk. Although in theory, we wouldn't want people drinking too much, this is better than driving drunk, and it's a great service they are providing. We have been trying to make less addictive mind-altering substances for years, and they have not worked. Every recent opiate is an attempt to make pain killers less addictive but just as effective, this didn't just happen in the 1800's. :P I don't see making "less addictive" mind-altering substances a good alternative. I mean, if this guy has a brilliant formula that is destined to be genius, I'm not completely arguing against it. But due to my knowledge of public health and addiction (about to explain below), I doubt the effectiveness.

We need to study what sociobehavioral predispositions cause people to turn to addiction. Why are some people more likely to abuse alcohol? For example, my uncle is an alcoholic, and was astounded that my father was able to go to a basketball game recently on a ticket that got him unlimited beers and only have one. Despite what you all are saying, lots of people can do this. Sure, addiction is common and nothing we should ignore. But I'm an of-age student in college and I go out with many friends that have one or two drinks and can completely control themselves. There are many studies through a variety of universities, but in particular, I can think of one through Columbia University that emphasizes that addiction is not a simple construct. Not everybody has the capability to be addicted to drugs, even the most addictive ones. There are genetic components. There are also emotional components. For example, those dealing with stress triggers (a death in the family, a failure on midterm, etc) are more likely to turn to them as coping mechanisms. We need to study why addiction happens and how we target preventive strategies in a constructive way. For example, if we find emotional issues (such as predispositions for depression/stress, etc) as a common issue, we can help these people find better behavioral coping mechanisms. If we notice genetic predispositions, we would be able to test for who is at risk. I don't see throwing new drugs into the mix as a useful tactic; however, if somebody can find some scientific evidence in its favor, let me know. I'd love to see different perspectives, I've just seen nothing in the literature about this.

Oh, I don't think its the addiction aspect of alcohol that he was designing this over, but more a drug with far fewer health implications. The section on addiction I think was about benzos (like valium and xanax), which his drug is derived from. Benzos are known for having a fairly high potential for addiction, so I think he was talking about it for that reason. The idea isn't to stop people from becoming addicted to alcohol, but making a relatively safer drug, without the new drug being more addictive than benzos.

I' not against studying substance abuse and addiction, and I'm not saying treatment is useless... but as a society, at least in the UK, despite the best efforts to promote responsible drinking, there is still a health damaging level of alcohol consumption, which obviously harms individuals, but also increases crime, anti-social behaviour, and puts a lot of pressure on our health-care system (long term health problems and emergency services). So It makes sense that whilst addressing these problems, as it is a long term process and mission, which would require total ideological shifts, a safer alternative could be used to minimize harm. Especially if it minimised not only health, but the kinda of behaviour that floods our ERs every weekend.

I suppose it also depends on how you view recreational drug use. The main issues for me are health implications and life interference. There are some people who are self-medicating, but most alcohol drinkers do drink out for recreation, often socially. The latter I have no problem with, especially if it were safe.

Also, alcohol addiction has a strong genetic disposition.

But its effectiveness as an alcohol replacement is something I question, and in part, because of the reasons we drink. We have what they call a 'binge drinking culture'... its pretty much something that a lot people do, even though we know we shouldn't (I say 'we' as a society, I have mostly sobered up since 2012). Adults and young people a like get wasted frequently. Would this new drug really be able to compete? He says it has an intoxication limit, a point where taking more wont do anything. Will it just lead people to mixing it with actual alcohol? What ever he makes, it would not only have to be safer, but would have to be seen as a good enough alternative to make people walk away from the booze.

[Sammichez]

Really, I could just see this turning into the heroin incident all over again. The way I see it, people just need to cut back on the alcohol. It's fine to go out and get a drink once in a while if you're responsible enough, but if you're having a drink every 5-10 minutes, then that's a problem.
Throwing another drug into the mix is only going to make things worse because, like another user above me said, there have been many attempts to make safer, less addictive drugs in the past and just about all of them failed (ie, heroin).

[Maverick.]

What's wrong with Soda? After you drink too much of it you act like a different person. lol.

Originally Posted by Maverick.

What's wrong with Soda? After you drink too much of it you act like a different person. lol.

Its not exactly a healthy alternative And if its sugar free at least, there is really any mental state change (I say this as someone who drinks 2-3 litres of diet pepsi a day... bad habit... lol)