The recently fired head of the ACMD David Nutt
revealed to Sun readers yesterday that he is involved with the development of a synthetic alcohol replacement.
A SUBSTANCE said to give the feeling of booze without the health risks is being developed by controversial ex Government drugs tsar Professor David Nutt. The solution is added to liquid. It is claimed anyone using it will get the alcohol high without the hangover or deadly liver damage. There is even an antidote which would allow a user to DRIVE home after taking it.
On the one hand we have alcohol, a natural by-product of anaerobic fermentation, on the other we have lab produced synthetic alcohol (which will obviously not be methanol). Which would you rather trust?
WE have been poisoning ourselves for 2,000 years.
Actually we've been producing alcohol for longer than that. I'm not 2,000 years old, I'm not even 200 years old, WE haven't been poisoning ourselves for 2,000 years .. .. ..
I am working on a prototype of a synthetic alcohol. We can make someone feel pleasantly inebriated then reverse it.
So not for those times when you want to get rip-roaringly drunk then? How do you define 'pleasantly inebriated'? Different people will have different tolerances to your synthetic alcohol in the same way that people have different tolerances to real alcohol .....
Law enforcement could even have the antidote to use on revellers who have used the solution.
Go out, have a good time, the police will forcibly sober you up at the end of the night.
We have a partial alternative tested on volunteers. With Government backing, the first ever synthetic alcohol could be available in three to five years.
After reading that does anyone have that nagging feeling in the back of their heads that Professor Nutt might not be the innocent hero he has been painted to be? I like many thought the manner of his dismissal was wrong, the reasons given were suspect, but now I'm starting to question whether there was more to it than meets the eye.