PDA

View Full Version : Coming soon: the recreational drug with no side-effects



Tronica
16-08-2005, 02:39
Coming soon: the recreational drug with no side-effects

12 August 2005

From http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=656547

It is the news that clubbers have been waiting for. Scientists are working on a range of recreational drugs that can produce similar effects to alcohol but with fewer of the side-effects.

Experts looked 20 years into the future to discover what kind of drugs we would be taking, and came up with a surprising range of findings, that open up the prospect of Sunday mornings without a thumping hangover or the "parrot's cage" mouth.

They have also been able to separate the effect of one psychoactive substance from its addictive properties, leading an expert panel to advise Government ministers that "this could pave the way to non-addictive recreational drugs".

One of the new substances has even been found to reduce the side effects of recreational drugs. "Such compounds might allow users to shape their drug experience," said the panel headed by Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

His report to the Trade and Industry Secretary, Alan Johnson, raises the possibility that, in a generation, Britain's dinner parties could become more like Woody Allen's "orb" scene in the futuristic film Sleeper, where guests get high by rubbing the orb instead of inhaling a joint.

The report said: "There are a number of new and developing technologies that could be used to deliver drugs in new ways. Examples include patches, vaporisers, depot injection and direct neural stimulation ... this may encourage the development of technology for the slower release of recreational psychoactive substances, which could reduce the risk of addiction."

Some drugs developed to tackle health problems are capable of being used for improving the performance of the brain. Madafinil, which was introduced to treat narcolepsy, can keep normal people awake for three days, says the report.

Other drugs could be used to stop alcohol triggering a need for a cigarette. "Drinking with friends might no longer create a trigger for an individual to smoke tobacco," the panel said.

Illicit laboratories that have supplied the black market with drugs for years may also accidentally discover drugs that could help sufferers from degenerative diseases in old age. "Perhaps the next major breakthrough in treatments for Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, may come from some informal developer seeking to find the next rush," says the report.

However, the report could give ministers a hangover. It raises questions that they would prefer to be swept under the carpet.

In addition to raising the possibility that new drugs could remove the nasty side-effects of recreational drugs, it raises taboo subjects such as whether in future, prohibition is the right way to stop young people using drugs such as ecstasy.

It says an early warning of new drugs on the scene is essential in order to manage their use. "Such insights could play a key role in limiting the harm of any new recreational substances. It might also become apparent that some psychoactive substances are less harmful. Their use might be encouraged to replace more harmful ones."

Such a move would require a change in the drug laws because such drugs would be illegal. Sir David says in a foreword to the report: "We are on the verge of developments which could possibly move us into a world where we could take a drug to help us learn, think faster, relax, sleep more efficiently or even subtly alter our mood to match that of our friends."

The expert team ran a number of different workshops with members of the public to find out their views on how society would react to new drugs, and also did extensive scientific reviews. They also looked into the prospect of medical advances for tackling mental illnesses - such as clinical depression - by incorporating drugs in food.

TheYellowDart
16-08-2005, 05:01
Call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe that drugs with no side effects are likely to exist anywhere in the near future. How can they remove these aspects of drugs when as it stands very little is known about how most drugs work?


Originally posted by Tronica
They also looked into the prospect of medical advances for tackling mental illnesses - such as clinical depression - by incorporating drugs in food.

This just scares me. I do not want drugs added to my food. If somebody suffers from a mental illness and wishes for it to be treated with drugs then they can take them however they like, add it to their own food, whatever. But I gather what is being suggested here is that widespread administration of drugs through food be incorporated to treat people who don't want to be treated.

Regardless I don't see what medical advances have to do with this, there isn't much stopping drugs from being added to food as it is, except disguising the taste which with most drugs isn't much of a problem due to the small amounts of chemicals involved, ensuring the drug isn't being broken down during the preparation of the food due to heat, contact with other chemicals in food and another I can think of being the issue of accurate dosing.

I'd love to praise this article because it seems to be pushing for more widespread acceptance of drugs as long as they are not found to be harmful, but the ideas it presents to me just don't seem realistic.

Cyberdyne
16-08-2005, 05:30
another very interesting issue that the mainstream of mentally enhancing drugs is performance issues...

We have steroids that enhance our physical abilities...what about steroids that enhance our mental abilities. I think once this kind of thing mainstreams there is going to be a whole pandoras box relating to gameshows, exams, the corporate world and such like...

Imagine a borderline genetically altered lawyer needing only a few hours sleep each night, PACKED to the hilt with memory enhancing drugs, able to research for hours and hours on end without a break and unphaseable in court when presenting their information. Is this inhuman? (cue lawyer jokes), Would it break the bounds of ethical conduct? Where do we draw the line?

Ah I dont envy the law makers in the not to distant future...

(*edit* yellow dart thats a wee bit scary...august 2004, 237 posts at exactly the same time...)

hoptis
16-08-2005, 05:45
They'd better hurry up, before the entire United Kingdom is transformed into a nation of e-tarded zombies roaming the Earth for fresh brains, Land-Of-The-Dead style.

Why would I say that? (http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=211680&r=204)

peaked
16-08-2005, 07:24
"this could pave the way to non-addictive recreational drugs".


Is such a drug even possible? IMHO anything that is enjoyable has the potential to become an addiction, its not just limited to drugs that will cause physical symptons in the individual if they stop using it, such as tobacco or heroin. If someone enjoys an experience, they are probably going to want to repeat it at some stage, so the only way I can see of making a non-addictive drug is by removing the enjoyment factor as well. Other drugs such as DMT, could be considered non-addictive, as an intense experience can often leave people feeling satisfied with that drug for a long time (though I'd hardly consider DMT a "recreational" drug). I guess its possible that someone could design a substance that has a long tolerance period, for example, no effects could be achieved from the drug for atleast a month after first having it. But if this was the case, then people would just turn to another drug during that time period.

eggman
16-08-2005, 07:47
Originally posted by Cyberdyne
...what about steroids that enhance our mental abilities.

Or even worse, steroids that hinder and regulate our mental abilities. :(

Hater
16-08-2005, 08:22
on the drugs in food issue i think its a good idea alot of people with mental illness cant accept their problem

and u'd have to be stupid to think corporations havnt already done this with food to the extents they can get away with not to mention alot of food already has drugs in it e.g chocalate and turkey breast produce seratonin when consumed

from what iv gleaned they want to tamper with alcohol to remove its hangover properties or create a non-addictive stimulant i'd like to see them try as its not the drug itself that causes addiction but depends on the users brain chemistry and beliefs

peaked
16-08-2005, 08:57
^^ on the topic of chocolate, that reminds me of an article I read elsewhere on bluelight. It mentioned a study where numerous people were administered a drug (sorry, cant remember its name) that blocked the chemical actions of chocolate when consumed. What they found was that people didn't really enjoy the choclate at all, and didnt have any urges to consume more.

This relates to what I mentioned earlier, in that to stop any addiction potential, you must remove the "fun" factor aswell. Even if a drug was created that had no physical side effects nor long term damages, and had absolutely no phsyical addictive properties, so long as people get enjoyment out of using that drug, they will use it.

Lets look at this from another perspective. Take a sport (for exampe footy), some people hate it, some like it and will watch it occasionally ... right up to the top end of the scale where theres the people who will watch every single game and probably get angry if they missed seeing it. You could say those people at the top end of the scale are "addicted" to the sport, not because their physically unable to stop watching the game, but because they enjoy it so much and have become so accustomed to their actions that they wont want to act any different. I'm sure it would be the same with any future drug, so long as people gain enjoyment out of using it.

Leprechaun
16-08-2005, 11:02
Interesting... Non-enjoyable drugs you take to have an enjoyable time. ;)

bunt
16-08-2005, 11:55
Drugs with no side effects being non-addictive???

Doesn't make sense sorry.

Cheshire Cat ^..^
16-08-2005, 12:25
This is just a paradox. Why would you stop using a drug just because it's enjoyable? Is joy a bad thing?

What about sex? Let's make it "safe" and just take all the enjoyment factor out of it.

HaLo_FouRTeeN
16-08-2005, 17:34
Well what about those alcohol vapor things?
(someone correct me if Im wrong, I only saw a brief news report on it)

The report said that the system got you drunk but you didnt get a hangover from it. The government was very quick to ban its use in Australia.

If you made say an alcohol with no side effects im sure you'd end up with so many more people drinking themselves to poision as there'd be no fear of the reprocussions of drinking large amounts of it (no hangover)

aBitOfAWorry
16-08-2005, 17:56
This reminds me of the wonder drug “soma” in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

“All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects."

"..there is always soma, delicious soma, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon..."

What will a ‘perfect’ drug like this do for the public? Do we need another escape?

Maybe I’m just being cynical but I don’t think humanity would progress and achieve at such a rate with a drug like this. I must say that I would probably be first in line though!

TheYellowDart
18-08-2005, 03:58
Originally posted by Hater
on the drugs in food issue i think its a good idea alot of people with mental illness cant accept their problem

With you taking the attitude that you have, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this issue. Regardless of their mental condition, the choice to take drugs to treat the condition should be left entirely up to the person with the condition, not anybody else. To force them to conform to "normality" is removing their right to live their life the way they want to. Who are we to lay the claim that their perception of reality is any less "real" than our own?

pharm_friendly
18-08-2005, 11:23
Non-addictive & enjoyable..... hmmm, dont think so 8(

Perhaps not physically addictive as to where your body becomes dependant on the drug, but what about psychological addiction. If something is so great and enjoyable, you are going to want to repeat the experience - especially if there is little or no damage caused.


Psychological addiction, as opposed to physiological addiction, is a person's need to use a drug out of desire for the effects it produces, rather than to relieve withdrawal symptoms. Heroin, for example, produces a physical dependence; the drug eventually takes the place of natural endorphins, so that addicts may use heroin simply to reduce pain. Other drugs, like marijuana, do not create a physical dependency. However, one may become psychologically addicted if he/she comes to depend upon the

Perhaps the person who made such a report has already started sampleing this new wonder drug ;)

~pharm_friendly~

Hater
19-08-2005, 01:36
Originally posted by TheYellowDart
With you taking the attitude that you have, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this issue. Regardless of their mental condition, the choice to take drugs to treat the condition should be left entirely up to the person with the condition, not anybody else. To force them to conform to "normality" is removing their right to live their life the way they want to. Who are we to lay the claim that their perception of reality is any less "real" than our own?
yer well i agree with u on that point im not saying its for anybody that the psych's think need meds becuz they think everyone needs meds in my opinion meds are useless and can only be used in conjunction with decent therapy but i spose i was only reffering to people who had suicidal tendencies

Cyberdyne
20-08-2005, 04:52
Originally posted by Cheshire Cat ^..^
This is just a paradox. Why would you stop using a drug just because it's enjoyable? Is joy a bad thing?

What about sex? Let's make it "safe" and just take all the enjoyment factor out of it.

Absolutely mate, havn't you seen Demolition man :D

And actually, I think you cracked a very very very very interesting analogy there, because when it came down to it, I almost couldn't distinguish between sex and drug use when I boiled it down to a base level (discount sex for babies, recreational sex here)

Its wide spread, its addictive, theres arguably an underlying biological urge under both. Both can be dangerous...you can die from both...there are harm minimisation practices for both which can substantially reduce the risks involved but not remove them altogether. Both have some degree of social taboo. Both have religious taboo. In the past, both have been cloaked in ceremoney and mystical enigma. Both alter the chemicals in your brain. both make you feel good. Both make you do completely stupid shit. Both ruin lives, ruin careers, ruin marriages. There are hardcore addicts to both.

Yet the government says we can make up our own minds whether the short term pleasure of sex is going to outweigh all the risks and ensuing problems, yet with all recreational drugs except tobacco, alcohol and nicotine we are unable to make this analysis.

Can anybody see any substantial flaws in this, because I really can't...

pinkanga
21-08-2005, 01:02
Everyone's a fucking expert it seems:X . Why has every single person written off the ideas in the article as if the mere mention of these possibilities was a personal insult to you?

Maybe nobody wants to be disappointed when it doesnt turn to out to be true - sort of like a defense mechanism. I dunno. Just keep an open mind and watch silently from the sidelines. Who knows, we might get lucky.

TheYellowDart
21-08-2005, 06:43
I haven't written them off, I'm open to the possibilities but don't think it's probable enough at the moment to warrant a newspaper article. The rest of my posts were to do with moral issues regarding the suggestion of spiking peoples food.