AWOL: Alcohol Without Liquor
A company has developed a machine that vaporizes basically any form of alcohol so you can simply breathe it in. There is a “built-in safety device” that makes the machine take 20 minutes to process about 1/2 oz. of liquor (which is 1/2 a shot for those of you less-versed in mixology). Someone like me, with a penchant for taking things apart and screwing with them, could probably override it to make it absorb a bit more alcohol the “safety device” allows, but at $299 a pop for the single-user version I am not about to try. $299 is at least a case of Pine Ridge 2001 Rutherford Cabernet!
Anyway, since alcohol passes directly through mucus membranes (which is why you can dissolve other drugs in some alcohol, put a drop or two in your mouth, and get fairly instantaneous effects from the dissolved inebriant) the process dosn’t dump many calories into the body, nor does it dehydrate like actually drinking alcohol. The company says that it even prevents hangovers.
Basically it allows you to get drunk without drinking, and thus without any of the messy physical effects that drinking alcohol imposes, though I am sure all of the messy behavorial effects are untouched.
In an April ‘05 Miami Herald interview, Peter Cressy, president of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, was quoted as saying “This would strongly suggest that the purpose of this device is to get a buzz. We don’t think getting a buzz is a good idea. . . .” (emphasis mine).
I’m sorry. “We don’t think getting a buzz is a good idea” coming from the president of the DSCotUS? That’s like “We don’t think shooting missles at enemies is a good idea” coming from the CEO of Northrop Grumman.
Petey, I realize that your cracker-jack PR and legal team told you that you can never, ever, publically say that the purpose of drinking alcohol is in fact to get a buzz, but literally everyone on the planet knows you’re full of it.
So in the meantime, folks, get yourself an AWOL machine before our government makes it illegal (as they inevitably will, of course, probably “to protect the children”). If anyone has any experiences with this contraption to share, please do so.
