PDA

View Full Version : Do you ever wish bourbon did not contain ethanol?



SFS
03-25-2013, 21:23
I know that may be a strange thought. But I don't drink for effect, I drink for the taste of the spirit. I've had three smallish pours tonite, and will not (cannot?) have another, due to the cumulative effects of the alcohol. If there was no ethanol involved, I could have another pour.

Does anyone else entertain this notion, or am I the odd man out?

LostBottle
03-25-2013, 22:17
Lack of alcohol would be a deal breaker. It would kind of be like dating a fatty because she has a good personality, it might be a valid reason, but not nearly compelling enough.

Alphanumeric
03-25-2013, 22:24
I am with you, SFS. If the drink were exactly the same (meaning the ethanol taste/burn was still there) I would most likely give it up for the ability to drink to my heart's content. It has its place and I would miss it occasionally, but it would be an acceptable loss.

squire
03-25-2013, 22:40
It is a strange thought and you should be made to sit in the corner with a bottle and a glass and drink until you return to your senses.

cowdery
03-25-2013, 23:04
In the beginning, there was Prodigy. And on Prodigy there was a wine, beer and spirits discussion group. It was usually the wine guys who would start the, "I don't drink for effect, I drink for the taste" discussion. I haven't heard it in a long time. Then as now, my instinct is to mock. The truth is, there is no separating taste from 'effect.' The effect is part of the taste. You experience it from the first sip. The psychoactive effect of the ethenol is essential to the experience. Artifically separating 'taste' and 'effect' in your mind is dangerous, as is any self-delusion. If you have a problem with alcohol but convince yourself you can flirt with enjoying the 'taste' only, you're playing Russian Roulette. If, on the other hand, you just want a moderate experience, then embrace that. Moderation is healthy. Longing for one more 'taste' is where the trouble starts.

Alphanumeric
03-25-2013, 23:42
That is a reasonable sentiment. However, I find that my biggest issue lies with side-by-sides. Learning is a large part of the enjoyment for me. With whiskey, other liquors, and most of all cocktails, I like to perform comparisons constantly. With cocktails, there is only so small you can make them before your ratios become endangered. So if I want to compare three cocktails but have no desire to become intoxicated, I'm generally forced to dump a lot of liquid or find a willing associate to relieve me of my excess.

MauiSon
03-26-2013, 03:31
Here's one a bit more puzzling - Why do most tasters start with full proof and then dilute to taste? Doesn't it make more sense to start by tasting the most diluted sample and move up in proof? That way, your taste buds are not compromised by the early high-proof. So many here say they always start with a little full-proof taste and I just find that lazy and wrong.

MyOldKyDram
03-26-2013, 03:43
Yeah, no. I mean there are plenty of nonalcoholic beers out there and I never find myself reaching for one of those.

unclebunk
03-26-2013, 04:53
Lack of alcohol would be a deal breaker. It would kind of be like dating a fatty because she has a good personality, it might be a valid reason, but not nearly compelling enough.

Too funny, bro. I just passed hot coffee through my nose! But I get your meaning. To be honest though, I can see this both ways and find valid points in each post that I've read so far. There are times when I am bummed that I can't have another but I guess I wouldn't have it any other way. I enjoy the feeling that whiskey gives me and the flavor is only part of the overall pleasurable experience. I do occasionally regret the morning after though but that's part of the deal I guess.

scubadoo97
03-26-2013, 05:09
There is some truth in what you say Ray. I mean how many vodka drinkers are here? Vodka is a get off drink. There is no other reason to drink it.

I call myself a flavor junkie. I get off on flavors whether it's from food, spirits or cigars. I have come to really like the Flavors in bourbon as well. All have an effect that goes beyond flavor alone.

I do drink for the taste more than the effect but the effect pulls me back for more. I also hate being drunk but with so many bottles out there like we had in Tallahassee you want to try them all but the effects can be overwhelming. No I didn't try them all but did get more buzzed than had intended.

The mild effect from ethanol is nice and desirable. Getting drunk is not

sailor22
03-26-2013, 06:23
Ray, your sentiments mirrored mine when I first started sipping Bourbon. But before discovering Bourbon I drank very little. I don't feel that way any longer.

The effect and the flavors are both parts of the experience of drinking whiskey. Minimize either and you miss an important part of what makes the product fun.

A wise man from this forum once told me "Always remember, it's a marathon, not a sprint." You can sprint through flavors but you can't sprint through the effect. It's the effect that requires moderation and gives added value to the flavors.



I do drink for the taste more than the effect but the effect pulls me back for more. I also hate being drunk but with so many bottles out there like we had in Tallahassee you want to try them all but the effects can be overwhelming. No I didn't try them all but did get more buzzed than had intended.

The mild effect from ethanol is nice and desirable. Getting drunk is not

Really Allan, up until that incident with the Ostrich feathers and the riding crop you hardly seemed drunk at all.

Josh
03-26-2013, 06:33
I only feel that way in the morning.

squire
03-26-2013, 06:54
I also avoid decaffeinated coffee.

CoMobourbon
03-26-2013, 06:54
In the beginning, there was Prodigy. And on Prodigy there was a wine, beer and spirits discussion group. It was usually the wine guys who would start the, "I don't drink for effect, I drink for the taste" discussion. I haven't heard it in a long time. Then as now, my instinct is to mock. The truth is, there is no separating taste from 'effect.' The effect is part of the taste. You experience it from the first sip. The psychoactive effect of the ethenol is essential to the experience. Artifically separating 'taste' and 'effect' in your mind is dangerous, as is any self-delusion. If you have a problem with alcohol but convince yourself you can flirt with enjoying the 'taste' only, you're playing Russian Roulette. If, on the other hand, you just want a moderate experience, then embrace that. Moderation is healthy. Longing for one more 'taste' is where the trouble starts.

Yeah, this.

The whole 'taste OR alcohol' dichotomy is a false one. Besides the extra pleasurable effect of alcohol on the brain, alcohol actually intensifies flavors (especially sweet ones). And, obviously, alcohol itself has a certain taste factor that contributes to the whole taste experience. The 'effect', then, is both pleasurable in itself and bound up with the taste. Maybe we wish we could drink more without getting too drunk, but it is naive to think that we would actually enjoy whiskey without alcohol just because we want to avoid getting too drunk. At best, it would be a radically different experience - not the same taste experience without the ethanol. (think non-alcoholic beer, like KyDram mentioned)

Brisko
03-26-2013, 06:59
I may have shared this sentiment once, but I got over it.

squire
03-26-2013, 07:08
I don't believe I ever suffered from it.

SFS
03-26-2013, 07:11
...The mild effect from ethanol is nice and desirable.

And that thought is at the center of my question Alan. I don't agree that the effect of the ethanol is nice, or desirable. I would prefer it be absent. I treat the effect as the price of admission - it's unfortunately required to have the experience of that specific taste.


...It was usually the wine guys who would start the, "I don't drink for effect, I drink for the taste" discussion. I haven't heard it in a long time. Then as now, my instinct is to mock. The truth is, there is no separating taste from 'effect.' The effect is part of the taste. You experience it from the first sip. The psychoactive effect of the ethenol is essential to the experience. Artifically separating 'taste' and 'effect' in your mind is dangerous, as is any self-delusion. If you have a problem with alcohol but convince yourself you can flirt with enjoying the 'taste' only, you're playing Russian Roulette. If, on the other hand, you just want a moderate experience, then embrace that. Moderation is healthy. Longing for one more 'taste' is where the trouble starts.

Mock all you want Chuck, but I think you missed my point (though I appreciate your concern about me being a dangerously self-deluded alcoholic playing Russian roulette - hope everything is okay at your end). Your generalization that "the psychoactive effect of the ethenol [sic] is essential to the experience" is not true for everyone. It is precisely the opposite of essential to me. That's kinda why I started the thread. If that wasn't clear from the OP, perhaps that's because the ethanol had an effect. See my point?

BradleyC
03-26-2013, 07:27
If someone were to not want ethanol in their whiskey, they should simply swirl it around in their mouth and spit it out. If someone doesn't want ethanol in their whiskey and they end up swallowing it anyway, then I'm going to have to agree with Chuck's statement.

HighInTheMtns
03-26-2013, 07:34
And that thought is at the center of my question Alan. I don't agree that the effect of the ethanol is nice, or desirable. I would prefer it be absent. I treat the effect as the price of admission - it's unfortunately required to have the experience of that specific taste.
Take a sip, enjoy the flavors, when you're done spit it out?

Your position is a little confounding to me. How did you come to be a whiskey drinker when you dislike the effects of alcohol? If that were me I'd have never made it past an occasional beer.

If there were a non-alcoholic bourbon, I wouldn't drink it. The flavors and the effects are both essential to the experience of whiskey drinking. Besides that, I will happily admit that there are times when the effect is the prime motivator. Sometimes a nice drink of a simple whiskey that doesn't take much thought is just what the doctor ordered.

Now, while we're fantasizing about a liquid with all the properties of alcohol save for the intoxication, what I would rather have arrive from fantasyland is a pill or some other drink that would undo the intoxicating effects :)

Meruck
03-26-2013, 07:40
Its just a matter of preference. I once erroneously stated that to be a real bourbon drinker one must enjoy barrel proof bourbons. I was laid open by many that insist the high is a nessasary party of the experience (i do not nessasarily disagree). What I intended to convey is that to enjoy barrel proof you must be a true bourbon drinker. Likewise it would seem that the author simply wished to convey he would prefer to be able to drink more bourbon but due to the A content, he can not. I don't think he was advocating a non-A bourbon, only lamenting on his self control to avoid getting drunk with the mild regret of refusing "another".

isnt that what lower proof whiskey is for, the ability to have "more"?

its not like he was trying to sell a pre-prohibition bottle of rye (with questionable providence) for $50,000 or something.

MyOldKyDram
03-26-2013, 07:51
I guess I honestly don't understand the point of drinking if you don't enjoy or find undesirable the occasional buzz, but obv could just be me.

squire
03-26-2013, 07:57
I'm too old (or too lazy) to bother with analysis. I drink it because it makes me happy.

soad
03-26-2013, 07:59
I like airplanes, but I hate flying. I wish they would just stay on the ground.

ILLfarmboy
03-26-2013, 09:10
Yeah, this.

The whole 'taste OR alcohol' dichotomy is a false one. Besides the extra pleasurable effect of alcohol on the brain, alcohol actually intensifies flavors (especially sweet ones). And, obviously, alcohol itself has a certain taste factor that contributes to the whole taste experience. The 'effect', then, is both pleasurable in itself and bound up with the taste. Maybe we wish we could drink more without getting too drunk, but it is naive to think that we would actually enjoy whiskey without alcohol just because we want to avoid getting too drunk. At best, it would be a radically different experience - not the same taste experience without the ethanol. (think non-alcoholic beer, like KyDram mentioned)

I couldn't agree more.

I like how alcohol brings flavors all the way though my sinuses, If you get my drift.

I wouldn't want to give up the intoxicating effect of alcohol, But I have often wished the effect between three and five drinks was only a half a drink apart. Being buzzed is pleasurable, being too drunk is not. and hangovers are not fun

AaronWF
03-26-2013, 09:25
Your generalization that "the psychoactive effect of the ethenol [sic] is essential to the experience" is not true for everyone. It is precisely the opposite of essential to me. That's kinda why I started the thread. If that wasn't clear from the OP, perhaps that's because the ethanol had an effect. See my point?

How do you know that's the case? You've never had whiskey with the ethanol removed, how do you know you would like it? How do you know removing the ethanol wouldn't remove an essential aspect of the whiskey for you? This is all just theory, and unrealistic theory at that.

Our body allows us to experience pleasure, and really, anything we put in our body is intoxicating in one respect or another. Isn't the obesity epidemic in our society directly related to 'not wanting the tasting to stop?' People ingest far more calories than they need on a daily basis because they are addicted to tasting food. The food industry had certainly endeavored to remove calories from taste, but most would argue that it has not been successful. When smoking was announced to cause cancer, heart disease and other ailments, the birth of the light cigarette was born.

Perhaps you would prefer that a scientist track down the path your favorite whiskey takes in your brain while it stimulates taste and then have that scientist recreate the path synthetically so that you don't have to take in the actual substance in order to experience it. Sounds creepy to me.

squire
03-26-2013, 09:31
Well, it's simple enough if anyone want's to experiment. Pour two ounces of Bourbon in a sauce pan and bring it to a boil at which point the alcohol is gone. Cool it, drink it and decide.

SFS
03-26-2013, 09:35
Why didn't I think of that? I don't have any Barton's, but I'm going to try this with that swill called OGD114. I'll report back.

ILLfarmboy
03-26-2013, 09:49
Well, it's simple enough if anyone want's to experiment. Pour two ounces of Bourbon in a sauce pan and bring it to a boil at which point the alcohol is gone. Cool it, drink it and decide.

Tastes horrible. I've done this while messing around with my home made ice cream concoctions.

Alcohol is essential to how you experience the taste of whiskey. But lets not conflate that with its intoxicating effects. I think that's one point CoMobourbon was touching on.

RWBadley
03-26-2013, 10:31
Does anyone else entertain this notion, or am I the odd man out?

Odd man out I am guessing in this crowd-

My first response was going to be " What, are you effin' nuts?"
:cool:

sailor22
03-26-2013, 10:36
Or if someone was a chemist (cough, shuffle) they could develop a wand coated with a substance that bonded to ethanol and only ethanol. A swish of the wand and through the magic of molecular recognition the amount of ethanol in the juice would be reduced. Basic molecular recognition exercise, no problem.:rolleyes:

WAINWRIGHT
03-26-2013, 11:11
I feel it is more of a attribute more than a detriment itself as far as the topic goes.I believe that every spirit shows it's nuances in quite different ways especially with the way evaporation of alcohol/methanol as in part towards the finish whether it be difference between proof or level of char within the barrel all show differently.To me the finish is one of the key factors in enjoyment and without this the true spirit of one's chosen pour would be greatly effected or even lost.

ramblinman
03-26-2013, 11:18
Your wish granted, http://www.arkaybeverages.com/default.html, Arkay the "Worlds First Alcohol-Free Whisky-Flavored Drink"

I'm sure its delicious.

MyOldKyDram
03-26-2013, 11:31
Barrel free is the new barrel strength.

squire
03-26-2013, 11:54
Have you fellows considered how hard those stillmen work to get the water out of the whisky? I'll not be one to diminish their efforts.

SMOWK
03-26-2013, 12:22
If bourbon didn't get me drunk I'd drink something that did.

cowdery
03-26-2013, 12:33
And that thought is at the center of my question Alan. I don't agree that the effect of the ethanol is nice, or desirable. I would prefer it be absent. I treat the effect as the price of admission - it's unfortunately required to have the experience of that specific taste.

Mock all you want Chuck, but I think you missed my point (though I appreciate your concern about me being a dangerously self-deluded alcoholic playing Russian roulette - hope everything is okay at your end). Your generalization that "the psychoactive effect of the ethenol [sic] is essential to the experience" is not true for everyone. It is precisely the opposite of essential to me. That's kinda why I started the thread. If that wasn't clear from the OP, perhaps that's because the ethanol had an effect. See my point?

Your smug and aggressive defensiveness tells me all I need to know. Good day, sir.

Dolph Lundgren
03-26-2013, 12:47
I don't know how I'd enjoy bourbon without the booze, but I sure do wish I could enjoy McDonalds without the fatness...and cholesterol.

CoMobourbon
03-26-2013, 12:54
I don't agree that the effect of the ethanol is nice, or desirable. I would prefer it be absent. I treat the effect as the price of admission - it's unfortunately required to have the experience of that specific taste.
... If that wasn't clear from the OP, perhaps that's because the ethanol had an effect. See my point?

OK, given that we understand the very simple premise of the thread (whiskey taste good, alcohol bad), is it possible that you need to revisit the concept of a false dichotomy? Because the premise clearly involves a dichotomy, and we (me, Brad, Chuck, and others) are proposing that it is a false one. For better or worse, you have not responded to this false-dichotomy proposal. Being arrogant, naturally, I am pretty sure that I am right, but I would be interested to hear what you have to say about it nonetheless.

To be clear, a false dichotomy is a construct in which the speaker (you, in this case) draws up an arbitrary categorical division that does that match the real situation he / she is attempting to describe. Very often, false dichotomies involve basic conceptual confusions or discrepancies.

For example, saying 'I like heat, but I wish I could have heat without energy' is a false dichotomy. Heat IS just a kind of energy; the two concepts are inseparable, so the false dichotomy involves a conceptual confusion.

Another example:
Good VS. Evil (sound dichotomy)
Evil VS. Wrongdoing (false dichotomy)

We are saying, in short, that [whiskey tastes vs. alcohol effects] is a false dichotomy. The effects of alcohol ARE A PART OF the taste experience of a given whiskey. To assume that they can be separated indicates basic conceptual misunderstanding about what the total effects of alcohol are.


Why didn't I think of that? I don't have any Barton's, but I'm going to try this with that swill called OGD114. I'll report back.

Surely you can see this is true - especially if you like OGD114. Even if, hypothetically, boiling the whiskey wouldn't basically alter the flavor in some entirely different and unaccountable way, we could totally account for the loss of flavor that OGD114 would suffer if you removed all of the alcohol!


Alcohol is essential to how you experience the taste of whiskey. But lets not conflate that with its intoxicating effects.

If, on the other hand, you mostly just wish that you didn't get drunk so fast, that makes sense. But again (refer back to several posts in this thread), that pleasure effect of intoxication is totally inseperable from the immediate taste of the whiskey - that's just how the brain / human psychology works (Chuck seems to know a more impressive term for what I am talking about).

squire
03-26-2013, 13:05
I don't have to like the taste to like the effect.

CoMobourbon
03-26-2013, 13:10
I don't have to like the taste to like the effect.

:slappin:He says, deep into his fifth glass of Barton...

No, but you obviously still get the point. Maybe you can get drunk without taste, but you can't enjoy taste without alcohol.

Analogy: There is energy that is not heat (I think? HS physics...), but you can't have heat without energy because heat is just a kind of energy.

CoMobourbon
03-26-2013, 13:11
...not to in any way insinuate that Barton is without taste, of course.

squire
03-26-2013, 13:31
My fifth glass? You obviously use small glasses.

CoMobourbon
03-26-2013, 13:35
Hey man, when I'm retired, I intend to have consumed 5 full-sized glasses by 3:30 PM a couple times a week.

squire
03-26-2013, 13:37
When you're retired every day's a weekend.

ILLfarmboy
03-26-2013, 13:39
If, on the other hand, you mostly just wish that you didn't get drunk so fast, that makes sense. But again (refer back to several posts in this thread), that pleasure effect of intoxication is totally inseperable from the immediate taste of the whiskey - that's just how the brain / human psychology works (Chuck seems to know a more impressive term for what I am talking about).

What science backs that up.

To clarify: yes I often wish the intoxifing effects could be blunted after about the third pour so that one can experience the same level of intoxication no matter how much one drank.

Removing the alcohol all together would result in a beverage that doesn't taste like whiskey because the alcohol is essential to its flavor. you wouldn't taste the same cogeners in its absence nor would you have the effect of bringing those flavor compounds all the way through your sinuses. Also the level of alcohol slows down consumption, not just because you'll get instantly blotto but because drinking something that's 50 percent alcohol like it was water would hurt your throught the same way chugging hot coffee would.

But you can't to be saying the state of intoxification is necessary. The first sip of this BT didn't taste like someone boiled off the alcohol. Sure, the second and third pour will prob go down easier because of the effects of the alcohol (its been a while I've been fighting a head cold) but it seems we are conflating two different things, things that are closely related, to be sure, but I still think there's much conflation going on, and I think Chuck is fueling it.

And as far as Chuck goes

CoMobourbon
03-26-2013, 14:34
What science backs that up.

Removing the alcohol all together would result in a beverage that doesn't taste like whiskey because the alcohol is essential to its flavor. you wouldn't taste the same cogeners in its absence nor would you have the effect of bringing those flavor compounds all the way through your sinuses.

But you can't to be saying the state of intoxification is necessary.

This is complicated, so lots of clarifications are appropriate.

What I am saying: Pretty much what you are saying. Alcohol is integral to the experience of a whiskey in at least three ways: alcohol amplifies existing flavors; alcohol itself contributes a taste to the overall taste experience; alcohol acts on pleasure centers of the brain in a way that supersedes taste altogether.

What I am not saying: You have to be drunk to enjoy whiskey.

Altogether, removing the alcohol from a whiskey would fundamentally change the whiskey. One cannot meaningfully discuss the taste experience of alcohol without at least accounting for the many fundamental ways in which alcohol shapes and even defines that taste experience. So, the 'taste vs alcohol' dichotomy is a false one; the two are inextricably inter-related.

As for science, I am referring to the much researched and discussed positive relationship between dopamine levels and alcohol consumption.* In short, alcohol consumption has been proven to increase levels of a pleasure-associated neurotransmitter called dopamine in the brain. Increased dopamine indicates increased activity of pleasure centers in the brain. Thus, alcohol acts directly on the pleasure centers of the brain in much the same way that food and sex do. Here are a few links, but really, you could find as many as you want by Googling "alcohol AND dopamine".

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/alcdepop.htm
http://www.biopsychiatry.com/misc/alcohol-dopamine.html
http://scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/A/199900066.html
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_03/i_03_m/i_03_m_par/i_03_m_par_alcool.html
http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/UBNRP/Dopamine/alcoholtobac.html

Now, Chuck may not be talking about dopamine when he talks about the "psychoactive" effects of alcohol, but I think that essentially comes to the same conclusion: alcohol is an integral part of the whiskey experience, including the taste experience. After all, "taste" is a construct; who's to say where "taste" ends and dopamine effects begin, really?

*There are, of course, lots of other scientific explanations needed to really account for the total effect of alcohol on the brain. I am just picking this one because I am lazy and because I am not smart enough to either know or know how to lucidly convey the other ones.

ILLfarmboy
03-26-2013, 14:45
wow, I'll have to bookmark those and read them later.

Thanks for the clarification.

The dopamine effect can explain a lot, like why a good special effects movie is better when you have a good solid buzz or why a little alcohol can make sex better or for that matter tedious people, like one's in-laws, less tedious.

JB64
03-26-2013, 15:01
In response to the OP, Hell NO.

BAO
03-26-2013, 15:35
If Pappy didn't have intoxicating components, would you still drink it?

onewman
03-26-2013, 15:37
That is a reasonable sentiment. However, I find that my biggest issue lies with side-by-sides. Learning is a large part of the enjoyment for me. With whiskey, other liquors, and most of all cocktails, I like to perform comparisons constantly. With cocktails, there is only so small you can make them before your ratios become endangered. So if I want to compare three cocktails but have no desire to become intoxicated, I'm generally forced to dump a lot of liquid or find a willing associate to relieve me of my excess.

I hope to go out drinking with you someday.

squire
03-26-2013, 15:54
Alcohol also has an educational effect like teaching me to write down the number for the cab company instead of trying to remember it.

TheNovaMan
03-26-2013, 15:58
Maybe we wish we could drink more without getting too drunk... Could this be the gist of the whole thread?

awachatz
03-26-2013, 17:00
Ethanol = good

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

mark fleetwood
03-26-2013, 17:18
I know that may be a strange thought. But I don't drink for effect, I drink for the taste of the spirit. I've had three smallish pours tonite, and will not (cannot?) have another, due to the cumulative effects of the alcohol. If there was no ethanol involved, I could have another pour.

Does anyone else entertain this notion, or am I the odd man out?
Beer is about 5% alcohol, wine about 10%. (Diluted whiskey in OH is 40 proof.) There's no law that says you can't lower your whiskey proof to a point (to the point) where it is most enjoyable to you. Won't eliminate alcohol's effect, but lessen it significantly.
Might be interesting if you do it, would the taste change for you?

squire
03-26-2013, 17:27
Yes it does change but that's not necessarily a negative thing. Bourbon is a strong, distinctive flavor that stretches well.

portwood
03-26-2013, 19:41
Lack of alcohol would be a deal breaker. It would kind of be like dating a beer belly because he has a good personality, it might be a valid reason, but not nearly compelling enough.
Fixed it for ya.

RWBadley
03-27-2013, 11:47
Alcohol also has an educational effect like teaching me to write down the number for the cab company instead of trying to remember it.

Around here we have two cab companies operating. One, the phone # is 333-3333, the other is 322-2222.

I usually call the 333-3333 as for some reason it just seems easier :lol:

mosugoji64
03-27-2013, 12:49
Someone mentioned taking a magic pill to eliminate the effects. Well, there is such a pill: naltrexone hydrochloride. It's an opioid antagonist used to treat recovering alcoholics by blocking the euphoric effects of alcohol. I've thought for some time that it would be interesting to pop one of these before a night of drinking to determine if I would still enjoy the drinks. Anyone in good with a pharmacist? I'll volunteer to be the guinea pig. Then we could put this debate to rest. :grin:

HighInTheMtns
03-27-2013, 13:02
Someone mentioned taking a magic pill to eliminate the effects. Well, there is such a pill: naltrexone hydrochloride. It's an opioid antagonist used to treat recovering alcoholics by blocking the euphoric effects of alcohol. I've thought for some time that it would be interesting to pop one of these before a night of drinking to determine if I would still enjoy the drinks. Anyone in good with a pharmacist? I'll volunteer to be the guinea pig. Then we could put this debate to rest. :grin:
Interesting... But the magic pill I want would be an after-the-fact pill... Not to eliminate the effects, just to turn 'em off if the need arose.

Yeti
03-27-2013, 13:08
Jim's looking for a "morning after pill". I'm pretty sure they have those too. :lol:

scubadoo97
03-27-2013, 15:02
Interesting... But the magic pill I want would be an after-the-fact pill... Not to eliminate the effects, just to turn 'em off if the need arose.

Brought to you by Biopharm. For a better life...

DBM
03-27-2013, 22:37
I wouldn't drink socially without the effect of alcohol, but I would like to learn and experiment without it.

I've definitely thought it would be advantageous for an alcoholic beverage (with no change to the sensory experience) to magically not have any alcoholic effects. I often do beer, wine and spirits tasting evenings (not at the same time of course) with friends and would prefer to be just as "fresh" on the last beer/wine/bourbon tasting as I was on the first.

Having said that, once I'm done tasting, I want a big tasty pour of something that will have an effect. I want it both ways. Don't quote me on that.

HighHorse
03-28-2013, 08:29
Yeah, this.

The whole 'taste OR alcohol' dichotomy is a false one. Besides the extra pleasurable effect of alcohol on the brain, alcohol actually intensifies flavors (especially sweet ones). And, obviously, alcohol itself has a certain taste factor that contributes to the whole taste experience. The 'effect', then, is both pleasurable in itself and bound up with the taste. Maybe we wish we could drink more without getting too drunk, but it is naive to think that we would actually enjoy whiskey without alcohol just because we want to avoid getting too drunk. At best, it would be a radically different experience - not the same taste experience without the ethanol. (think non-alcoholic beer, like KyDram mentioned)

... or .. we could just start exploring the taste nuances of Coca Cola, Dr. Pepper, Barqs .. and the like! One hell of a lot cheaper!

squire
03-28-2013, 08:52
Or we could just have a drink of the real stuff.

Brisko
03-28-2013, 09:22
Someone mentioned taking a magic pill to eliminate the effects. Well, there is such a pill: naltrexone hydrochloride. It's an opioid antagonist used to treat recovering alcoholics by blocking the euphoric effects of alcohol. I've thought for some time that it would be interesting to pop one of these before a night of drinking to determine if I would still enjoy the drinks. Anyone in good with a pharmacist? I'll volunteer to be the guinea pig. Then we could put this debate to rest. :grin: My understanding is that you still get intoxicated, you just don't enjoy it. But I could be wrong.


... or .. we could just start exploring the taste nuances of Coca Cola, Dr. Pepper, Barqs .. and the like! One hell of a lot cheaper!
If I want a flavor experience without booze there's always coffee. Although, like many things, coffee is better with booze, too...
And root beer. Love me some root beer. Not enough to keep a spreadsheet with tasting notes, though.

HighHorse
03-28-2013, 09:36
What a hoot! This has been one entertaining thread. Ray .. did you have any idea you would start this with a simple false dilemma? Hell, up until this thread I didn't even know what some of these terms were. Thank you, Col. Crotchety, for lighting the fuse! (And, Squire as usual, for fanning the flame :hot:


BTW .. echoing a post a few back ... reference your OP .. I agree .. it's "No".

squire
03-28-2013, 10:38
Lunchtime, think I'll go make a cocktail. Something with a Bourbon theme, hmmm, perhaps Barton.

CoMobourbon
03-28-2013, 15:15
Something suddenly occurs to me.

The closest thing to enjoying whiskey taste without any alcohol ingestion would be restricting oneself to nosing whiskeys without drinking them. Very much less than an ideal solution from where I'm sitting, but there it is.

squire
03-28-2013, 15:21
The closest thing would be to read the posts here.

sailor22
03-28-2013, 16:11
The closest thing to enjoying whiskey taste without any alcohol ingestion would be restricting oneself to nosing whiskeys without drinking them.

That's like going to strip club and going home alone.

squire
03-28-2013, 16:43
I had a similar analogy in mind but chose discretion instead.

MyOldKyDram
03-28-2013, 16:44
Now I have this terrible feeling that if I actually drink my bourbon I'm going to wake up with vd.

Meruck
03-28-2013, 16:55
Someone mentioned taking a magic pill to eliminate the effects. Well, there is such a pill: naltrexone hydrochloride. It's an opioid antagonist used to treat recovering alcoholics by blocking the euphoric effects of alcohol. I've thought for some time that it would be interesting to pop one of these before a night of drinking to determine if I would still enjoy the drinks. Anyone in good with a pharmacist? I'll volunteer to be the guinea pig. Then we could put this debate to rest. :grin:

It blocks the euphoric effects, not the effect that leaves you begging for 1 more chance and swearing to never do it again as you lay in the fetal position after somehow crawling in behind the toilet in the female dorms.

Meruck
03-28-2013, 16:59
That's like going to strip club and going home alone.

I didnt know chemists were allowed in strip clubs.

ratcheer
03-29-2013, 06:05
My answer to the original question: No.

Tim

cowdery
03-29-2013, 18:14
Okay, new question. Do you ever wish coconut creame pie didn't contain coconut?

And as for strip clubs and going home alone, my experience with strip clubs is that you won't have sex but you will get screwed.

BradleyC
03-29-2013, 20:46
And as for strip clubs and going home alone, my experience with strip clubs is that you won't have sex but you will get screwed.


That's pretty funny

BradleyC
03-29-2013, 20:49
Okay, new question. Do you ever wish coconut creame pie didn't contain coconut?




I once knew a guy who didn't like cocaine. He just really liked the way it smelled.

portwood
03-30-2013, 11:14
Okay, new question. Do you ever wish coconut creame pie didn't contain coconut?
The real question may actually be: do you ever wish coconut cream pie contained real coconut instead of "natural" and/or artificial flavours that taste like coconut?:lol:

Richnimrod
03-30-2013, 11:32
I occasionally wish that some of the more full-flavored and rich-aroma'd (if that's a word.... I guess it is; I just typed it right?) of my favorite Bourbons had a little less alcohol, since most of those drams are high-proof ones. Then again, if they were lower proof, they'd likely be less impressive in the two other highly-sought categories of taste and smell, eh....? So, I suppose to sum up, I'm a bit ambivalent on the whole lower-alcohol, or alcohol-free question.....sorry.

ILLfarmboy
03-30-2013, 12:24
Okay, new question. Do you ever wish coconut creame pie didn't contain coconut?


No. But I have wished it was less fattening. So I've made it with splenda instead of sugar. I think the splenda/sugar question is more on point with what we are discussing.

TheNovaMan
03-30-2013, 19:24
Sometimes I wish coconut cream pie had ethanol in it.