Do you ever wish bourbon did not contain ethanol?

[SFS]

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]

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.

Edited March 26, 2013 by LostBottle

[Alphanumeric]

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]

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]

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.

Edited March 26, 2013 by cowdery

[Alphanumeric]

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]

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.

Edited March 26, 2013 by MauiSon

[MyOldKyDram]

Yeah, no. I mean there are plenty of nonalcoholic beers out there and I never find myself reaching for one of those.

[unclebunk]

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.

Edited March 26, 2013 by unclebunk

[scubadoo97]

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]

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.

Edited March 26, 2013 by sailor22

[Josh]

I only feel that way in the morning.

[squire]

I also avoid decaffeinated coffee.

[CoMobourbon]

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)

Edited March 26, 2013 by CoMobourbon

[Brisko]

I may have shared this sentiment once, but I got over it.

[squire]

I don't believe I ever suffered from it.

[SFS]

...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?

Edited March 26, 2013 by SFS
add an elipsis at beginning of second quote

[BradleyC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'm too old (or too lazy) to bother with analysis. I drink it because it makes me happy.

[soad]

I like airplanes, but I hate flying. I wish they would just stay on the ground.

[ILLfarmboy]

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]

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.