Three Updates
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:53 PM

(1) Following up on this February 22 post.... the Missouri Senate has voted to ban those alcohol vaporizers that have been shown to cause untold -- oh wait, that is right, they haven't been shown to be problematic:

'That's just death waiting to happen if we don't ban these,' said Sen. Luann Ridgeway, R-Smithville, whose bill prohibiting the devices received initial Senate approval by voice vote.

Ridgeway said she hasn't heard of any problems in Missouri as a result of the machines and described her legislation as a preventive measure that would allow law officers to confiscate them.

Senator Ridgeway, I have my suspicions about Meat Lover's Pizza -- would you get to work on that, please? And at this time of year, especially, I think all of us need to know that the law stands ready to protect us from these.

(2) Today's Chicago Tribune's front page includes this story about the swell of states questioning the minimum drinking age of 21 -- no doubt the Trib is channeling Vice Squad's March 1 post. The online version includes this map showing state drinking ages before 1984. [Earlier in the week, the Trib apparently forgot that alcohol and nicotine are drugs: "... methamphetamine, the narcotic scourge that has wounded middle America as no drug ever before...."]

(3) Today's New York Times points to the attractiveness for some intellectuals of drugs like Adderall that might be performance-enhancing (recalling, of course, Vice Squad posts from February 23 and January 19). Time for a Congressional investigation!

Labels: alcohol, inhaler, solipsism, teens

 
State Legislatures Respond to Grave New Threat
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:49 PM

Maybe in some benighted states legislators are slow to react to a significant new threat, but not in Missouri and South Dakota. The farseeing Solons of these midwestern edens are primed to prohibit the possession of alcohol vaporizers, which have been wreaking havoc throughout the land. The vaporizers allow someone to consume about half a shot of alcohol in twenty minutes through inhalation. This is such a wildly fun and addictive way to consume alcohol that injuries and deaths resulting from alcohol vaporizers are -- oh, wait, I can't actually find any evidence that anyone has ever been injured by these devices. You would think that when they introduce these bills they would mention some of the awful consequences that have sprung from the use of inhalers -- but nary a peep. Well, we better ban them anyway, just in case. (Incidentally, you could get a year in jail for alcohol vaporizer possession if the South Dakota bill becomes a law; try explaining that crime to your cellmate.) The prohibition will force people to get their alcohol from bottles -- and bottles are absolutely safe, right?

To be honest, legislators in Missouri and South Dakota are not that farsighted after all: more than 20 states have already banned alcohol vaporizers.

[It goes without saying that I am not suggesting in this post that alcohol vaporizers are perfectly safe.]

Labels: alcohol, inhaler, Prohibition, South Dakota

 
The Blunt Ban
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:18 AM

A friend of Vice Squad writes in to let us know that the Bluegrass State refuses to be left behind in the race to ban the alcohol vaporizer. But he also brings to our attention the ridiculously sweeping anti-paraphernalia law that recently went into effect in Philadelphia. Nicknamed the "Blunt Ban," the ordinance bans the sale by convenience stores of tobacco-related products that could also be used for consuming some illegal drug apparently called "marijuana" (perhaps it's a Philly thing, like cheese steaks). The ban, adopted unanimously by the Solons of the City Council in December, covers cigarette papers, blunts, cigars sold singly, and matches. (OK, I made up the matches part.)

Vice Squad has noted in the past the impetus for such farsighted legislation. Once a substance is deemed to be evil, then there is no obvious stopping point in measures taken to combat it. Those who use the evil substance can be imprisoned. Those who fail to inform on those who use the evil substance can be imprisoned. Those who sell goods that can be used to consume the evil substance can be imprisoned....

Labels: inhaler, marijuana, paraphernalia, vaporizer

 
Alcohol Inhalers
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 12:08 AM

Vice Squad tends to be of the mind that there should be legal means available for adults to engage in vice, though those means can be rather constricted. The world (and the US) tends to be less tolerant of adult vice. One of the recent examples is the fate of the alcohol inhaler, a newish device that allows you to consume alcohol without drinking it (or taking it intravenously, for that matter). The machine mixes about half a shot of alcohol with some oxygen, allowing you to inhale the alcohol in about 20 minutes. This is surely one of the least attractive ways to consume alcohol. Nevertheless, despite any demonstration of additional harm relative to imbibed alcohol, jurisdictions have rushed to prohibit the alcohol vaporizer. Wikipedia claims 17 states have already protected the children by enacting a ban. Soon to be 18, perhaps, as South Carolina hopes to join the ban-fest.

Vice Squad first noted the alcohol inhaler on April 4, 2004. A few months later, Suffolk County, New York, became the first US jurisdiction to ban the inhaler, following a spate of no deaths or injuries from alcohol inhalation.

Labels: alcohol, inhaler, vaporizer

 
Anti-Vice Zealots Enact a Ban
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:12 PM

One thing about those Saudis, there are at least some demonstrated problems associated with camera cell phones. (Not so sure about stuffed toys, however.) It's pure zealotry when a ban gets enacted before there is any demonstrated problem. From the AP:

The Suffolk County [New York] Legislature unanimously approved what could be the first law in the country prohibiting a machine that allows users to inhale alcohol.

The measure, approved by a 17-0 vote Tuesday, makes it illegal to sell, buy or use the alcohol without liquid _ or AWOL _ machine, which combines liquor with pressurized oxygen, turning it into a mist that can be inhaled through the nose or mouth.

Vertebrates, those Suffolk legislators. Well, heck, we should be happy, I suppose, that they didn't ban inhaling altogether. The bill is not yet a law, incidentally, until the County Executive leaves his mark on it.

The loyal Vice Squad reader will recall that we have long been of the opinion that adopting an alcohol inhaler ban would be to paint the lily.

Labels: alcohol, inhaler, Prohibition

 
Experienced Individual Agrees With Vice Squad!
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:34 PM

Sure, he may have been under the influence of alcohol at the time, but still, we will take any and all allies. The issue is that darn alcohol inhaler, the one that some folks want to ban. Vice Squad has long maintained that the 20 minutes of inhalation that is required to consume (half) a shot of alcohol from the vaporizing machine is not conducive to the future popularity of alcohol inhaling. An article in Newsday offers a similar opinion, and this one is even informed:

"They shouldn't waste their breath trying to outlaw this machine," said Steve Baskinger, owner of Bask's Bar and Grill, in West Patterson, N.J. "You can't get drunk. You don't get anything from it. It takes 20 minutes to inhale a quarter of a shot."

The machine pumps pressurized oxygen through a hose over a small amount of liquor in a canister held by the customer, who sucks up the vapor.

Baskinger said he sent back his $3,695 machine on Monday, four days after it was delivered and he and his staff eagerly tried it out. "I'm a gadget guy, but you can't get excited about this thing," he said.

Labels: alcohol, inhaler

 
The Lowdown on Alcohol Vaporizers...
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 9:56 AM

...is provided by Amanda Schaffer in Slate. Here's a sample:

...intensive inhalation may be more likely to cause alcohol toxicity than binge drinking. This is because vaporized alcohol, as it enters the bloodstream directly from the lungs, is not subject to the protective effects of the digestive system—notably, the impulse to vomit. The machine is apparently calibrated with this danger in mind—using AWOL, it takes 20 minutes to inhale the equivalent of one shot—and the company's promotional materials recommend no more than two sessions, or two shots, in a 24-hour period. Nonetheless, an enthusiast who exceeded this limit or tinkered with the amount delivered by the device itself could no doubt raise her blood alcohol level very dramatically.

My general feeling that this form of inhalation is a very unattractive manner of consuming alcohol remains unshaken.

Labels: alcohol, inhaler

 
Another Newish Way to Consume Alcohol
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:22 PM

Maybe not all that newish. In case you already find the alcohol inhaler to be passe', you could try the commercial version of that old homemade standby, jello shots. Wet Willy's Edible Cocktails have been available for a year now in California through Impact Distribution of San Francisco. The Edible Cocktails are wine-based gelatin snacks, containing 12 percent alcohol. Impact previously distributed Zipper shots, which are a similar product based on hard liquor (and presumably containing higher alcohol levels). Anti-alcohol-abuse groups are concerned that the snacks might appeal to children, while the wine-based snacks are available in more venues then were those based on hard liquors. The Ventura County Star (registration required) has the story.

Labels: alcohol, California, inhaler, teens

 
Alcohol inhaling machine is here
- posted by Michael @ 9:04 PM

The Bloomington paper (registration required) printed an AP report that an alcohol inhaling machine went on display at the Trust bar in Manhattan on Friday, August 20. It’s called Alcohol Without Liquid (AWOL?) vaporizer. It mixes alcohol with pressurized oxygen to get you high. According to its makers, it takes about 20 minutes to breathe in one shot. The article says that it is “giving drinkers the effect of alcohol without the drunkenness, or hangover.” Now, I understand why somebody wouldn’t want to have hangover. I can even understand the desire to drink good wine or cognac and not get drunk. But why would I want to inhale alcohol if I don’t get tipsy? More generally, what is “the effect of alcohol without the drunkenness, or hangover”, i.e., what is left? That issue aside, the machine has provoked strong negative reaction from the Democratic state Sen. Carl Kruger who is planning to introduce legislation to ban the machine, calling it a “new form of pipe smoking” and claiming that it could encourage underage drinking and drunk driving. (It’s unclear to me how somebody could engage in drunk driving if the inhaling is supposed not to result in “drunkenness.”) This is the familiar to economists story about how making a dangerous activity somewhat less dangerous creates incentives to engage in the activity more, and might even increase the total amount of danger. (See Sam Peltzman, 1975, “The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation,” Journal of Political Economy, v. 83, no. 4: 677-725; see also an earlier Vice Squad post related to light cigarettes.)
[Update: Vice Squad has been tracking the diffusion of the alcohol inhaler. -- JL]

Labels: alcohol, inhaler, vaporizer

 
A New Vice-Related Ban
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:10 PM

I imagine there is one every day; today's news is out of New South Wales, Australia. Remember those alcohol inhalers that Vice Squad mentioned a couple of times (April 4 and April 10)? They have been banned in New South Wales by the "Gaming Minister." He doesn't seem to have much evidence that a vapourizing machine (that permits the inhalation) has done any harm, but, according to the linked article, he believes that such a machine "sends an irresponsible message about alcohol consumption." The Minister has further comments that seem to suggest he doesn't think of drinking alcohol as drug use: 'Inhalation or snorting of alcohol is basically synonymous with drug use and that kind of practice should not be encouraged.'

Labels: Australia, inhaler, vaporizer

 
Alcohol Inhaler
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 9:44 PM

Those of you who were worried that the alcohol inhaler that has popped up in Britain and Australia might not make it expeditiously to the States -- well, you can rest easy. (I spent one day in Ann Arbor, and now Blogger is retaliating by rejecting my posts; hence, this short one, as a test.)

Labels: alcohol, inhaler, vaporizer

 
Aussie Alcohol Developments
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:39 PM

Just wanted to pass along three quick alcohol-related stories from Australia....

(1) Inhaling alcohol. Just in case consuming alcohol in the normal manner is not dangerous enough for you, now there's the possibility of inhaling it. (Here's another short report on the inhalation device from some months ago, out of Bristol, UK.)

(2) Lockhart River, an aboriginal area of Australia, enacted strict alcohol controls six months ago. It looks as if alcohol-related harms have declined significantly under the beefed-up restrictions. Last month, the new controls led to an unlikely political scandal ("Winegate") when a government plane with a bottle of red wine on board landed at the community airport -- under the restrictions, alcohol is not allowed at the airport.

(3) Vice Cream. You can now procure non-alcoholic but vodka-flavoured ice cream in Australia. I would like to claim credit for the name "Vice Cream," but actually, it is the manufacturer's appellation for a range of similar products.

Labels: alcohol, Australia, inhaler, vaporizer