The Solution the Law Avoids or A Conspiracy Theory That is Actually Plausible

My Recent Posts

According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (another government agency that deals in lies and propaganda, but humor me) “An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.” That fact was originally from JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association.


As noted in a report by the League of Oregon Cities: “In some cities, alcohol is involved in 80 percent of certain crimes, while liquor law violations, such as driving under the influence, can cost a city up to $2,500 per arrest.” What the government doesn’t want you to know, (and some of the folks on WB have learned a few things about research, so if they can find some data I would be glad to consider it) is how much money the government makes in fines imposed on citizens committing alcohol-related crimes. Alcohol is a booming industry. The government collects taxes on alcohol, and then sales taxes, and then arrests and fines for people committing alcohol-related offenses. It’s sort of a win-win pay-pay scenario. Alcohol attracts people to things like sports and entertainment, because alcohol is closely associated with entertainment.  These revenue generators of fines and taxes make no mention of the defense lawyers who make money defending people with alcohol-related offenses. From the farmers who sell the grapes or grain to make the stuff, to the trucks that haul it, to the stores and venues that sell it to the judges and courts who impose fines, alcohol is a major part of the U.S. economy. It kills people as well, but we think it is worth it. After all, with the billions involved, a few deaths are, well, acceptable.


I know all too well that we tried to make alcohol illegal and that it was a social, political and legal disaster; Americans love their booze. One of the things I would love the government to do, and it never will because they simply don’t want anyone to know, is to publicly post how much revenue in fines and court costs each city, county and state court makes from people paying fines because of alcohol offenses. The average cost of a DUI is $10,000, and depending on where you live, could be much higher. There have been solutions for some time now. It’s just that no one making money, no municipality, county or state, and no attorney making money, wants things to change a great deal. There’s too much money involved. They all feel sorry for your mistake, and yet they all insist that you pay, pay, pay. They have jobs because people drink; not serving or providing the entertainment aspect of alcohol, but the misery and expense of it. On top of the cost of the booze, mind you.


Enter the picture, RO15-4513. No name, just letters and numbers. I discovered it outside of the assigned reading in my neuroanatomy class. It is hard to pin down when it was discovered, but awareness of the drug has existed since the 1980s. It is in the benzodiazepine class, whose popularity has soared since the 1960s with Valium. It was discovered that it blocks the effects of alcohol, making the person sober, at least until it wears off. There are very unpleasant side effects to it, and I make no promises that the extreme anxiety or convulsions might come along with the drug. But then, alcohol has bad side effects too, doesn’t it?


One scenario is that a person at the local bar has a few, and then takes the drug to ensure a safe and sober drive home. After waiting for about thirty minutes, he is walking out of the bar. While strolling out he meets a friend that is coming in to the bar. The friend invites him to come back into the bar and share a drink. But now, since the drug has taken effect, he has no idea how much the additional alcohol will do, and under the influence of the drug, literally drinks himself to death, ingesting a lethal amount of alcohol because the drug subdued the effect of the alcohol in terms of what he could feel. Negating the alcohol does not remove the toxicity, it just makes you feel sober, even if you aren’t. The next of kin discover that the victim had taken an alcohol relieving drug and sues the drug maker for offering a product where a person could not determine the effect of the alcohol and drank a lethal dose of the poison.


Another recently discovered drug is Dihydromyricetin (DHM), recently discovered as a hangover cure and intoxication blocker. DHM is the “natural extract of the Oriental Raisin Tree” and is said to negate alcohol. It appears that DHM is available via the internet. Both of these have the effect (RO15-4513 proven) of negating alcohol. Of course, the police state men in blue would not be able to generate revenue by waiting for some poor shmuck to leave the bar after a few drinks on Friday night if these drugs existed and were available.


It’s all about money. The drug companies are afraid of an accidental overdose. The definition of intoxicated would have to be reconsidered if intoxication could be reversed with a simple pill. All of this means that people will not get pulled over. The men in blue will not be able to rack up DUI arrests. The courts will not be able to rack up fines. The defense lawyers would lose income defending the poor schmucks who got pulled over and charged with DUI. This rates pretty well with a conspiracy. Too many people have too much to lose to let this alcohol inhibitor make it to the market, even if the safety of people that have a drink and drive would be greatly improved. There is too much to lose. The police state wishes to control as many aspects of the citizens’ lives, and this remedy to legal problems and denier of revenue cannot stand, and will not make it to the market. In all of the evolution of science, chemistry and medicine, this drug was inevitable, and yet the corrupt powers will not allow it on the market, even under the premise that it can save lives. I welcome any and all to look into this. I have only scratched the surface. Having posted essays online for four years, this is finally the moment to unleash this piece of information.


Keep in mind the “plausible deniability” excuse by the government. They can claim it is not now nor has ever been in the mainstream of science. But I found it, reading outside of the assigned reading, and the objections of the overdose scenario were made clear. The question is if the alcohol poisoning possibility is strong enough to outweigh any other risks that might be taken. I say it’s the money. There is too much to lose. I have never known any court to publicly announce how much revenue is generated by DUI cases, and, let’s face it, with today’s technology that wouldn’t take more than an hour of programming to pull the number from the accounting files and post it on the internet. It won’t happen, and we all know why.


So here is your conspiracy theory, and a quite plausible one. Nothing buried under the Sphinx. No one hiding information, it is all accessible, and no “key people” are dead, at least not yet. No “secret manuscript” that the Vatican won’t release. No “government files” hidden somewhere under the Pentagon. There are excuses, but I’m not buying that explanation. Just before the self-driving cars take over and make DUI disappear forever, let’s consider the drug that has existed for decades, and never made it to any reasonable application to remedy a problem that everyone wanted solved. Let me correct that, everyone not making money off the problem wanted solved. The folks collecting the money were fine with it. They still are, for obvious reasons. It’s all about the money.



Ari Silverstein Added May 12, 2017 - 9:02pm
What conspiracy are you outing?  The government doesn’t deny heavy fines related to drunk driving or taxes paid on the consumption of alcohol.  The amount of money flowing to government thanks to alcohol is the same argument for legalizing marijuana in many states.  Of course people die because of alcohol abuse, but that doesn’t prove any conspiracy.  
What does the League of Oregon Cities factoid supposed to prove or disprove?
Jeff Jackson Added May 12, 2017 - 9:32pm
The application of RO15-4513 was deliberately ignored. Drunk driving could have been completely eliminated. It wasn't because of the money.
Bill H. Added May 12, 2017 - 10:54pm
Jeff - basically the same reason why we won't be seeing a cure for cancer in short order.
Joanna Nutile Added May 13, 2017 - 4:49am
Any drug with that causes “very unpleasant side effects” including “extreme anxiety or convulsions” is one that we should be very cautious about.  So no, the government isn’t conducting some massive conspiracy so that it can profit from alcohol by not promoting this drug.  Besides, if there is one thing we know about alcohol is that people who abuse it don’t make the smartest decisions or think very clearly.  So even if the drug didn’t cause any side effects, I don’t see people being smart enough to take it, much like millionaire athletes not using Uber versus drive home drunk. 
As it relates to the conspiracy of not promoting a cure all drug for cancer or drunkenness for the purposes of making more money, just think about all the people that would have to be in on it.  It’s a ridiculous suggestion. 
Jeff Jackson Added May 13, 2017 - 8:34am
An "unpleasant side effect" is a far cry from $10,000 spent in a DUI or a fatal car crash. They knew about it, they did nothing.
George N Romey Added May 13, 2017 - 10:30am
The same reason we still drive automobiles with the basic internal combustion engine from 1900. Its all about the money.
Dino Manalis Added May 13, 2017 - 12:01pm
Abuse has to be avoided, including alcohol, that's why parents need to talk to their children about responsible alcohol consumption and abuse of it.  A glass of wine is actually healthy!  Avod the abuse and higher costs for oneself and society in general!  Be careful!
Jeff Jackson Added May 13, 2017 - 12:39pm
Yes, a small amount of booze is healthy. But when we have 88,000 people a year passing away, it looks like they're not taking that healthy dose.
Utpal Patel Added May 14, 2017 - 9:08am
Let’s follow the money. By having drunks on the road, money flows to our legal system and justice system.  The justice department then writes checks to the various government officials to keep them quiet and not inform the public about the cure to drunks on the road.  Is this essentially the conspiracy you’re perpetuating?  How much money do you think is being sent to Obama, Hillary and Trump for their silence?
Jeff Jackson Added May 14, 2017 - 9:28am
Utpal, nice extrapolation, but it doesn't work like that. The authorities, especially the states, fund no research to detoxify or  drugs that block the inebriating effects on the brain, such as the drug described. The municipalities, counties and states then collect the revenues from the drunk drivers, even when there is a drug that can block the effects of alcohol on the central nervous system.
In the article, I invited anyone to show me where any state, county or municipality has announced the revenues generated by fines levied against citizens convicted of DUI. No one has responded. I'd be delightfully surprised if someone did respond, as the WB people, at least some of the them, seem to be so impressed with their abilities to research and find evidence that contradicts my research and evidence.
Utpal, the cities and counties and states are too greedy to share with the federal authorities the money they make. As well, DUI is not, for the most part and with a few exceptions, a federal issue. Thanks for making the feds aware of money they can chase after. Now they'll be looking for it as well.
Utpal Patel Added May 14, 2017 - 5:37pm
Because states don’t publish a record of how much money they make enforcing alcohol abuse, does not mean there is a conspiracy at play.  Knowing we’re talking about the government and the many different municipalities that must deal with drunks, they probably have no idea how much money. 
My advice is to rid this article of all mentions of some grand conspiracy to suppress this drug and just focus on the merits of the drug.  One of the reasons I drink is to let loose and experience all those “harmful” affects alcohol.  This drug sounds like a massive buzz kill with some nasty side effects, so no way would I take it.  There is also no way I would drive drunk, especially with Uber just a few clicks away. 
Jeff Jackson Added May 14, 2017 - 5:53pm
Point number one: You must have missed "So here is your conspiracy theory, and a quite plausible one." Plausible, as defined as "of an argument or statement, seeming reasonable or probable." You know, plausible, possible, not certain.
Point number two: Could the authorities eliminated drunk driving with this drug? It sure seems that way, now doesn't it? Why would they let all of those people die, and risk their lives when a remedy was possible? If nothing else, it is ineptitude, when a cure for the disease was available and no one did anything. The cure was applicable, if only on an individual scale, since the doses could be adjusted for the individual, but no, not even that.
Point number three: "I have never known any court to publicly announce how much revenue is generated by DUI cases, and, let’s face it, with today’s technology that wouldn’t take more than an hour of programming to pull the number from the accounting files and post it on the internet. It won’t happen, and we all know why." The statement stands for itself, no further explanation required.
Point number four: It isn't a grand conspiracy, and I never used that distinct phrase, so please don't put those words on my page.  (Wow, that's a real cool saying and I bet it gets copied a lot. If you read this and copy it, make sure to give Jeff Jackson credit the next time you write "don't put those words on my page.")

Point number five: Yes, it is buzzkill, just as you say, so I think at some level you understand at least some of the essay.
Stephen Hunter Added May 15, 2017 - 7:50am
An excellent hypothesis Jeff, and yes there is something here that does not make any sense, based on the facts you have discovered. 
Could the real issue be that in most impaired driving situations involving accidents, it is the drunks who cause most of the issues? By drunks I mean the addicted, those who drink a lot everyday. 
It is not the people who have one or two over the limit who cause the serious accidents imo, it is those who are shit-faced and get behind the wheel, because they have no conscious in that condition. 
Jeff Jackson Added May 15, 2017 - 8:35am
Thank you Stephen, and certainly, the addicted need treatment. It is the ordinary people, not addicted, who might once in a while have "one too many" and then gets a DUI and it costs them plenty. People could have avoided that situation quite easily, as well as the risks of death or injury, but no one did anything. 
With all of the conspiracy trolls out there, I would think that this could be a great conspiracy. The conspiracy people, as described, need to have one piece of the puzzles that can never, ever be revealed, like under the Pentagon or the Sphinx, or someone who knew all about it who died under mysterious circumstances. Let me be clear, I do not know this to be a conspiracy, but if you want one that really applied and there isn't any hidden evidence (or is there?) this is a great choice. I sure hope the conspiracy folks don't disappoint me. 
Utpal Patel Added May 15, 2017 - 1:46pm
Fair enough, however I don’t think it’s plausible that a conspiracy to suppress a cure-all drug for alcohol exists let alone the existence of a cure all drug for alcohol.  On the latter point of there being such a drug in existence, you provided nothing by way of a link or support.  I just did some research and in addition to the terrible side affects you already mentioned, there is plenty more to be skeptical about.  A simple Wikipedia search offers a host of information on why this drug wasn’t developed, here’s a brief snippet:
Ro15-4513 blocks the effects of ethanol but does not remove it from the bloodstream, which could lead to potential problems, as the effects of the alcohol would be masked only temporarily. As a result, patients might, for instance, feel that they are sober and discharge themselves from hospital once the drug took effect, then become drunk again once it wore off, possibly crashing their car or having other accidents that might lead to legal consequences for Roche.
Jeffry Gilbert Added May 15, 2017 - 1:57pm
that might lead to legal consequences for Roche.
After all one wouldn't want such stellar drugs manufacturers like Roche to be in legal jeopardy. Tens of thousands of dead people a year to protect Roche is a reasonable trade-off for your ilk isn't it Patel.
This comment is in no way intended to be in support of the author. 
Jeff Jackson Added May 15, 2017 - 2:14pm
Well there you go, Utpal, I read that too, from Wikipedia, I believe. You just proved the point, that the effects of alcohol are masked, or taken away. Of course if does not remove it from the bloodstream, I never made that claim, it simply negates the effects, and I already noted that someone who takes it could drink themself to death because it negates the effect, i.e. they can no longer tell that they are drunk. 
I never said it was a cure all for alcohol, I said it could prevent drunk driving, and I stand by that position. Again, the maker, Roche, was afraid for getting sued, and I addressed that issue in the original article. 
"Negating the alcohol does not remove the toxicity, it just makes you feel sober, even if you aren’t. The next of kin discover that the victim had taken an alcohol relieving drug and sues the drug maker for offering a product where a person could not determine the effect of the alcohol and drank a lethal dose of the poison." 
The other thing is that drugs are developed, not just discarded because of one or even many bad side effects. Listen to any commercial on television and they'll mention enough side effects to scare anyone from taking the drug being advertised. Legal liabilities do not stop the development of drugs. Consider the drugs like Cialis and Viagra, which have side effects like losing your hearing or going completely blind, and all that for a few minutes of fun? The fact that it wasn't developed in no way convinces me that it wasn't viable. Look at what Thalidomide did. Anxiety and convulsions are nothing compared with $10,000 fines. The drug could come with explanations that when you take it the alcohol is still in your system, something that I never denied and even pointed out. 
Utpal Patel Added May 16, 2017 - 9:29am
I’m well aware that drugs have side effects, but that doesn’t mean all drugs get approved.  Sometimes the side effects are worse than what the ailment the drug is trying to treat and that is why many drugs never get approved.  The Wikipedia article lists all bunch of negative information about this drug, as stated previously, that was a snippet.  Can you send me to a reputable source that advocates this drug being developed?  Let me guess, the information is being suppressed because of the government conspiracy to profit off drunk driving and other alcohol related revenue?
Jeff Jackson Added May 16, 2017 - 12:58pm
Keeping with the internet mentality, which allow me to keep on suggesting that it might be a conspiracy, is: Wikipedia is an unreliable source, and/or Wikipedia is part of the conspiracy, so why wouldn't they say bad things about the drug. You're last sentence is on the right track.
Utpal Patel Added May 17, 2017 - 1:00am
What source is more reliable than Wikipedia?  All I’m asking is that you produce some evidence that this drug does the thing you say it does.  All we know is that you discovered this drug while doing some reading for your neuroanatomy class.  The fact you think it’s being suppressed by some government conspiracy is something you can’t prove, as that is the nature of all conspiracies.  However, you should be able to show me sources which advocate this be produced for the reasons you say it should be consumed. This is my second request for that information. 
Jeff Jackson Added May 17, 2017 - 6:08am
Utpal Patel Added May 18, 2017 - 2:40pm
Your first link is a chat forum…that is not reputable source.
The second link was page #59 of a book published in 1991. Not only is the source dated, the scientists do not give the drug their blessing and argue it should be legalized. 
I rest my case.