+- Subliminal Talk (https://subliminal-talk.com)
+-- Forum: Website and Subliminal Feedback (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Website-and-Subliminal-Feedback)
+--- Forum: Experimental Programs Feedback (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Experimental-Programs-Feedback)
+--- Thread: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? (/Thread-Digital-Subliminal-Drug-Simulants-Good-or-bad-idea)
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - athanas - 03-13-2015
(03-13-2015, 09:50 AM)SexyKorths Wrote: I have had it with these motherfuckin' junkies in this motherfuckin' thread!
My subliminal brings all the boys to the yard~
Uhm... are you all right?
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - Benjamin - 03-13-2015
Quote:I have had it with these motherfuckin' junkies in this motherfuckin' thread!
My subliminal brings all the boys to the yard~
What's this about? Everyone else on here is having a rational conversation so no need to bring this into it Korths.
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - JackOfHearts - 03-13-2015
(03-12-2015, 03:15 PM)Shannon Wrote: Well, after getting some thoughts on the matter, here is what I concluded.
In my thought experiment, I considered what would happen if - as doubtless would be the case - someone stupid got their hands on the program. Said moron would of course be under a reasonable age, and would get the brilliant idea that it would be funny to play the program in school, in class, on the school bus, etc. The effects would be noticed, and this would quickly turn into a media scandal, causing the company to be pretty much shut down by the same backlash that created a slew of laws against this sort of thing, without ever really understanding what they were attempting to legislate out of existence.
The end result: yet more illegal "drugs", usable in more situations, by a wider range of people/ages, and no benefit at all besides someone deciding that they like the fact that they can get high at will. Oh, and IML would be a memory, and there would be more laws against subliminals.
Benefit: 1%
Detriment: 99%
So... I have concluded that this is not going to happen.
Why don't you create a sub that make the user able to switch state at will?
This way this kind of problem won't happen. Then with each new sub you introduce a new state like heroin for example.
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - robstar - 03-13-2015
Wow I can't believe 'no' is beating 'yes'. Didn't realise this forum is full of so many socially conditioned fuddy duddies and mind police. Strong logic to say stupid people will abuse so let's not let anyone have it. Stupid people will abuse illegal drugs regardless, and the consequences will likely be far more dire. The way I see it, if it has any potential for drug harm reduction at all, it should be a go.
So many current 'illegal' substances are only harmful because they are illegal and therefore unregulated and uncontrolled. Alcohol is far more harmful than most (not all) illegal substances. The illegal status of mdma for example is the reason there have been "overdoses" (when really it wasn't mdma at all) in the past.
If you want evidence of decriminalized drugs being beneficial, just take a look at Portugal.
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - AriGold - 03-13-2015
Well, I say the risk for Shannon and his empire he built is too big.
But, and that is just a thought of mine, why not open a second company (I know, it costs) and sell them separately. So if the new company gets a bad reputation, IML is still healthy and praised like always before. If you really want to built these programs out of curiosity, make it safe for your life's work and for yourself. As already said, if people have problems following the instructions with a "normal" program, you have to assume the worst if you sell a program that is potentially risky. You already took care in X24 and X32, so maybe that is an option too to consider.
And btw, I am also waiting for a MLS, or a Ultimate Musician 5G, MYPW, MYPRL or DAOS 5G program (and don't forget a forex subliminal).
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - athanas - 03-14-2015
(03-13-2015, 10:40 PM)robstar Wrote: Wow I can't believe 'no' is beating 'yes'. Didn't realise this forum is full of so many socially conditioned fuddy duddies and mind police.
so true! I guess this is because of a mismatch in target audience.
Subliminals drugs would attract a different audience than what we have here right now (and I'm not talking about crackheads, but especially with socially accepted drugs like a "booze sub" and a "marihuana sub" more mainstream, "normal" and causual people would be targeted).
In think this is why so many voted "No". Most people are here because they want to fix something about themselves with self-improvement subs, they aren't the right target audience for this. But just because there isn't much interest in the current audience doesn't mean there wouldn't be much interest outside of it. Which would be a good thing, expanding the current audience.
I could introduce a "booze sub" far easier than SM3 to most of my friends who are less nerdy and more "mainstream/cool". If I showed them SM3 they would ask whats my problem that I need to run something like that.
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - DarthXedonias - 03-14-2015
Even though its already been decided, I thought I would give my opinion. As a side note, I think we can have this discussion without calling people who don't agree with us names (like socially conditioned fuddy duddies and mind police). This is suppose to be a forum to help people with their development, give advice, and overall help build others up not break them down. So, I think we can have a good, calm conversation without having to result to such things. Anyway, I ended up doing a complete 180* on my position because of a certain event, which I will talk about later, that happened around the same time this discussion started. In the end, my position ended up close to Catman and Johanthan's position on this.
From what I'm seeing there are two main positions in the "no" camp which both sound very reasonable. The first is that there are more important programs that could be made or upgraded to 6G. Which seems very true in my opinion. If I have to choose between having life changing programs (LTU 6G, EPRHA 6G, etc) and short term "recreational" programs, I know which one i'm choosing as a priority.
The second position i'm seeing is that we could do better by resolving people's core issues that result in people relying on recreational drugs to just "cope" with their issues instead of truly solving them. The event that changed my mind was something that happened along this line of reasoning. I was talking to a group of acquaintances the other day and they got on the subject of their drug usage. To my surprise all of them except one of them turned out to be recreational drug users. Not that I care all that much, what others do with their body is their business. As the conversation went on, it grew apparent to me that they used drugs to "cope" with their issues instead of actually solving them. Dealing with the symptom but not the cause. In the end, I honestly think most people would benefit more, self development wise, from running something like LTU 6G for the long term than using a short term recreational drug with short term benefits. In this case, with LTU 6G (after a few runs) I would feel good 95% of the time without the use of drugs, whereas with the recreational one I would continually have to use it each time I'm emotionally down. Of course this all depends on whether the person who would buy a Digital Recreational drug is doing it purely for fun or they are using it to cope with their problems.
In the end, I think it would be better just to concentrate on things that help people in the long term with their goals (whether they be business, relationship, etc) than short term fun. Nothing morally wrong, at least in my opinion, with fun recreational drug use but I see it as a very low priority (if a priority at all) when compared with all the other things that could be accomplished with 6G technology.
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - athanas - 03-14-2015
(03-13-2015, 10:40 PM)robstar Wrote: Strong logic to say stupid people will abuse so let's not let anyone have it. Stupid people will abuse illegal drugs regardless, and the consequences will likely be far more dire. The way I see it, if it has any potential for drug harm reduction at all, it should be a go.
So many current 'illegal' substances are only harmful because they are illegal and therefore unregulated and uncontrolled. Alcohol is far more harmful than most (not all) illegal substances. The illegal status of mdma for example is the reason there have been "overdoses" (when really it wasn't mdma at all) in the past.
If you want evidence of decriminalized drugs being beneficial, just take a look at Portugal.
Couldn't agree more.
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - athanas - 03-14-2015
@DarthXedonias: I agree subliminal drugs don't have to be higher priority than the self improvement subs. If I had to choose one of them and discard the other I'd also choose the self improvement one. But this isn't the case.
Just because the sublinal durgs aren't the highest priority they don't have to be discarded completely. They can be worked on on a lower priority after the first 1-2 one are out to get the "foot into the door" so to speak. Shannon doesn't have to commit to build a complete ensemble right now he could build just one or two to see how they work, how we respond and how the demand for it looks like.
It'd would be a shame if we don't get even one simple booze sub to try as we won't ever know what we'll be missing. And I don't think this should delay other projects that much.
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - cfact - 03-14-2015
(03-14-2015, 08:39 AM)DarthXedonias Wrote: The second position i'm seeing is that we could do better by resolving people's core issues that result in people relying on recreational drugs to just "cope" with their issues instead of truly solving them.Agree on the first position (can think of a bunch of subs I would want before) so to address the second briefly:
I am not at all a drug user and barely a drinker (maybe one beer a week normally, if that), but I can definitely understand and appreciate the need to "let go" once in a while - to not be so concerned with career, self-growth, personal development, whatever else... just to go out, drink, have fun. It serves as a release, much like a cheat day does for my current strict diet. It gives life some balance, is fun and even the hangover can serve a purpose (to remind you not to do that very often!)
The point is: on the very few occasions that I do go out to drink and even to get drunk, I don't at all find this a coping mechanism or escaping from core issues. We don't have to be so serious and work on ourselves all the time... this position can even suggest people who watch movies or other forms are entertainment are just doing this as a coping mechanism (to escape from their mundane lives for example). And, while I 100% agree with you that drugs/watching movies/etc CAN be a coping mechanism, my point is that it need not be in all cases.
Simply... let healthy adults at least have something like a booze sub as a cheap, harmless, fun way to relax once in a while.
I agree with athanas on that - just start with a booze sub. The others can wait until that is assessed.
Add in whatever protections that are needed (remove ability to intoxicate people who are unaware/under a certain age... add in common sense precautions - e.g. you are instantly sober if you try to drive or situations where you need to be sober)
I think this would be an amazing sub - and much healthier than actually going out and drinking (even life saving if it prevents drunk driving and cirrhosis etc)
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - Shawn - 03-14-2015
(03-11-2015, 10:51 PM)Shannon Wrote: I really don't see much benefit for me in making the recreational drug simulants, as most of them would be no doubt distributed as pirate copies. I'm looking at the potential to reduce crime, for instance, and help people get off drugs and break addictions. But there are a lot of negative potentials here too. And the negatives stem from stupid people doing stupid things with them, and then ignorant people doing ignorant things in response.
I would love to have a way to help reduce crime or help addicts get off drugs come out of this, though.
Maybe it could help people to get away from drugs, but the first problem I am seeing here is that most people wouldn't come to the idea to google after drug subliminals to get help. So it would be required that a sub like this is available in care centers which help people in such situation (or something similar). But probably this wouldn't be very profitable.
The other thing is, people who doing drugs because they are self destructive wouldn't probably accept a sub - because it wouldn't be self destructive anymore. These people would need EPRHA instead of digital drugs.
And not to forget the potential to misuse it. It would be easier to bring someone into this state just by playing a subliminal than forcing people to consume it by themselves. So for me it's a NO.
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - DarthXedonias - 03-14-2015
Athanas, Coldfact- I think that would be a good compromise. Make a Booze sub somewhere in between getting all the more important subs out of the way. Then you can look at the results and think about whether to proceed or not. Also, I should clarify that I didn't say that I think all people that use drugs are using them as "coping" mechanisms. Hence why I mentioned that last bit about people who use them for coping and those that use them purely for fun.
I just felt like giving my opinion on this because of my recent talk with acquaintances of mine and the fact that some people were getting emotional over this issue. Most people on this were pretty rational (on both sides) and articulated their views pretty well. Though their there were a few went on a "you said no, so you must be one of those indoctrinated, drugs are bad types" and then proceeded to go on a drug decriminalization rant. I know for myself that wasn't the case. I'm all for drug decriminalization but I was against the sub (at least for a time) for totally legitimate reasons that I laid out above. Not to mention the realistic scenario Shannon gave and the consequences that would follow a scenario if such were to happen.
My final thought on this is to go either 1 of 2 ways. (1) Don't do it at all because of the consequences that might follow given a Scenario similar to what Shannon said happens (and there's more important things to get done). (2) Start out with something light, like a booze sub, and proceed with caution.
In the end though, probably won't matter since Shannon has already made his mind up. Which I can't blame him given that he look at this in light of cost vs benefits. The benefits being that people would have a great time with this type of sub and (as someone else pointed out) reach out to a different demographic to sell to. The cons though are that if something similar to what he mentioned happens, at best there will be new government "regulations" for subliminals, at worst Subliminals will be banned and IML shutdown which will be the most likely of the two given the people he will be up against. For example, even with the booze sub you would have problems in such a incident happening. I wouldn't put it past Beer companies to lobby politicians in such a event to ban subliminals because why would they want a competitor out there who can give people the same results but without the draw backs and with only having to pay once for a sub (instead of going back multiple times to buy Beer). I could see bars also rallying for such as well since they benefit from how things are now. I'm not saying this all would definitely happen, its a "realistic" "if". The problem is "if" this did happen (and IML was indicated in the cause of this event) the consequences I laid out would probably be most likely. Given this, that's probably why he said, to paraphrase, too much cost for too little reward.
Thats about all I have to say about this subject honestly. Either don't do it (the most prudent choice given the cost/benefits analysis) or do it but make sure you move forward very cautiously.
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - Shannon - 03-16-2015
Let's consider this.
First, the situation is not about personal freedom. If that were everything we were looking at, I'm all for personal responsibility. That means, for those of you who don't realize it, that I am for the individual deciding for themselves, when it does no harm.
Second, once this sort of thing were released there is no way to ever undo that act. It would be replicated ad nauseum, and distributed ad nauseum. It would get into every crack and crevice of society, from the youngest to the oldest, whether directly or indirectly. It would be unstoppable and impossible to prevent the usage of, shy of what all lawmakers think is the only solution to everything: make it illegal.
Now we all know that making something illegal does not stop its use. Or it's purchase, or it's production. But we do know that making something illegal does feed into a pre-existing industry in which people now have a vested interest in keeping said thing illegal because they are profiting from that law being in place.
We could probably pay off the entire national deficit in 2-3 years if drugs were simply decriminalized and taxed at reasonable levels. And I'd bet we could also do away with income tax while we were at it. But that will never happen because at every step of the way, someone is benefiting from the way things are right now. In fact the penal system of the United States has begun becoming a private enterprise, meaning that it is a growing phenomenon that prisons are now a for-profit business. Not all of them, to be sure, but there are companies out there who build and run prisons, and they have shareholders. End result: prisoners for profit. As if the USA were not already the country leading the world in per-capita incarceration rates. Now we have financial incentives to put people in prisons. Now we have lobbyists pushing for laws that benefit these companies, and you know that those laws are not going to benefit you.
But the point is that drugs are illegal for two reasons. First, their illegalization reduces competition for those who have the power and influence to continue selling and profiting from them after their illegalization; and second, there are very good reasons why they should not be freely available to the general populace.
Let's look at one such reason. When you are on a commercial airline flight, do you want your pilots to be using mind altering substances? Let's use the "minor" example given in this thread of alcohol. It's a mind altering substance that is legal. Why not have your pilots be drunk while you're flying? Well, maybe because that would be a great way to kill and maim people and destroy property. Just like drunk driving does. Only this time, it's a hundred or several hundred people at a time.
Now let's look a this with a more serious drug. Let's say your pilots are on cocaine. Are they still as safe to pilot that craft as they would be off it? Even marijuana acts as a mind altering substance. If they were high on that, would they be as safe to pilot that plane? The answer is a definitive no, and this can be seen in the fact that those who stand to lose money if the pilots are drunk, stoned or otherwise using some sort of mind altering substance, will absolutely not allow the pilots to use them while flying. Money, as we know, is typically valued above human life by governments and corporations. So to see the cold hard truth, we have to see what the insurance companies would do, and what the airlines would do. They stand to lose money.
I have heard it argued that nobody ever got in a car accident because they were high on marijuana. The veracity of that statement is in question, because marijuana has the effect of diffusing your focus. That high you get is partly because your brain has shifted to an altered state in which there is significantly less focus, which is largely why people feel relaxed and have trouble remembering things while they're stoned. Driving requires focus, and flying a plane requires a lot more focus, because it's a much more complex task. So in large part these laws exist to protect the public from themselves. In other words, do you want to prove something that has been proven a million times over by losing your life or the life of a loved one, because someone doesn't understand the truth that driving impaired is dangerous? How many people have to die from drunk driving before we get it? And given that many people every year die this way because someone didn't get it even after all these deaths and all these years, how many people's lives are improved by having laws against drunk driving? Many, many of them.
The same is true for other drugs. Then there is the impact that these drugs have on society in terms of cost. Drug addiction treatment is very expensive and so is the scenario that happens if you don't get treatment. If we did not have laws against drugs and a social paradigm against using them, we would have a lot more people using drugs recreationally. But we would also have a lot more people becoming addicted, and they would be not only damaging their own lives, but those of the people close to them who are affected by them, and care about them. These laws are in place to help prevent this from happening.
If it were just a case of you can go use whatever drug and not harm anyone including yourself, then I would not care if my neighbors were doing heroin and crack and marijuana and such and such. But because it is very well documented and proven that drug use leads to damaged and destroyed lives, society as a whole seeks to work against that for the good of the whole, because every person is a member of society and each of us relies on the rest for the whole society to function.
Consider. I cannot go to the store to buy my groceries without someone making my car, if I must use a car to get to the store. That car is the result of an entire society of people working together to achieve the goal that is that car. If we look at what it took to make that car, we have the following components in use: Metal, glass, plastic and rubber. To get the metal for that car, we have to locate the ore, and mine it, and smelt it, and then shape it and transport it to where the car is made. All of those require groups of people to do. Then it has to be assembled.
The rubber has to be harvested or synthesized, then transported to the tire manufacturer, then heated, molded and transported again to the car manufacturer, which is to say nothing of the people required not only to do those jobs, but the job of designing the tire (including the design of the rubber chemistry, the steel belts, the shape, etc.), and then the people who make the machines that make the tires... and the machines that put the tire on the rim, and the machines that affix the tire to the rest of the car.
The glass has to go through a similar process, and requires many people working together in many different fields and jobs to become a window or windshield.
And so too the plastic and electronic parts.
To make that car, literally tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of people working in dozens or hundreds of different fields must cooperate. And all of them must be capable of doing their jobs competently. Otherwise you end up with things like tires that fail unexpectedly. Engine blocks that crack under pressure. Brakes that fail during normal use. And people can and will die.
Now this is just making the car that I hop into to get from point A to point B. It won't run without a battery or gasoline or various fluids. Those fluids and batteries must also be manufactured and transported by various groups of people working together. From the geologists who seek out oil deposits to the people who build the drilling rigs to the people who actually drill and extract the oil to those who refine it, and the chemists who test and design each refinement, and then the people who transport the resulting engine oil and gasoline to their respective destinations, so that I can now actually start that car. Thousands and tens of thousands more people are now involved, and again they have to be of sound enough mind to accomplish these goals safely.
So now we have built the car and gassed it up, but for me to get to the store I must rely on all the people who designed the roads and built the roads, and all the people who educated them, and built their tools. So hundreds to tens of thousands more people are now involved, and all I have done is gotten in a car, turned it on, and driven to the store.
Now I am relying on all the people who built the store, and all the people who designed the store and the parts to build the store, and the people who transported those parts, and the people who made the machines that transported and put those parts together, just so there is a store for me to drive to and walk into. But it's not done there, because now we have to have things in the store for me to buy. And those things must be manufactured, picked, built, tested, designed, cleaned, packaged, transported, unpacked, put on the shelves, priced, tracked, and checked out. All requiring groups of people in every step to accomplish this goal.
The end result is that for any of us to do anything, we must have the help and cooperation of hundreds of thousands to millions of other people who we never think about or consider the involvement or contributions of. Those people are society. Society works because it is interwoven in a way that allows it to support all parts and not collapse. And that requires that everyone who is a part of that society be able to do their part, do their job within that machine. Which they can't do if they're using drugs, drunk, etc.
Marijuana users are going to argue till they're blue in the face that they can do their job better when their high. A lot of people use cocaine at work because it makes them work faster and not need sleep. Caffeine, etc. Blah blah blah.
The fact is, if everyone was free to use any drug they wanted, then the society itself would be at risk without developing some sort of defense mechanism, because then people would begin rendering themselves ineffective for safely and effectively performing their jobs.
Do you realize that part of why I do not drink alcohol is that there is no room for error in my line of work? I take even one sip and there is no guarantee that my thinking, judgement and reasoning is now not impaired in some way that will cause problems down the line. So I simply don't drink, and that saves everyone trouble. Do you suppose I could do my job if I were high on marijuana? Hell no. And I could not do it if I were on speed, coke, crack, meth, horse or any other of the recreational drugs. That's because they are mind altering. They affect your ability to focus and think clearly, which is precisely why people use them. Escape.
Now consider that a subliminal is an audio program. It is digital. It can be copied infinitely and distributed worldwide instantly. And it can be played on speakers to affect everyone in earshot. If a digital subliminal alcohol were to get out, and it worked, it would not be "light" at all. If it worked, it would render people effectively drunk. And anyone could potentially be rendered drunk at any time, regardless of what they were doing, because of the decision of one person to play said program on speakers. What happens when that person is sitting on a public bus and renders the occupants of that bus inebriated? The driver would likely crash, and the effect on the passengers would very likely result in a brawl. Lives would be at risk.
What happens if that same program is played in a high school classroom? The teacher and all present are rendered inebriated. I don't even want to touch the potential consequences of that, even before the administration, news media, parents and lawmakers discovered what had happened.
What happens if that alcohol subliminal is played at a bar? All the designated drivers present are now being inebriated against their will. The bartender is being inebriated. And people are getting drunk regardless of how much they drink or how fast. The potentials here also include lives at risk, pregnancies, diseases being transmitted, theft, fights, and worse.
Because subliminals are audio, and audio can be played on speakers, there is too much risk of persons being exposed and affected who did not agree to or consent to being exposed and affected, and the consequences can be life threatening if things are released that have the effects of drugs.
Why do you think I have not yet released the sleep aid? I have tested it now, but now I have to add safeties to it. I can release it when that happens. So why can't I just add safeties to the rest of these? Because there is a conflict. If the safety works, the program goal may be interfered with, when we are talking about creating recreational drug effects. If the effect is to relax you and I put in a safety that prevents it from working under certain circumstances, that can lessen the effectiveness of the program in general and prevent it from working at all.
And just because you don't care to pay attention to how crazy our legal system and political systems have become does not mean they are not present and accounted for. They're a crapshoot, at best, and I'm not going to risk myself, our company or the people who work with us over it.
The only benefit that comes from me making and releasing programs of that sort is for the end user. You cannot speak to profits, because there would be next to none for us because of piracy. And the point that existing companies would be able to lobby lawmakers to make our product illegal is a valid one. If I created subliminal beer that was 100% as good as or better than physical beer, it would collapse beer sales overnight. Everyone would be drunk all the time. This would threaten society, because drunk people can't work and be productive, and beer companies cannot make money and employ people if nobody buys their product. The society and the economy would be damaged.
So now we have the concept of helping people get off drugs with these. It won't work. Drug users who want to be off drugs will find a way regardless, just like people who want to use drugs will find a way regardless. But drug users don't usually want to stop, an it's just like smoking. Giving a smoker a piece of nicotine gum may distract them from smoking because they have nicotine now, but in all likelihood what's going to happen is that a drug addict (the smoker) is only going to remain a drug addict because they are still ingesting/partaking. You have not solved the problem, just transferred the source of medicating it. Or, they're more addicted now because no they're using both.
What's more likely, if I release digital marijuana in a subliminal form: people stop smoking pot and instead use the digital form, or someone figures out that the effects can stack, and now they're using both? Given that using marijuana is not just about getting high, but about the social aspect of the whole thing (groups of people supporting one anothers' validity in a given state of insecurity/self medication by smoking together), my money is on people using both. This does not make anything better. It only makes the situation more convoluted. Self medication is still taking place and the habitual and social aspect of it perpetuates it regardless. Only now people have the power to affect those who do not want to be affected, without their consent or knowledge.
Now anyone who reads all this and does not understand what a legal nightmare this would be is just closing their eyes. I am not going to make digital subliminal drug simulants. Even through a different company. Period.
That said, I am going to find ways to create subliminals using this technology that are safe to use and helpful. But it is my considered opinion and belief that nothing good would come of me attempting to create digital subliminal drugs.
RE: Digital Subliminal Drug Simulants: Good or bad idea? - athanas - 03-16-2015
would 6g enable you to create a sub that could induce only the positive effects of let's say drinking booze without the negative ones?
So it would instantly have an affect as an social lubricant but without the tunnel vision, loosing balance or coordination etc. So instead of a booze sub, would you be able to create a "social lubricant" sub? This would be without all the negative effects you described in your post above.
Personally I would like the social lubricant sub even more than the booze sub as that was the only intention I had in using it.