stops hangovers and makes alcohol disappear from the blood system up to six times faster than usual.
A French court has ruled that the product may be sold legally so long as its advertisements mention nothing about its effect on blood alcohol levels.
Security Feel Better – love that name, don't you? It's got kind of a new age, poor-Japanese-translation thing going for it – has begun to stir up controversy as you might expect:
its publicity material is already being interpreted in France as implying that it allows drivers to get behind the wheel without fear.
Here's where I think the comparison to birth control comes into play. If a boy and a girl make with the grunting and the moaning then the odds of a baby being born are, shall we say, greater than if there'd been no g-and-m. If a person imbibes a substantial amount of alcohol and gets behind the wheel of a car then the odds of an accident are greater than if he didn't drive. (The parallel erodes somewhat here because accidents also happen to people that haven't had a thing to drink, whereas there's really only one way to make a baby. Full disclosure and all.)
If, however, the boy and the girl use birth control during their g-and-m'ing then they reduce the odds of making a baby. If the drinker has a slug of Security Feel Better before attempting to drive home then the odds of his having an accident on the way are reduced.
Therefore birth control reduces the risk of pregnancy and Security Feel Better reduces the risk of alcohol-related accidents. That's good, isn't it? Apparently some don't think so:
In Britain, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) said it had severe concerns about any product that led people to think they could drink and drive, whether or not it was marketed as such.
This will be seen as blocking progress.
It all reminds me of the society in Huxley's Brave New World.