A possibly fun thing you’ll never get to do (continued)

Over the past year, since AWOL was introduced to the US market last August, Sasser has tried the product plenty of times. "No, it’s not quite as intoxicating as regular drinking," he says when questioned about whether the buzz hits you harder. "You need about an ounce and a quarter per hour in order to get intoxicated," he says of alcohol’s effectiveness at 80 proof, "and this machine won’t do that. So there’s really no chance you’ll get drunk."

So why would anyone bother?

"The big thing to me," says Sasser, "is there’s no hangover, absolutely no side effect except for a basic euphoric effect — you’re not really drunk."

Sasser claims you’re sober about 15 minutes after you’re done inhaling your 20-minute dose, and he says this will limit drunk driving should AWOL catch on in bars. Right now, his company is mainly selling the home models, he says, and customers are "real satisfied. We’ve sold hundreds of these things and I think three of them have come back."

Despite Sasser’s claims, Bryant has supporters for his ban in surprising camps. Diageo, "the world’s leading beer, wine, and spirits company," distributors of everything from Smirnoff to Guinness, issued a press release on April 7 throwing their weight behind Bryant:

"Guy Smith, Diageo North America’s Executive Vice President said, ‘AWOL machines should be banned in Maine and the rest of the country because of concerns that they could encourage alcohol abuse and drunk driving. We applaud Representative Mark Bryant [LD 1155] in his efforts to prohibit the use and sale of AWOL machines in Maine and raise awareness about the potential dangers of these machines.’

"AWOL machines enable consumers to inhale alcohol vapors. ‘We oppose AWOL machines simply because they’re not responsible,’ said Smith. ‘We are wholly committed to the responsible sale, marketing, advertising and consumption of our products and that’s why we work hard to prevent underage drinking and promote responsible behaviors among adults.’

"Although all alcohol products sold in America must be federally approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), AWOL machines have yet to receive such approval. Said Smith: ‘We operate in the most highly regulated industry and all of our products — and those of our competitors — have been carefully scrutinized by the TTB. These AWOL machines have yet to face this same oversight.’ "

Calls from the Phoenix over two days to the TBB went unreturned, but it’s not hard to figure out that AWOL machines aren’t regulated because they’re machines, not a different type of alcohol, per se, and thus don’t fall under TBB’s jurisdiction. That would all change, however, if the US House passes the Alcohol Without Liquid Machine Safety Act of 2005 [HR 613], introduced in February. That bill would force any alcohol-without-liquid device distributor to get approval from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration before selling the device. And the Commissioner will "issue an order approving the application if the person submitting the application demonstrates to the Commissioner’s satisfaction that the alcohol without liquid machine is safe." The House has yet to take up the bill for consideration.

But what if what Sasser says is true? That you don’t get that great a buzz from this thing, that’s it’s barely more harmful than your typical oxygen bar? Could the state of Maine really ban the machine with no proof of its dangers?

Sure, says Cabanne Howard, professor of law at the University of Maine School of Law. "By and large, the courts give the Legislature a lot of leeway in making judgments like that. I think if the legislation simply bans the machine completely, because it’s thought to be a health risk, as long as they ban it completely," without discriminating against one particular device over another, "I think the legislature could do that. I don’t think the courts would interfere with that."

But doesn’t the manufacturer of AWOL have a right to do business in Maine? "There’s no constitutional right to do business," Howard notes. "There are numerous examples of things that are banned in some states and not others. Fireworks, for example. So I think if the Legislature wanted to make that judgment [on AWOL], I don’t think it would be a problem with the courts."

If Representative Bryant is right, and the bill does sail past the Legislature this week or next, it looks like you’ll have to break the law to see what this AWOL thing is all about. Not that you’d really want to.

Sam Pfeifle can be reached at sam@phx.com.