Mr. Phillips is not the first to develop a powdered form of alcohol. It has been produced in Europe and Japan, and patents have been issued before in the United States. Mr. Phillips’s version, developed by his firm, Lipsmark of Tempe, Ariz., was approved for sale last month by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. However, it is still subject to state regulation.

In response to the growing opposition, Mr. Phillips has vigorously defended his product, called Palcohol, saying it is no more dangerous than the liquid version sold in liquor stores. Gone are the suggestions about guacamole and snorting, which he says were published on Palcohol’s website by mistake and were never a part of the marketing strategy. They have been replaced with an emphasis on the practical advantages of a lightweight drink and the need to use the product responsibly.

To demonstrate the earlier error of his ways, Mr. Phillips said he even snorted Palcohol to prove that it was not an effective or quick way to get drunk, which he said he had not done before he made his earlier claims. The experience was, in a word, unpleasant.

“It would take you an hour of pain to ingest the equivalent of one drink,” Mr. Phillips said in an interview. “It really burns.” Palcohol’s website now says that snorting would be impractical and unpleasant.

The change of course may not be enough for lawmakers, however, said George Fisher, a professor of law at Stanford University who has studied the history of alcohol regulation. Since Palcohol’s website initially suggested that snorting the product was a way to get drunk quickly — even if doing it was unwise — “lawmakers, I suspect, will be inclined to take the marketer at the marketer’s original word,” he said.