Slashdot Mirror
US Government Poisoned Alcohol During Prohibition
Hugh Pickens writes "Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist Deborah Blum has an article in Slate about the US government's mostly forgotten policy in the 1920s and 1930s of poisoning industrial alcohols manufactured in the US to scare people into giving up illicit drinking during Prohibition. Known as the 'chemist's war of Prohibition,' the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, killed at least 10,000 people between 1926 and 1933. The story begins with ratification of the 18th Amendment in 1919, which banned sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the US. By the mid-1920s, when the government saw that its 'noble experiment' was in danger of failing, it decided that the problem was that readily available methyl (industrial) alcohol — itself a poison — didn't taste nasty enough. The government put its chemists to work designing ever more unpalatable toxins — adding such chemicals as kerosene, brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700. These numbers were repeated in cities around the country as public-health officials nationwide joined in the angry clamor to stop the poisoning program. But an official sense of higher purpose kept it in place, while lawmakers opposed to the plan were accused of being in cahoots with criminals and bootleggers. The chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, one of the poisoning program's most outspoken opponents, liked to call it 'our national experiment in extermination.'"
Nice how much hate exists among our democracy. (Ok, Representative democracy)
Denaturing alcohol is a common practice even today to prevent tax dodging, perhaps the best mass-scale denaturing occurring today is in Ethanol plants.
It's a good thing we no longer do things like that. You know, like add tylenol (APAP) to opiate painkillers so that if you abuse them you die of liver failure. Cause that wouldn't be cool at all.
Stupid doctors are as much to blame for this as the FDA. When a drug company's patent is about to expire, they often superficially change the molecular structure of the popular drug so that they can get a new patent. Then they start the marketing blitz to "ask your doctor about" the new drug. Smart doctors will prescribe the proven cure over the patent cash-in drugs.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
I think the home brewing and other do-it-yourself alcohol production communities would beg to differ with you. You only run into any real risk when you start distilling anyway.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Several hundred thousand die per year? So it's half as bad as cancer or heart disease? I find that very hard to believe. And federally mandated poisoning? No one is forcing patients to take these drugs. Taking these drugs is a risk patients willingly take since, if they have a deadly disease, doing nothing itself has a high mortality rate.
They still do this stuff. It's called denatured. You're not supposed to drink industrial solvents. That's why they're industrial. No one complains that we poison antifreeze with ethylene glycol - BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DRINK ANTIFREEZE. Stuff meant for consumption is taxed at a higher rate and undergoes a lot of inspections to make sure it's fit for human consumption. If it's not meant for human consumption, they don't get taxed as heavily and don't undergo inspections. How do you prove your stuff isn't meant for humans? You poison it and LABEL IT AS SUCH. Industrial solvents are labeled poisonous because they are. We're not poisoning the masses, we are providing them solvents at cheaper rates.
Google: "All your data are belong to us."
So basically the bootleggers were defrauding the drinkers during prohibition by replacing the cheap (but legal for industrial uses) Methanol which can lead to blindness and ultimately death. The underground market was defrauding and poisoning people wholesale. So in effect, the Methanol was only safe to be used in industrial products as it was and would never have poisoned people if it had not been fraudulently added to alcoholic beverages in the first place. That isn't to say the government wasn't wrong, it most certainly was as is the entire concept of a drug war in of its self, it is that these underground markets were knowingly putting tainted Methanol into their products and killing drinkers as a result.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
The fact remains that these bootleggers were adding a chemical that was already known to be poisonous and extremely dangerous to drink. It's like complaining that the government put strychnine in gasoline and since bootleggers were adding gasoline to their drinks the government was solely responsible for deaths. No. These bootleggers put poison in their products to begin with; they knew it was killing people and they did it anyway.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
You mean someone drinking two known poisons, and the potential to be drinking a third unknown one?
The two known poisons are... Ethanol and Methanol. Ethanol being esp. poisonous mainly in large quantities, but also having effects in lower quantities (such as liver damage when imbibed over extended periods).
In basically well-defined quantities.
And then someone quietly slips a third in.
In what way should the poisoner not be held responsible in that case?
If evilguy sneaks a drug in your beer, the court won't agree with evilguy that since you were technically already drinking something poisonous that was bad for you (Ethanol), that it somehow makes your addition harmless, or makes evilguy less culpable for the result.
The thing is evilguy has taken control away. If someone wants to deliberately imbibe a certain poison, OK, the maker can't be held responsible for that, as long as they are up front about the content and the risks.
But slipping in additional ingredients solely to poison is a different matter altogether.
It's not a matter of not being able to believe the government would ever do such a thing. It's laughed at because the same people who would call a government review board a "death panel" fully support the private "death panels" each insurance company has.
I hate to burst your bubble, but presidents have nothing to do with Constitutional amendments. It was passed by the requisite number of states. This was a progressive (socialist/fascist/communist/liberal) idea. You know, the Obama/Hillary/Pelosi/Reid (hell, most democrats) types of their time. Unfortunately, progressivism had it's claws in both parties, but is mostly gone from the Republican party. This comment is going to get modded to hell.
government run health care seems to work well everywhere it's been tried. I get to vote for the idiot who appoints the moron who denies me medical care. I might only have a small chance to fix the problem, but the guy in office remembers me when he makes his choices. how about in a free system? Oh right, only the rich (shareholders) get a vote.
Then get rid of the poison *and* the tax. Duh.
You think it's better for people to die than to get drunk cheap. Fuck you.
I'm not sure you can lay all the blame for the temperance movement upon christianity, substantial blame also rests with the women's right advocates. Ironically, woman's rights has generally been an astounding atheistic movement throughout the last two centuries, with the temperance movement being uniquely both religious and disastrous.
That said, authoritarian and/or religiously motivated men were the ones who imposed and implemented the poisoning. So yes you may lay these 10,000 deaths at the feet of authoritarianism and christianity.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
You really think that the drug gangs in Mexico would just stop fighting if drugs were legalized?
Yes. When you take the profit out of it, they stop. The only reasons gangs exist in the USA is because of prohibition. The mob tried to get in, and was stuck doing things like garbage collection. But Prohibition funded them directly, and they gained a foothold. That let them fund less profitable ventures, like protection rackets, prostitution, and tax evasion. Make all the illegal stuff legal, and the funding of gangs ends. No more money, no more guns. No guns, no violence.
But the Puritanical US won't let that happen here, and pushes hard to make others conform to our morality. Nothing is worse than religion... "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians." God is fine, the people that claim to be following Him are the problem...
When you take away what people have been fighting over, and that fighting gave them power, they will just find something else to fight over.
You seem very confused. These aren't idealistic people fighting for or against anything. They are capitalists where the rules of capitalism require enforcing their own contracts through violence and they are allowed to create barriers of entry for competitors (those barriers of entry being served via lead). They don't fight because it is a fun way to pass the time. They fight because it makes them lots of money. Make it legal, tax it, and you'll have the government funding increase while their funding decreases. They'll move on to profiting from the next victimless crime, and if you get rid of them all, they'll get a job.
Learn to love Alaska
It's laughed at because the same people who would call a government review board a "death panel" fully support the private "death panels" each insurance company has.
Totally. That's what's bugged me about the whole "death panel" fubar from the beginning - we've ALREADY got them and the only people who aren't beholden to death panels are the uninsured.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Yes, that's why despite the repeal of the prohibition the Mafia is still as strong as ever. Right.
I think that political reasons and economic reasons work differently. Political reasons are easily changeable, especially if they change slowly, by shifting to "new threats" or becoming more radical. The way of running a political organization stays about the same, the funding source doesn't necessarily change, people with experience in some area retain their expertise.
But economical reasons aren't so flexible. If drugs are legalized it'll pull the rug from under a lot of organizations. You don't just switch to say, the weapons black market from one day to the other. The suppliers are different, the places where to get them are different, the way of selling is different. There will be existing competition. And since guns can be had legally there will be much fewer people willing to buy. Drugs are one of the very few things that are outright illegal that large amounts of people want. Any alternative will probably be in much less demand, and just that is going to hurt quite a bit.
A progressive is a progressive no matter which party they are under
And why would you associate restrictions on freedom with progressive ideals?
The D or the R doesn't matter, stop thinking one party is better than the other.
I'm not sure how you came to conclude that I was saying one was better than the other. They both have plenty of problems. I'm just tired of the endless media feeds of how the current president is some sort of evil satanic islamo-fascist abortionist cannibal simply because he doesn't have an R after his name.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Ya I've never liked the argument that because marijuana is natural it must be safe/harmless. No, not really. Plenty of dangerous natural shit out there. Some of the most deadly venoms known are from natural sources. That something is natural has no bearing at all on if it is safe or healthy or anything else.
Now, that said, marijuana is rather safe and non-addictive, and as such ought to be legalized. However the reason to legalize it is because it is safe and we have science showing that, not because it is natural.
An insurance company can't prevent you from being treated for a condition.
Total, unfiltered denial of reality.
If a medical procedure costs $400,000 and I have $400 in my bank account, and my insurance company says "We're not going to cover it." they are essentially PREVENTING me from being treated. If the treatment would save my life, they are effectively a "private death panel".
Okay, first off, I agree with everything you've said here. But why has it become so common these days to call people with different or even incorrect information "liars"? Isn't it enough to just call them wrong and point out why? Why attribute deliberate deception to them without any proof? All that does is foster hostility and blind them to the point you are trying to make.
Here is the problem with your analysis. If I choose not to do drugs my life is still harmed by the war on drugs. It is the war that causes something that should be next to free to cost more than gold. That amount of profit goes to fund armed gangs, corrupt police, fill jails, and plenty of other things that directly affect me. In a free society the person who takes the risks should suffer the consequences of their actions not punish everyone because a few people can't control themselves.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
If a safe form of nicotine ingestion is what you want, there's the patch. I can't think of a safe form of nicotine ingestion that's still going to allow you to "look cool" though.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
No, the reason to legalize marijuana is because free people have a right to put whatever they want into their own bodies.
"I always find it funny that people who risk jail time for a drug claim they haven't got a problem. "No sirree, I am not a drunk. Yes I am drinking industrial alcohol laced with rat poison for flavor sold to me by outragous prices and I could go to jail for it, but really, I got it all under control."
Apparently we haha when someone offs them self doing something stupid like swimming with sharks with a bloody cut, but when someone does something Darwin like drinking poisoned alcohol, bust out the sympathy cards. Stupid is stupid and it's not going to get any smarter by justifying it.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Are the Democratic and Republican parties the same as they were about 100 years ago?
Are the Democrats the party of racists? Look up Dixiecrats. Are the Republicans really the same party as what Lincoln belonged to?
Hell the Republicans aren't the same party as even 30 years ago, I'm pretty sure that Reagan and Goldwater would be thrown out by the current Republicans.
Then again there isn't much difference between parties now and may there hasn't really ever been much difference.
"I always find it funny that people who risk jail time for a drug claim they haven't got a problem.
Laws against doing something don't make something wrong to do, laws can at most reflect a judgement by society that something is wrong to do. The US, like most countries, wouldn't exist if people only did things that are legal. Slavery wasn't the right thing to do before it was illegal. And drinking alcohol wasn't fine to do, then not fine to do, then fine to do depending on the decade you're in.
Maybe the problem isn't that people's alcohol problem compelled them to drink alcohol with rat poison in it, maybe the problem was that people were *secretly* putting rat poison in alcohol in a deliberate effort to kill enough people that the rest would be forced to toe the line.
it is not your free will that is doing that, but a biochemical compulsion.
Who chose to put the chemicals in there? I did. Its my mind and I'll saute it in whatever sauce I want.
if you are a room trying to write a story, and your roommate is blaring music at maximum volume, are you free?
So we should appoint a supervisory board to ensure that only compatible roommate pairings are made? If I want an a*hole for a roommate, that's my right.
Have gnu, will travel.