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.'"

21 of 630 comments (clear)

  1. Gov't for the people, by the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nice how much hate exists among our democracy. (Ok, Representative democracy)

    1. Re:Gov't for the people, by the people by xaxa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only some religionists. Others drink alcohol in their ceremonies (e.g. Anglican Christians, and plenty of pagans, druids etc)

    2. Re:Gov't for the people, by the people by sqldr · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a recovering alcoholic, they needn't have bothered. Alcohol/ethanol, after being processed by the liver into ethene at much expense of your vitamin B suppplies amongst other things acts as an inhibitory neurotransmitter to the brain, ie. it shuts down certain brain functions by binding to receptors normally associated with dopamine. It also blocks the production of seratonine, which does the opposite.

      After years of abuse, through the natural process of brain cells naturally dying and being re-cultivated, you start to overproduce excitatory emitters and underproduce inhibitory emitters. Eventually, your brain goes mental, and after going cold-turkey you feel like you want to crawl up into a ball and hide somewhere dark and quiet. In worse cases, alcohol withdrawal can kill you.

      Brain cells last a long time. I spent 6 months with a neurological illness after 10 years of abuse.

      All I can say is that the smell of the stuff now makes me feel physically sick. Poisoning it to harm people who never had a problem is just going to make even more people ill.

      Then again, neuroscience wasn't really the world's strong point in the 20s.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    3. Re:Gov't for the people, by the people by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't forget, they tried to poison pot, too.

      It was during the Nixon Administration, if I remember correctly. And sadly, there was never a US president who could have used a few bong hits more than him.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Gov't for the people, by the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's the exact opposite of what the priest told me back when I was in the boy choir.

  2. Eventually, Chuck Norris put a stop to it by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    From TFA:

    "The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol," New York City medical examiner Charles Norris said at a hastily organized press conference. "[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible."

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  3. Ah yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Very much like the US still poisons its opiates by adding acetaminophen to them to ensure that they cannot be taken in very high doses? Ah, the war on drugs!

    1. Re:Ah yes... by insufflate10mg · · Score: 5, Informative

      The acetaminophen is added for extra pain relief - and it does help. 15mg Oxycodone w/ NO-APAP, 30mg, 40mg, 60mg, and 80mg oxycodone-only pills are more popular than the ones with APAP (Tylenol/Acetaminophen). Sure, lower-strength Percocet and Vicodin have acetaminophen in them, but it is not to prevent abuse. Put a whole bottle of Percocet/Vicodin in a cold gallon of water, refrigerate it for several hours, filter out the result, throw away what the filter catches, allow the remaining liquid to evaporate slowly. After the liquid evaporates off of a pan, there will be crystallized particles. Scrape it up, cut out doses, and snort it -- it will be approximately 85-90% the total amount of opiates in the original pills. The acetaminophen you imply is used for malicious purposes will be laying on a coffee filter in the trash.

      The acetaminophen is not to poison a hard abuser; in fact, most doctors would prefer to prescribe the opiate-only preparations due to the toxicity of APAP at high dosages.

    2. Re:Ah yes... by RobVB · · Score: 5, Interesting

      they came to us through purely natural process.

      Other things that are natural: snake poison, cancer, meteorites. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's healthy. I have no strong opinion about whether or not marijuana should be legal, but the "it's completely natural" argument doesn't work for me.

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    3. Re:Ah yes... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. Denaturing Alcohol is standard practice... by Saono · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Denaturing alcohol is a common practice even today to prevent tax dodging, perhaps the best mass-scale denaturing occurring today is in Ethanol plants.

  5. More Atrocities: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment by reporter · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The deliberate decision by civil servants and politicians to poison alcohol is just another example in which self-righteous people choose to play god. Another horrible atrocity sponsored and conducted by Washington is the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment (TSE). Doctors paid by Washington injected syphilis into unsuspecting indigent Americans and studied the progress of the disease. When the experiment began, there was no cure for syphilis. However, after a cure -- i. e., penicillin -- was discovered, the doctors refrained from offering the cure to the subjects of the experiment. Washington wanted to see what happened to the human body when syphilis is allowed to run its course, ultimately killing the victim.

    If you are reading my words with disbelief, I suggest that you visit the Web link that I have provided. The TSE was real and was an atrocity committed by the American government against its own citizens.

    President Bill Clinton ultimately apologized to the victims and their families.

  6. Re:Feds still going on by Gizzmonic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  7. Re:More Atrocities: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let's keep it going:

    Eugenics Board of North Carolina

    Emp. added via bold on the interesting parts:

    The Eugenics Board of North Carolina (EBNC) was an agency of the U.S. state of North Carolina created in 1933 after the state legislature authorized the practice of eugenics by state officials four years earlier.

    In 1971, an act of the legislature transferred the EBNC to the newly created Department of Human Resources (DHR), and the secretary of that department was given managerial and executive authority over the board. Under a 1973 law, the Eugenics Board was transformed into the Eugenics Commission. Members of the commission were appointed by the governor and included the director of the Division of Social and Rehabilitative Services of the DHR, the director of Health Services, the chief medical officer of a state institution for the feeble-minded or insane, the chief medical officer of the DHR in the area of mental health services, and the state attorney general. In 1974 the legislature transferred to the judicial system the responsibility for any sterilization proceedings against persons suffering from mental illness or mental retardation.

    The Eugenics Commission was formally abolished by the legislature in 1977.

    The board sterilized about 7,600 people, many of them against their will, between 1929 and 1974, in an attempt to remove mental illness and "social misbehaviour" from the gene pool. Among the victims were 2000 young people, some as young as ten years old.

    Gotta love the government.

  8. Re:So what? by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

    The bottles were marked poison before the government started doing this, because the industrial alcohol IS poison, even before the government started meddling.

    To avoid the excise tax on liquors, industrial alcohol has to have methanol added to it.

    The mathonal makes it even more toxic than ordinary ethanol, and unsuitable for drinking. But is required for it to be tax exempt.

    Anyways, the issue is during the prohbition, some people were already drinking that unsuitable stuff. They were desperate, they were (probably) addicted, they took what they could get. So a lot of people were drinking this (a bit) industrial alcohol containing some [probably small] quantity of poisonous methanol.

    So then the government' comes up with this "solution" is to make the stuff more deadly.... swiftly and quietly...brilliant!

    Just because they didn't keep it a secret doesn't mean everyone automatically knew about it.

    Or even that they had a good alternative.

  9. not that different today by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The situation today is not that different. For example, deaths in the US and Mexico arising from heroin generally fall into two classes: (1) deaths because importing and selling heroin often involves violent criminal gangs, and (2) deaths because illegal heroin is impure. Both categories of deaths are purely government-inflicted, in the sense that the US government could end them tomorrow if it chose to legalize heroin.

    Category #1 is pretty obvious: no more drug-related shootings if the stuff is being grown, imported, refined, packaged, and sold legally.

    Category #2 is less well known to most people. When opiates were legal, people would generally just smoke opium. It had some bad health effects (e.g., constipation), but nothing all that deadly. People weren't overdosing from it. If you smoked too much, you fell asleep. Opium was legal in the US until around the turn of the 20th century. During most of the 20th century in the US, people were using extremely impure heroin. The impurities had two effects. One was that if it was maybe 10% heroin and 90% other ingredients, you couldn't get high from smoking or snorting it, so you had to inject it. AIDS transmission through shared needles wouldn't exist if heroin wasn't so impure that it had to be injected. The other was that the impurities themselves (often really nasty, random stuff like Ajax cleanser) could have devastating health effects. When you see a heroin addict who's lost all his teeth, it's because of the impurities, not the drug itself.

    More recently, people have started to use black tar heroin imported from Mexico. Here is a series of articles about black tar heroin from the LA Times. This stuff is much cheaper than traditional heroin, so you don't get as many property crimes because druggies are stealing to support their habits. However, the black crud tends to cause collapsed veins and other problems. Also, a lot of people are overdosing because the black tar is stronger than they're used to. If heroin were legal, people would be able to look at the packaging and get accurate information about its strength.

    Let's legalize heroin in the US tomorrow. Mexico could pull back from being on the verge of becoming a failed state. People in the US would stop dying. Violent and nonviolent crime would be reduced. The prison population would be greatly reduced. The US has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world, due almost entirely to the failed war on drugs. Keeping all those people in jail is extremely expensive. E.g., California spends more on prisons than on higher education.

    1. Re:not that different today by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  10. Re:Listen you Dolts by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, we don't "poison" antifreeze with ethylene glycol. Ethylene glycol is used because it makes a good antifreeze.

    Unadulterated ethanol would be perfectly usable for most industrial purposes. But the government mandates the addition of other toxic substances which serve no purpose other than making the ethanol unusable as an intoxicant. That is the key difference here.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  11. The gov't didn't INJECT them with syphilis... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Informative

    They studied men who already HAD the disease, and allowed it to progress untreated to see what would happen.

    Still completely unethical, and one of the more atrocious chapters in US medical history. But claiming that the patients were intentionally infected with syphilis by gov't docs is simply wrong, and gives ammunition to those who would deny that the whole thing ever happened.

    OTOH, the government did intentionally inject people (including mentally retarded children) with radioactive isotopes to see what the effects of nuclear fallout would be.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  12. Re:More Atrocities: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experime by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Insurance is voluntary. Government is not. by Stiletto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".