
The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010) - leksak
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html
======
astrodust
The alcohol used as torpedo propellant was that was often used by sailors to
make "torpedo juice"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_juice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_juice))
so that ended up being tainted as well to render it undrinkable.

That was also a severely misguided effort.

~~~
meddlepal
I'm always kind of amused by the effort people will put into getting drunk
throughout history.

~~~
astrodust
If you're on a boat that's likely to fire torpedoes at the enemy then you're
in one that's likely to be blown to pieces by the enemy at any moment without
warning. In a situation like that I can empathize with people wanting to take
the edge off.

------
greenyoda
Denatured alcohol (e.g., ethanol with added methanol to render it undrinkable)
is still used today for industrial purposes since it's much cheaper than pure
ethanol, which is heavily taxed:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol)

~~~
mamon
And yet some people (mostly homeless and addicts) find a way to drink it
anyway, with such strange methods like filtering through bread crusts.

I totally don't understand why article tries to blame government for all those
deaths when it was clearly mob trying to make money.

~~~
hyperpape
If you take an action and know that there is a direct consequence that will
kill people who have not done anything that could justify death (i.e. almost
anything short of murder), you can't ignore that consequence. The only way to
justify it is to say that for some reason, not acting would be unacceptable.
And that is a high bar to clear, one that is obviously not met by the
prohibition policy.

~~~
vintermann
But it's not a direct consequence, that's the point. It's an indirect one,
completely dependent on other people trying to renature it and drink it -
ignoring warning labels like this one:
[http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/warning-
label...](http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/warning-label-from-a-
pharmacy-bottle-of-denatured-alcohol-news-photo/146438213)

~~~
hyperpape
I should have avoided the word 'direct', because of that potential for
confusion. What I meant is predictable.

~~~
vintermann
But there's a big difference between consequences that are predictable because
of nature (i.e. if I kick this rock it will hurt) and consequences that are
predictable because of people's decisions.

The redistillers' resolve to keep selling even if they couldn't renature their
product and it would be deadly - should that be treated the same as a force of
nature? When should people's decisions be treated as a fact we just have to
adapt to?

In my experience, people mostly want their own decisions, or the decisions of
the people they agree with, to be treated as facts of nature. But the
decisions of people they disagree with, they want to treat as their own free
decisions.

------
taneq
Just like there are regularly reported "MDMA deaths" in the mainstream media
despite MDMA never having been reasonably blamed for any death (beyond crazy
"took 50x recommended dosage" or disingenuous "took something they thought was
MDMA but was actually ketamine" cases).

~~~
marcoperaza
> _despite MDMA never having been reasonably blamed for any death_

You're just plain wrong here. Ecstasy is a dangerous drug that can cause
overheating, dehydration, and other very serious conditions that can and do
result in death. Further, the drug's effects discourage the behaviors, like
eating and drinking water in reasonable quantities, that are essential to
preventing those conditions. With their sense of hunger and thirst totally
haywire, some people try to overcompensate and end up dying from _too much_
water.

And as for the long-term effects of regular MDMA use: persistent brain damage
and loss of cognitive function.

~~~
jeremyjh
>drinking too much water and dying

Citation needed.

~~~
marcoperaza
Definition: _Hyponatremia is a condition that occurs when the level of sodium
in your blood is abnormally low. Sodium is an electrolyte, and it helps
regulate the amount of water that 's in and around your cells._
[http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-
conditions/hyponatremia/b...](http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-
conditions/hyponatremia/basics/definition/con-20031445)

Risk factors: _Certain drugs. Medications that increase your risk of
hyponatremia include thiazide diuretics as well as some antidepressants and
pain medications. In addition, the recreational drug Ecstasy has been linked
to fatal cases of hyponatremia._ [http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-
conditions/hyponatremia/b...](http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-
conditions/hyponatremia/basics/risk-factors/con-20031445)

 _While staying hydrated can reduce the risk of heat stroke associated with
MDMA, the drug can also cause the body to retain water, so drinking too much
can lead to a potentially fatal electrolyte imbalance._
[http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/03/concert-deaths-five-
my...](http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/03/concert-deaths-five-myths-about-
the-drug-molly/)

 _More common, ecstasy has led to serious hyponatremia and hyponatremia-
associated deaths. Hyponatremia in these cases is due to a "perfect storm" of
ecstasy-induced effects on water balance. Ecstasy leads to secretion of
arginine vasopressin as well as polydipsia as a result of its effects on the
serotonergic nervous pathways. Compounding these effects are the ready
availability of fluids and the recommendation to drink copiously at rave
parties where ecstasy is used. The effects of ecstasy on the kidney as well as
therapeutic measures for the treatment of ecstasy-induced hyponatremia are
presented._
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18684895](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18684895)

~~~
ddeck
_> Risk factors: Certain drugs..._

Additional risk factor: Poorly thought out radio contests:

 _" A 28-year-old woman found dead hours after taking part in a radio
station's water-drinking contest died of water intoxication, the coroner's
office said Saturday" [1]_

[1] [http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/14/local/me-
water14](http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/14/local/me-water14)

~~~
marcoperaza
What point are you trying to get at here? Every stupid thing that a drug can
make you do has also been done by someone sober at some point.

------
bambax
> _As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical
> examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was "our
> national experiment in extermination."_

One of their experiments.

------
megous
OTOH, governments sure love alcohol. Consumption and VAT tax adds to 50% on
hard alcohol. There's a lot of profit to be made. Gov makes many times more
than the actual producer.

Denaturation is just a way of pleasing industrial users, while keeping the
exorbiant profits from drinkers. If they could, they would tax the industrial
users too.

It's a blood money because of artificially increased incetives for unsafe
production of alcohol. Which killed and blinded people in the past. Even those
who thought were buying the "good" taxed alcohol because of supply chain
contamination.

Cynical view perhaps. Though when thinking about effective measures the
government decision making is always contaminated by losing their precisous
billions of $.

(non-US)

~~~
hyperpape
The thing is, alcohol taxes are too low. There are huge social costs of
alcohol use and alcoholism, ranging from direct health risks, to drunk driving
and assault. The taxes on alcohol (unlike the taxes on cigarettes) do not even
come close to matching the social costs of alcohol. For references, look at
Mark Kleiman's work.

So no, the taxes are not blood money, though I suspect adding methyl alcohol
to industrial alcohol is indefensible.

Fwiw: I do still drink, typically 1-2 drinks, no more than 1-2 days a week, so
I'm not a particularly heavy drinker (i.e. this would cost me money, but not
as much as it would cost some folks). I also believed this when I drank more
than I do now.

~~~
wyager
The higher you push alcohol taxes, the more people turn to black markets, the
more people get injured by improper distillation.

~~~
hyperpape
Definitely true, but the important point is that's a measurable effect, and
one that can be weighed against the people being harmed by the effects of
alcohol consumption under the status quo. At the moment, there are already
some alcohol taxes, but relatively limited black market consumption. And odds
are that you can push the taxes somewhat higher before black market
consumption starts to negate the benefits.

------
pasbesoin
We need to decrease focus on "the U.S. government" in such history and
reporting.

" _People_ poisoned alcohol during prohibition."

Once you get to that point, you realize that the lessons of history apply all
around you. Basically, people are still people. And what happened before, is
bound -- history demonstrates, very likely to -- happen again.

You learn to view everything with a critical eye.

I guess I can't avoid the meme: "Because people."

OTOH, this also means that the beauty and awe found in history is also to be
found around you, every day. You don't have to leave your time and place to...
"live in interesting times."

So, have a good Sunday (today)! :-)

~~~
mindslight
"Government" is the term we use to describe a type of structure that "people"
form. This type of structure usually ends up doing these sort of things.

"History will repeat itself" isn't very useful unless the aim is to soothe
oneself into giving up hope.

------
SSLy
Who would poison our liquor without government?

~~~
DanBC
Criminal gangs selling bootleg liquor will sometimes sell contaminated
product.

~~~
jeremyjh
Due to incompetence/apathy. They have no motivation to kill their paying
customers.

~~~
dalke
They do have motivation to undercut the competition and make short term
profits. With many middlemen, the bootlegger's customer is rarely an end user.
The end-user doesn't know who on the supply chain has adulterated the alcohol
for a quick buck, and the lack of enforceable trademark protection and brand
loyalty means a distiller will have less oversight on the distribution.

------
azeotropic
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeotropic_distillation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeotropic_distillation)

You can't distill ethanol to 100%, only 95%. To get the last 5% of water out
you typically add benzene or cyclohexane, which remains as a trace contaminant
in the final product.

Also note that methanol (and other unsavory small molecules) normally
contaminate distilled ethanol unless you actively take steps to remove them.
For something you intend to drink, you need to carefully control fermentation
to reduce the amount of methanol, toss out the early distillation fractions to
remove as much methanol as you can, and then let your remaining distillate sit
in an open tank for a couple of weeks to let whatever methanol remains
evaporate off (along with some of your product).

If you're making ethanol as an industrial solvent or fuel, you don't need to
do these things. It's not crazy that under prohibition, taking all those extra
steps would be seen as evidence of an intention to violate the law and make
drinkable spirits.

But whatever, Slate says it was a conspiracy to poison poor people, I'm sure
that's the right explanation.

~~~
loeg
> By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable
> poisons—kerosene and 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.

I don't think any of those are just natural byproducts of making high proof
industrial alcohol. Or do you contest that claim?

~~~
azeotropic
Formaldehyde could happen by accident during the process (it's the aldehyde
form of methanol).

The organic solvents (kerosene, gasoline, benzene, ether, chloraform, carbolic
acid, acetone) would be used to break up the azeotrope during distillation to
100% ethanol. You can't make 100% ethanol without making it poisonous. It's
still poisonous now that prohibition is over.

The rest are primitive bitterants of one form or another to make poisonous
denatured alcohol less palatable-- they're there to save lives by making it so
disgusting that you spit it out instead of swallowing it. We still add
bitterants to denatured alcohol (and to rubbing alcohol, and nail polish, and
spray cans), but they're way more bitter than any of those.

You're just freaking out because the chemicals sound scary. The author goes
out of his way to mention strychnine just to scare you about brucine, but it's
still used as a bitterant.

Look I don't doubt some people callously said people who died or went blind
drinking denatured alcohol or wood alcohol got what they deserved because they
shouldn't have been drinking it anyway. I do doubt that these things were put
in industrial alcohol to kill people. The bitterants are there for the exact
opposite reason.

------
Zigurd
What's shocking to me is the extent to which some people think this is OK.
This is why we will never run out of prison camp guards and executioners.
They're on a continuum with the sort of people who will formulate a product to
conduct mass murder. It's a sanitary mass killing. They're addicts, after all.
I've got qualified immunity as a DEA agent if I'm formulating opioid
painkillers with a drug that will give you liver failure so you have plenty of
time for a slow painful death, denied a transplant due to "drug abuse." It
takes a special kind of ghoul.

------
todd8
Reminds me of the poison baked-bean menace :)

Start here:

[http://www.animationresources.org/pics/fosdickbeans01-bigz.j...](http://www.animationresources.org/pics/fosdickbeans01-bigz.jpg)

Rest of cartoon strips:

[http://animationresources.org/biography-al-
capp-2-a-cappital...](http://animationresources.org/biography-al-
capp-2-a-cappital-offense/)

------
tn13
How many americans die each year because FDA has taken too much of time to
approve drugs ?

~~~
Symmetry
This is the only collection of research on the topic I've seen but if anybody
has evidence for a lower number I'd be happy to see it.

[http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php](http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php)

Specifically:

 _[T]he benefits of FDA regulation relative to that in foreign countries could
reasonably be put at some 5,000 casualties per decade or 10,000 per decade for
worst-case scenarios. In comparison, it has been argued above that the cost of
FDA delay can be estimated at anywhere from 21,000 to 120,000 lives per
decade_

------
tn13
Why is this a surprise ? US government sells child porn to catch child porn
consumers, US government sells prohibited weapons to drug dealers, US
government sells weapons to terrorists.

US government has too much of money that is the problem.

------
known
To protect your liver take a HEPAMERZ pill before consuming alcohol

------
nxc18
Although this had unfortunate consequences, and would be unthinkable in
today's enlightened world, I'm not sure the line of reasoning here was
unreasonable.

The idea that manufacturers would be allowed to produce vast quantities of a
partially illegal substance, without putting in efforts to prevent illegal
use, seems unreasonable.

Imagine the outcry if it turned out Phizer was manufacturing all the heroin.
(They and their friends are manufacturing the heroin addicts, but the doctors
are equally to blame here) It seems reasonable the government would act to
stop it. The understanding of human behavior was not developed enough in the
1920s to really expect a perfectly safe program.

You could argue that the government should have been serving, rather than
fighting the people, but a democracy, even a republican one like the US's is
subject to the whims of an easily frightened electorate.

~~~
marcoperaza
We still do this. Don't drink a bottle of rubbing ethanol (not taxed as
drinking alcohol) or you will get extremely sick:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubbing_alcohol#US_legislation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubbing_alcohol#US_legislation)

~~~
maxerickson
The colloquial usage of 'rubbing alcohol' in the US refers to isopropyl
alcohol and no reasonable person would think to drink it.

Denatured ethanol comes up more at the hardware store.

~~~
marcoperaza
In stock at every Walgreens near me:
[https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/walgreens-ethyl-rubbing-
al...](https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/walgreens-ethyl-rubbing-
alcohol-70-first-aid-antiseptic/ID=prod6056575-product)

And at most CVS's: [http://www.cvs.com/shop/health-medicine/first-
aid/antibiotic...](http://www.cvs.com/shop/health-medicine/first-
aid/antibiotic-antiseptic/cvs-70-ethyl-rubbing-alcohol-prodid-304659#/)

------
tomohawk
Not sure what the answer is, but alcohol is involved in around 88,000 deaths
in the US each year.

[https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-
co...](https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-
consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics)

Despite what the popular press says, Prohibition had some beneficial effects,
and not all of the negative effects attributed to Prohibition actually arose
out of Prohibition.

[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-
prohibiti...](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-
was-a-success.html)

~~~
wellbehaved
Lots of rotten prohibitions would have "beneficial effects." If we prohibit
medical treatment for people over 65, the rate of Alzheimer's will go down. If
we prohibit driving except to and from work, traffic accidents will decrease
dramatically. Etc.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"Lots of rotten prohibitions would have "beneficial effects."

Yep.

Outlaw sex -> fewer STDs (use artificial insemination with tested sperm for
reproductive purposes).

Make everyone wear hockey goalie gear all the time -> fewer concussions and
other injuries.

