Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010)

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 109 posts

Re: The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010)

#31

Post by creshal »

wildmusings wrote: post #19
nxc18 wrote: post #7

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…

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

Also done in various other countries, including the EU.

Re: The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010)

#32

Post by laretluval »

fzzzy wrote: post #26
nxc18 wrote: post #7

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…

The line of thinking is unreasonable. The line of thinking is this: "I don't want somebody doing something I don't like. Therefore, I have the right to kill them."

That's the line of reasoning behind all law (or at least all law that carries the death penalty).

Re: The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010)

#33

Post by schrodinger »

wildmusings wrote: post #27
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm sure it has nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies rewarding doctors for over-prescribing it, and in essence mobilizing them as drug dealers.

It's definitely over-prescribed, especially by "pain clinics" that hand them out like candy. But in contrast, pain clinics handing out vicodin prescriptions like candy would be a much less serious issue because the acetaminophen limits the abuse potential.

It only limits the abuse potential long term—an addict will still abuse the stuff, they'll just ruin their liver in the process.

I could see if it was mixed it with something that made you harmlessly sick in larger quantities. But acetaminophen won't give you the negative consequences until much later when your liver is damaged.

Re: The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010)

#34

Post by MaulingMonkey »

laretluval wrote: post #32
fzzzy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line of thinking is unreasonable. The line of thinking is this: "I don't want somebody doing something I don't like. Therefore, I have the right to kill them."

That's the line of reasoning behind all law (or at least all law that carries the death penalty).

> (or at least all law that carries the death penalty)

So, nearly no law - and in fact no law in countries without the death penalty?

Re: The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010)

#35

Post by toomanybeersies »

greenyoda wrote: post #2

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

Denatured alcohol in New Zealand specifically doesn't contain methanol or any other super toxic substances (except ethanol of course), despite being called methylated spirits.

It still contains bittering agents, vomiting agents, and some other stuff that's nasty but won't kill you (I think some of it is denatured with petroleum as well at like 1%). Drinking it is gonna make you a bit crook, but it won't kill you any more than a bottle of vodka.

I guess the government decided that killing alcoholics isn't the best course of action.

Re: The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010)

#36

Post by sitkack »

jeremyjh wrote: post #21
DanBC wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminal gangs selling bootleg liquor will sometimes sell contaminated product.

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

Let the market decide.

Re: The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010)

#37

Post by taneq »

tpm wrote: post #8
taneq wrote: post #5

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).

That's not really true, MDMA in high doses does have dangerous acute effects which can be deadly (hyponatremia, hyperthermia). See f.e. Martha Fernback, Anna Wood. I mean even if you die from water poisoning or heart attack (at the age of 15), that would not happen if you don't ingest MDMA beforehand.

OK, if you're a 45kg woman and you take six pills in an evening and then drink 10 liters of water, you'll die. If you get crushed in a crowd surge, you might die. Blaming those on MDMA specifically is usually fatuous though, even if it was a precursor. It's like saying that eating McDonalds is implicated in street racing deaths because some people who die in street races do so with McDonalds wrappers in the car.

Re: The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010)

#38

Post by dalke »

jeremyjh wrote: post #21
DanBC wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminal gangs selling bootleg liquor will sometimes sell contaminated product.

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

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.

Re: The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010)

#39

Post by TelmoMenezes »

jeff_petersen wrote: post #28
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm sure it has nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies rewarding doctors for over-prescribing it, and in essence mobilizing them as drug dealers.

It surely does have something to do with that, but the point is that it wouldn't be possible if Oxy weren't well-suited for recreational use.

But the entity deciding to lace certain drugs with another drug designed to harm a class of users, and deciding to not lace certain other drugs, is the same entity that runs the legal Oxy cartel. Surely it's not possible to believe that part of their actions in this regard are motivated by any sort of social concern.

Or am I missing something?

PS: this, of course, not getting into the obvious immorality of lacing a drug to harm addicts. Only a mentally sick society could think otherwise in 2016.

Re: The US government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition (2010)

#40

Post by Turing_Machine »

wellbehaved wrote: post #23
tomohawk wrote: post #16

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... 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...

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.

"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.

Post reply on HN