5 ms·
Quoting the referenced article, in turn quoting a Slate article: > To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to “renature”
by dagenix 7y ago
Quoting the referenced article, in turn quoting a Slate article:
> To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to “renature” the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly.
They didn't put poison specifically in alcohol for human consumption, but they did put poison into chemicals that they knew would be consumed by humans. At the end of the day, I don't see the difference.
- refurb 7y agoFair point. But that still happens today. They add things like benzene, toluene or diesel to alcohol so it can’t be consumed. It’s similar to over the counter codeine in Canada. The dose is small and combined with a dose of acetaminophen. Seems kind of cruel for addicts to destroy their liver if they take too much.
- dagenix 7y agoI didn't say that it doesn't still happen today. All I'm saying, is that it doesn't make much difference if the government directly poisons alcohol, or, if it poisons chemicals that it knows people are going to drink. At the end of the day, the people that die as a result don't care about the distinction.
- refurb 7y agoWe'll agree to disagree then. I see that as a major distinction.
- rubatuga 7y agoReally isn't that cruel when you look at the solubility of acetaminophen at freezing temperatures.