4 ms·

Your situations are not comparable. It's impossible for a human to tell the difference between methanol and ethanol using our readily available senses. Once the

Your situations are not comparable. It's impossible for a human to tell the difference between methanol and ethanol using our readily available senses. Once the methylated spirit is removed from its container there's nothing to warn someone the alcohol is poison that will probably intoxicate, then kill or blind them. Methylated sprits substantially increase the risk of death for no other advantage than to prevent tax evasion. It's the equivalent of deciding the punishment for tax evasion is to execute one in every hundred tax evaders. Physical barriers on the other hand are both obvious to car drivers, there's no situation where a car driver believes a physical barrier might be safe to drive into, and more importantly, physical barriers are used to protect other road users, not punish people. So you're trading an increased risk of death to prevent bad driving, you're increasing the risk of driver death to reduce deaths caused by bad driving. If drivers regularly strike a barrier that protects a school, it would be completely unreasonable to remove that barrier, and allow drivers to strike children instead.

arpa 5y ago
Even more so, counterfeit drinks contaminated with methanol have killed people who accidentally bought and unknowingly consumed said drinks, even in bars! Becherovka incidents come to mind. so you're not killing tax evaders, but rather random innocents.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> It's the equivalent of deciding the punishment for tax evasion is to execute one in every hundred tax evaders. And no doubt causing permanent blindness in an even higher number of survivors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1771266/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1771266/ > During summertime, the patient had earned his living by fire eating at different Spanish locations. > According to the patient, a sudden episode of hiccough during fire eating caused accidental ingestion of denatured alcohol containing methanol. > Our patient demonstrates that accidental ingestion of even small amounts of denatured alcohol containing methanol can cause irreversible blindness with intracerebral lesions. > As a clear, colourless, volatile liquid with a weak odour, methanol is difficult to differentiate from other forms of alcohols such as ethanol. > Methanol is rapidly absorbed not only after oral ingestion but by inhalation or after cutaneous exposure and becomes oxidised in the liver to formaldehyde and to formic acid, metabolites which are more toxic than methanol itself
- noduerme 5y ago
  This highlights the fact that the average person has no idea how seriously methanol should be taken. I started distilling my own moonshine / hand sanitizer at the beginning of the pandemic, and before that I really hadn't heard the horror stories and had no idea how common accidental poisoning was. Horrifically, the US government actually increased methanol in industrial spirits during an prohibition with what seems to have been clear intent that more people would die as a result[1]. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/8/5975605/alcohol-prohibition-poison https://www.vox.com/2014/8/8/5975605/alcohol-prohibition-poi...
jessriedel 5y ago
> It's impossible for a human to tell the difference... You are arguing that the risk of accidental poisoning by methanol is in fact high. Thats an empirical question, and I explicitly agreed in my comment that if the risk is high then this is not a good method of disincentive. Importantly, your argument is not the one I was rebutting, that poisons are bad disincentives because they are inhumane punishments for tax evasion. But more to your point: methanol poisoning is often used in situations where the potential drinkers are highly informed, e.g., people ordering chemicals out of a catalog. The risk, ultimately, is an empirical question, and you are invited to check how often accidental poisonings of this type happen. > It's the equivalent of deciding the punishment for tax evasion is to execute one in every hundred tax evaders. It's not, both in terms of numbers and in terms of principle. > physical barriers are used to protect other road user... You have misinterpreted my comment. I did not refer to protective barriers. There are plenty of examples where metal posts and concrete barriers are used to stop cars from getting to places where they would be a nuisance but not dangerous (e.g., pay parking lots, dedicated express lanes, and "no thru traffic" barriers).
- avianlyric 5y ago
  > You are arguing that the risk of accidental poisoning by methanol is in fact high. I’m arguing that no level of introduced “deterrent” fatality risk is an acceptable trade off for preventing a crime that itself isn’t punishable by death (and I believe that no crime should be punishable by death). The only situation I would consider deliberately introducing the risk of fatality as a deterrent, is when there’s extremely clear evidence that such a deterrent lowers the overall fatality risk associated with the crime, by reducing harm to victims, or to the perpetrators themselves. > methanol poisoning is often used in situations where the potential drinkers are highly informed, e.g., people ordering chemicals out of a catalog. It’s also used in plenty of situations where potential drinks are completely uninformed. Such as when bought for the purpose of paint thinning, camping stoves, and as a cleaning product. Plenty of situations where a completely uniformed individual may purchase the denatured alcohol, or have easy access to denatured alcohol. > Importantly, your argument is not the one I was rebutting, that poisons are bad disincentives because they are inhumane punishments for tax evasion. I can provide a pretty simple rebuttal to idea that poisons are good disincentive to prevent tax evasion. If you’re not educated on the process of methylating spirits to make alcohol undrinkable, then by the time you’ve drunk enough of it to figure it out, you’re dead. Now in a an extremely pragmatic way, that makes poisons extremely effective at preventing tax evasion. Those educated enough to know better don’t try to evade the tax, those that do die. This all evaders are either discouraged or eliminated. Of course one issue with this is assuming the person consuming the substance is the same person that evaded the tax. There have been plenty of cases of people diluting normal alcohol with methylated spirits to bulk up their stock, in the process making the assumption the dilution is great enough to avoid poisoning people, or that they won’t be around to face the consequences. I think as a society we’ve agreed that this sort of absolutist approach to law and order is pretty barbaric and unbecoming of a more civilised society. > It's the equivalent of deciding the punishment for tax evasion is to execute one in every hundred tax evaders. > It's not, both in terms of numbers and in terms of principle. You’re right. It’s closer to killing a random small proportion of tax evaders, and also killing a random small proportion of anyone who’s had the misfortune of doing business with them. > You have misinterpreted my comment. I did not refer to protective barriers. There are plenty of examples where metal posts and concrete barriers are used to stop cars from getting to places where they would be a nuisance but not dangerous (e.g., pay parking lots, dedicated express lanes, and "no thru traffic" barriers). Again, it’s obvious to anybody what a physical barrier will do to their car, protective or otherwise. It’s pretty hard to conceal a physical barrier in a manner that would cause someone to unknowingly drive into it. Unlike methylated sprits where’s it trivial to conceal its nature.

arpa 5y ago

Even more so, counterfeit drinks contaminated with methanol have killed people who accidentally bought and unknowingly consumed said drinks, even in bars! Becherovka incidents come to mind. so you're not killing tax evaders, but rather random innocents.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> It's the equivalent of deciding the punishment for tax evasion is to execute one in every hundred tax evaders. And no doubt causing permanent blindness in an even higher number of survivors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1771266/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1771266/ > During summertime, the patient had earned his living by fire eating at different Spanish locations. > According to the patient, a sudden episode of hiccough during fire eating caused accidental ingestion of denatured alcohol containing methanol. > Our patient demonstrates that accidental ingestion of even small amounts of denatured alcohol containing methanol can cause irreversible blindness with intracerebral lesions. > As a clear, colourless, volatile liquid with a weak odour, methanol is difficult to differentiate from other forms of alcohols such as ethanol. > Methanol is rapidly absorbed not only after oral ingestion but by inhalation or after cutaneous exposure and becomes oxidised in the liver to formaldehyde and to formic acid, metabolites which are more toxic than methanol itself

noduerme 5y ago
This highlights the fact that the average person has no idea how seriously methanol should be taken. I started distilling my own moonshine / hand sanitizer at the beginning of the pandemic, and before that I really hadn't heard the horror stories and had no idea how common accidental poisoning was. Horrifically, the US government actually increased methanol in industrial spirits during an prohibition with what seems to have been clear intent that more people would die as a result[1]. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/8/5975605/alcohol-prohibition-poison https://www.vox.com/2014/8/8/5975605/alcohol-prohibition-poi...

jessriedel 5y ago

> It's impossible for a human to tell the difference... You are arguing that the risk of accidental poisoning by methanol is in fact high. Thats an empirical question, and I explicitly agreed in my comment that if the risk is high then this is not a good method of disincentive. Importantly, your argument is not the one I was rebutting, that poisons are bad disincentives because they are inhumane punishments for tax evasion. But more to your point: methanol poisoning is often used in situations where the potential drinkers are highly informed, e.g., people ordering chemicals out of a catalog. The risk, ultimately, is an empirical question, and you are invited to check how often accidental poisonings of this type happen. > It's the equivalent of deciding the punishment for tax evasion is to execute one in every hundred tax evaders. It's not, both in terms of numbers and in terms of principle. > physical barriers are used to protect other road user... You have misinterpreted my comment. I did not refer to protective barriers. There are plenty of examples where metal posts and concrete barriers are used to stop cars from getting to places where they would be a nuisance but not dangerous (e.g., pay parking lots, dedicated express lanes, and "no thru traffic" barriers).

avianlyric 5y ago
> You are arguing that the risk of accidental poisoning by methanol is in fact high. I’m arguing that no level of introduced “deterrent” fatality risk is an acceptable trade off for preventing a crime that itself isn’t punishable by death (and I believe that no crime should be punishable by death). The only situation I would consider deliberately introducing the risk of fatality as a deterrent, is when there’s extremely clear evidence that such a deterrent lowers the overall fatality risk associated with the crime, by reducing harm to victims, or to the perpetrators themselves. > methanol poisoning is often used in situations where the potential drinkers are highly informed, e.g., people ordering chemicals out of a catalog. It’s also used in plenty of situations where potential drinks are completely uninformed. Such as when bought for the purpose of paint thinning, camping stoves, and as a cleaning product. Plenty of situations where a completely uniformed individual may purchase the denatured alcohol, or have easy access to denatured alcohol. > Importantly, your argument is not the one I was rebutting, that poisons are bad disincentives because they are inhumane punishments for tax evasion. I can provide a pretty simple rebuttal to idea that poisons are good disincentive to prevent tax evasion. If you’re not educated on the process of methylating spirits to make alcohol undrinkable, then by the time you’ve drunk enough of it to figure it out, you’re dead. Now in a an extremely pragmatic way, that makes poisons extremely effective at preventing tax evasion. Those educated enough to know better don’t try to evade the tax, those that do die. This all evaders are either discouraged or eliminated. Of course one issue with this is assuming the person consuming the substance is the same person that evaded the tax. There have been plenty of cases of people diluting normal alcohol with methylated spirits to bulk up their stock, in the process making the assumption the dilution is great enough to avoid poisoning people, or that they won’t be around to face the consequences. I think as a society we’ve agreed that this sort of absolutist approach to law and order is pretty barbaric and unbecoming of a more civilised society. > It's the equivalent of deciding the punishment for tax evasion is to execute one in every hundred tax evaders. > It's not, both in terms of numbers and in terms of principle. You’re right. It’s closer to killing a random small proportion of tax evaders, and also killing a random small proportion of anyone who’s had the misfortune of doing business with them. > You have misinterpreted my comment. I did not refer to protective barriers. There are plenty of examples where metal posts and concrete barriers are used to stop cars from getting to places where they would be a nuisance but not dangerous (e.g., pay parking lots, dedicated express lanes, and "no thru traffic" barriers). Again, it’s obvious to anybody what a physical barrier will do to their car, protective or otherwise. It’s pretty hard to conceal a physical barrier in a manner that would cause someone to unknowingly drive into it. Unlike methylated sprits where’s it trivial to conceal its nature.