4 ms·

I debated this ~4 years ago on the Penn State University Parliamentary Debate team. During the practice session I tried to use this as an argument against the c

I debated this ~4 years ago on the Penn State University Parliamentary Debate team. During the practice session I tried to use this as an argument against the claimed moral high ground of the prohibitionists. It failed; our coach and the rest of the team we're able to prove to me, with a more careful reading of the article (and checks from other primary source material) that there was never a "Federal Poisoning Program" and that most of the deaths resulted from a lack of communication with those looking to drink while alcohol was illegal. On both of those points: - 1) Only industrial alcohol was legal to produce during prohibition. Industrial alcohol contains methanol, a compound that can cause blindness and death. It takes a good amount of skill and refinement to remove all traces of methanol from alcohol to make it ready for human consumption - a step that the legal distillers had no reason at the time to take (and would have in fact had them closed down for bootlegging) - 2) The Federal Government never added poison (methanol) to alcohol made by bootleggers - had they found the bootleggers, they would have destroyed their stills and jailed them, not poisoned their stock, brought it to market, and sold it. I believe[citation needed] only about 10% of the alcohol produced by the bootleggers was contaminated in any way, and even less caused 'permanent damage' beyond what you would expect from people drinking alcohol. - 3) The order to add methanol to industrial alcohol is historically dubious... All of the citations I can find for it in the searchable web (read: Google) links back to the original Slate article. Supposedly, the article is based on this Article in Nature[1]. From the abstract, it is more likely that the mass of laws and policies that followed the ratification of the 18 amendment included an understanding that industrial alcohol should be exempt but rendered purposely undrinkable - which it already was. I am personally against prohibition, and against the government attempting to mandate morality; but I fear that this article is popular because of its anti-government attitudes - but you could only come to the conclusion that there was ever a "Federal Poisoning Program" if you give perfect foresight agency to every policy the government passes.... [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463299a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463299a...

maxerickson 12y ago
There is a reason that it's called "denatured alcohol". It's because something is added to it to make it unsuitable for consumption. The Volstead Act (establishing prohibition) makes repeated references to "bonded denaturing plants": http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Controversies/Volstead-Act.html http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Controversies/Volstead-Act.h... It also mentions 'Denatured alcohol or denatured rum produced and used as provided by laws and regulations now or hereafter in force.', so I'm sure there is some text somewhere describing the processes. There is often methanol in fermented mash, but if you have a working still, the sophisticated method of getting rid of it is to discard the early fraction of the distillation. It probably isn't a large amount of methanol (but there's probably other assorted things not to drink). Edit: Here's the IRS guidance issued in association with the 1906 law that created "industrial alcohol" by not taxing denatured alcohol: http://books.google.com/books?id=AA7ZAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA23&ots=BWkzvxsMii&dq=1906%20acts%20of%20congress%20alcohol%20denatured&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=1906%20acts%20of%20congress%20alcohol%20denatured&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=AA7ZAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA23&ots=B... This page talks about adding methyl alcohol "in the presence and under the direction of an authorized Government officer": http://books.google.com/books?id=AA7ZAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA23&ots=BWkzvxsMii&dq=1906%20acts%20of%20congress%20alcohol%20denatured&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q=1906%20acts%20of%20congress%20alcohol%20denatured&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=AA7ZAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA23&ots=B... Apparently for use in cars, because it was cheaper than gasoline.
- JasonCEC 12y ago
  Right! Though: Heads and tails recycling of the mash is more complicated than simply 'discarding' the heads to avoid methanol. Bootleggers usually weren't using a fractional still, and thus would have needed precise temperature and timing to even attempt to measure methanol concentrations. Furthermore their supply of grain, being an illegal operation, was (probably) sub-par; any rot or mold on grain to be distilled greatly increases the chances of producing methanol. Again, I think only ~10% of the alcohol by bootleggers was contaminated. Distilling has been around for a long time, but the effects of driving it underground greatly reduced quality and increased the chances of going blind or dying due methanol poisoning.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I think I'm railing against It takes a good amount of skill and refinement to remove all traces of methanol from alcohol to make it ready for human consumption - a step that the legal distillers had no reason at the time to take (and would have in fact had them closed down for bootlegging). The legal distillers (or distributors, whatever) were actively adding significant amounts of methanol, not just avoiding some process for removing it.
    - lotharbot 12y ago
      > "actively adding significant amounts of methanol" That's the claim currently being debated. The parent claims to have researched and been unable to find any legitimate source, and further claims to have uncovered where the misunderstanding came from. If you wish to refute him, you'll need to do better than merely assert your position -- you'll need to provide a legitimate source, with specific quotes and page numbers / paragraph numbers / other citation markings so we can see exactly where the "actively adding" claim comes from.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        Read my initial comment! I edited it some, but that was well before you weighed in here. I already did what you asked for, providing a link to an IRS document from the 1910s or so describing adding methanol in the presence of an authorized government agent.
seanflyon 12y ago
Point 1 is false point 2 is true and point 3 seems to contradict itself. 1) When distilling, it is quite easy to remove methanol as it has a different boiling point. The presence of significant amounts of methanol in the first place is plausible, but not necessary (If you ferment plain sugar, for example you are unlikely to get methanol). 3) "The order to add methanol to industrial alcohol is historically dubious ... industrial alcohol should be exempt but rendered purposely undrinkable" The "mass of laws and policies" to make industrial alcohol purposely undrinkable is the same thing as an order to poison industrial alcohol. They made it undrinkable by poisoning it.
- JasonCEC 12y ago
  Point 1 is not false; I work in Quality Control for artisan distillers - heads and tails recycling is an important part of the production process, and requires both skill and testing to make sure methanol is removed from the spirit. A bootlegger would need 1) a fractional still or 2) precise temperature control and monitoring - they were unlikely to have either. Furthermore, I find it doubtful that an illegal bootlegger would have used pure sugar for their mash - that would have been far more expensive than the purchase of grain. Finally, on point 1, the foresight and knowledge to remove methanol doesn't come in a nice pamphlet with the illegal still - we know that a lot of the alcohol produced by the illegal bootleggers (who the government did not have control over) was contaminated with methanol (And other heavy metals or contaminants). On point 3; Sure... that's almost right... Industrial alcohol not made for human consumption would already contain methanol and other contaminants; the law establishing a minimum level of contaminants to render it undrinkable by humans did theoretically make it more harmful. That does not constitute a "Federal Poisoning Program". - when someone hears those words, they don't think "the government established that already undrinkable industrial alcohol must contain a minimum level of naturally occurring contaminants to stop individuals from consuming it"; they think "the government purposely added poison to alcohol sold to individuals for consumption" - which is not what happened.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    > heads and tails recycling is an important part of the production process, and requires both skill and testing to make sure methanol is removed from the spirit. The tails contain no methanol so we can ignore them for this conversation. If you have a reasonable estimation of the amount of methanol in your mash, then throwing out enough of the head takes neither skill nor testing. Without that knowledge you need either a moderate amount of skill (to determine when methanol is coming out of your still) or the ability to test for methanol, but not both. I have done this myself and spoken with multiple people who have done it. It sounds like you are talking about re-distilling your heads and tails to get every last drop of ethanol out of them. This can be done safely with skill and testing, but is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. You can make a good argument that what they did does not constitute a "Federal Poisoning Program" as they did not intend to poison people. I am not arguing in favor of that term, but I know from personal experience that separating out methanol from ethanol is not particularly difficult. The same criteria that make a still good at separating ethanol from water make it good at separating methanol from ethanol. >Finally, on point 1, the foresight and knowledge to remove methanol doesn't come in a nice pamphlet with the illegal still Correct. If foresight and knowledge to remove methanol was universal, no one would have suffered methanol poisoning. >we know that a lot of the alcohol produced by the illegal bootleggers (who the government did not have control over) was contaminated with methanol We do not know this. It is possible given that are records are not great, but my guess is that this is false given the low quantities of methanol generally produced by yeast and the ease with which it can be removed. Heavy metal and other contamination seems much more likely (though I would expect them to be quite rare as well). As for industrial ethanol including methanol, some of it probably would without a law requiring it, but that would certainly not be universal. Do you believe that without the law requiring contamination that they would not have sold uncontaminated ethanol? >they think "the government purposely added poison to alcohol sold to individuals for consumption" - which is not what happened. The government did not purposely added poison to alcohol intended for consumption. They did however require the addition of poison to alcohol that was later sold for consumption.

maxerickson 12y ago

There is a reason that it's called "denatured alcohol". It's because something is added to it to make it unsuitable for consumption. The Volstead Act (establishing prohibition) makes repeated references to "bonded denaturing plants": http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Controversies/Volstead-Act.html http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Controversies/Volstead-Act.h... It also mentions 'Denatured alcohol or denatured rum produced and used as provided by laws and regulations now or hereafter in force.', so I'm sure there is some text somewhere describing the processes. There is often methanol in fermented mash, but if you have a working still, the sophisticated method of getting rid of it is to discard the early fraction of the distillation. It probably isn't a large amount of methanol (but there's probably other assorted things not to drink). Edit: Here's the IRS guidance issued in association with the 1906 law that created "industrial alcohol" by not taxing denatured alcohol: http://books.google.com/books?id=AA7ZAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA23&ots=BWkzvxsMii&dq=1906%20acts%20of%20congress%20alcohol%20denatured&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=1906%20acts%20of%20congress%20alcohol%20denatured&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=AA7ZAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA23&ots=B... This page talks about adding methyl alcohol "in the presence and under the direction of an authorized Government officer": http://books.google.com/books?id=AA7ZAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA23&ots=BWkzvxsMii&dq=1906%20acts%20of%20congress%20alcohol%20denatured&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q=1906%20acts%20of%20congress%20alcohol%20denatured&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=AA7ZAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA23&ots=B... Apparently for use in cars, because it was cheaper than gasoline.

JasonCEC 12y ago
Right! Though: Heads and tails recycling of the mash is more complicated than simply 'discarding' the heads to avoid methanol. Bootleggers usually weren't using a fractional still, and thus would have needed precise temperature and timing to even attempt to measure methanol concentrations. Furthermore their supply of grain, being an illegal operation, was (probably) sub-par; any rot or mold on grain to be distilled greatly increases the chances of producing methanol. Again, I think only ~10% of the alcohol by bootleggers was contaminated. Distilling has been around for a long time, but the effects of driving it underground greatly reduced quality and increased the chances of going blind or dying due methanol poisoning.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I think I'm railing against It takes a good amount of skill and refinement to remove all traces of methanol from alcohol to make it ready for human consumption - a step that the legal distillers had no reason at the time to take (and would have in fact had them closed down for bootlegging). The legal distillers (or distributors, whatever) were actively adding significant amounts of methanol, not just avoiding some process for removing it.
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    > "actively adding significant amounts of methanol" That's the claim currently being debated. The parent claims to have researched and been unable to find any legitimate source, and further claims to have uncovered where the misunderstanding came from. If you wish to refute him, you'll need to do better than merely assert your position -- you'll need to provide a legitimate source, with specific quotes and page numbers / paragraph numbers / other citation markings so we can see exactly where the "actively adding" claim comes from.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      Read my initial comment! I edited it some, but that was well before you weighed in here. I already did what you asked for, providing a link to an IRS document from the 1910s or so describing adding methanol in the presence of an authorized government agent.

seanflyon 12y ago

Point 1 is false point 2 is true and point 3 seems to contradict itself. 1) When distilling, it is quite easy to remove methanol as it has a different boiling point. The presence of significant amounts of methanol in the first place is plausible, but not necessary (If you ferment plain sugar, for example you are unlikely to get methanol). 3) "The order to add methanol to industrial alcohol is historically dubious ... industrial alcohol should be exempt but rendered purposely undrinkable" The "mass of laws and policies" to make industrial alcohol purposely undrinkable is the same thing as an order to poison industrial alcohol. They made it undrinkable by poisoning it.

JasonCEC 12y ago
Point 1 is not false; I work in Quality Control for artisan distillers - heads and tails recycling is an important part of the production process, and requires both skill and testing to make sure methanol is removed from the spirit. A bootlegger would need 1) a fractional still or 2) precise temperature control and monitoring - they were unlikely to have either. Furthermore, I find it doubtful that an illegal bootlegger would have used pure sugar for their mash - that would have been far more expensive than the purchase of grain. Finally, on point 1, the foresight and knowledge to remove methanol doesn't come in a nice pamphlet with the illegal still - we know that a lot of the alcohol produced by the illegal bootleggers (who the government did not have control over) was contaminated with methanol (And other heavy metals or contaminants). On point 3; Sure... that's almost right... Industrial alcohol not made for human consumption would already contain methanol and other contaminants; the law establishing a minimum level of contaminants to render it undrinkable by humans did theoretically make it more harmful. That does not constitute a "Federal Poisoning Program". - when someone hears those words, they don't think "the government established that already undrinkable industrial alcohol must contain a minimum level of naturally occurring contaminants to stop individuals from consuming it"; they think "the government purposely added poison to alcohol sold to individuals for consumption" - which is not what happened.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  > heads and tails recycling is an important part of the production process, and requires both skill and testing to make sure methanol is removed from the spirit. The tails contain no methanol so we can ignore them for this conversation. If you have a reasonable estimation of the amount of methanol in your mash, then throwing out enough of the head takes neither skill nor testing. Without that knowledge you need either a moderate amount of skill (to determine when methanol is coming out of your still) or the ability to test for methanol, but not both. I have done this myself and spoken with multiple people who have done it. It sounds like you are talking about re-distilling your heads and tails to get every last drop of ethanol out of them. This can be done safely with skill and testing, but is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. You can make a good argument that what they did does not constitute a "Federal Poisoning Program" as they did not intend to poison people. I am not arguing in favor of that term, but I know from personal experience that separating out methanol from ethanol is not particularly difficult. The same criteria that make a still good at separating ethanol from water make it good at separating methanol from ethanol. >Finally, on point 1, the foresight and knowledge to remove methanol doesn't come in a nice pamphlet with the illegal still Correct. If foresight and knowledge to remove methanol was universal, no one would have suffered methanol poisoning. >we know that a lot of the alcohol produced by the illegal bootleggers (who the government did not have control over) was contaminated with methanol We do not know this. It is possible given that are records are not great, but my guess is that this is false given the low quantities of methanol generally produced by yeast and the ease with which it can be removed. Heavy metal and other contamination seems much more likely (though I would expect them to be quite rare as well). As for industrial ethanol including methanol, some of it probably would without a law requiring it, but that would certainly not be universal. Do you believe that without the law requiring contamination that they would not have sold uncontaminated ethanol? >they think "the government purposely added poison to alcohol sold to individuals for consumption" - which is not what happened. The government did not purposely added poison to alcohol intended for consumption. They did however require the addition of poison to alcohol that was later sold for consumption.