5 ms·
You linked to a book that's over 50 pages and contains hundreds of laws. Provide specific quotes and page numbers, please. The one quote you seem to be basing
by lotharbot 12y ago
You linked to a book that's over 50 pages and contains hundreds of laws. Provide specific quotes and page numbers, please.
The one quote you seem to be basing your argument on basically said that already-produced beverage-grade alcohol could be sold if it was mixed with something else to make it undrinkable. That doesn't imply (as you seem to think it does) that newly-made alcohol was being mixed with methanol, only that previously-distilled alcohol could be reused instead of destroyed.
And that definitely doesn't imply that the government was intentionally poisoning bootleg alcohol.
- maxerickson 12y agoThe first paragraph of my last link is wildly specific, referencing a law about denatured alcohol passed in 1906. I read it as talking about freshly distilled alcohol having stuff added to it, with a specific mention of methyl alcohol. Maybe explain how you don't see that there. I responded to the obvious confusion in the initial post about what "industrial alcohol" is. I'm not trying to establish that the government ramped up the poisons during prohibition (although I wouldn't be surprised if people involved with the denaturing were intentionally using nasty shit with no official government program backing it).
- lotharbot 12y agoAhh, I now understand the specifics of your claim. It appears you are correct that (prior to prohibition) one could produce alcohol and then intentionally add non-drinkable substances that matched its industrial use and therefore not be taxed for producing drinkable alcohol. And, as you say, this doesn't establish anything specific to prohibition, such as an intentional ramping up of poisons. Which means the initial claim of the article still appears to be completely unsupported.