The Shotgun Blog
« The Courtiers and the Court | Main | Counting the Money Anyway »
Monday, February 22, 2010
Keeping You Safe in 1920s America
Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.
Although mostly forgotten today, the "chemist's war of Prohibition" remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was "our national experiment in extermination." Poisonous alcohol still kills—16 people died just this month after drinking lethal booze in Indonesia, where bootleggers make their own brews to avoid steep taxes—but that's due to unscrupulous businessmen rather than government order.
The author, who discovered this remarkable story while researching a book on early forensic medicine, then goes onto detail US government efforts to spray Mexican marijuana plants, the goal of which was, in part, to deter consumption by adding a mild toxin. Sadly the "chemist's war" took place under the watch of Calvin Coolidge, one of the more pro-freedom President's of the last century. Amazingly this was not done covertly. The New York City medical examiner publicly denounced the poisoning shortly after they began. Sometimes the worst crimes are done openly with, as the article suggests, some popular support. There is no mention of anyone having been charged with what was, in effect, the cold blooded murder of several thousand people.
Posted by Richard Anderson on February 22, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
Nowadays, they simply sprinkle their political speeches with poison. Much more effective, for their purposes.
Posted by: Paul McKeever | 2010-02-22 7:46:40 AM
Was the paraquat scare real or imagined? I remember hearing about it, but that was long after I'd given up the habit.
Posted by: dp | 2010-02-22 8:28:00 AM
PUBLIUS, I expect this to turn into a discussion about legalizing pot. It isn't. It is about the state taking actions that resulted in unintended deaths. The sad part is the action taken to poison the alcahol was probably politically motivated.
Posted by: TM | 2010-02-22 10:12:14 AM
So Charles "Chuck" Norris was the corner of NYC? Cool.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-22 10:24:40 AM
TM, I agree with you. I think it is representative of what invariably happens when government of any political persuasion gets too big with too much control as opposed to a small government held and kept responsible to the people. Power always corrupts.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-22 12:09:58 PM
I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what else the state has done to unsuspecting people. Its why I didn't get the H1N1 shot.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-22 12:19:20 PM
Denaturing commercial alcohol has been standard practice since at least the 19th century. I think the moral of the story here is: Don't buy from crooks. Where is the moral outrage, the condemnation, for the criminals who stole it, sometimes violently, in the first place? Or for the people who made themselves accessories to that violence by bankrolling these operations through buying their illegal wares? 60 million gallons annually is a lot of robberies.
Moreover, "cold-blooded murder" is a tad melodramatic. Are we next to pull down barbed-wire fences as an unconscionable risk to burglars? Regardless of one's views on government regulation of substances malignant or benign, it's hard to deny that, if we're going to have laws, we might as well have countermeasures to discourage violations. If bank were to install infrared-guided lasers for slicing up robbers, would the Slate, or the Western Standard, object to that? Likely not.
P.S. I wouldn't mind seeing a more balanced source for this. The Slate's editorial slant, like the Shotgun's, is rather steep.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-22 2:03:55 PM
I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what else the state has done to unsuspecting people. Its why I didn't get the H1N1 shot.
Fortunately for you, Steve, smallpox and polio, as well as many other common but devastating diseases, had been wiped out by vaccines by the time you appeared on the scene. You have the luxury of questioning the efficacy of something you never really needed. Your forebears didn't.
By the way, private citizens have killed more private citizens in this country than the state ever has. Why no bitterness for that, Steve? Or is the state responsible for that as well, by criminalizing murder?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-22 2:09:04 PM
I suppose Agent Orange would fit into the category of the point of this blog. Both the Canadian and American governments were players in the use of this deadly chemical - perhaps for war-winning intentions at the time. Both are trying to make amends to those, but not all, who suffered.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2010-02-22 2:19:32 PM
In this country you are probably right Shane. Canada has a lot going for it. It doesn't mean it can't be better. There are lots of countries where the same can't be said tho. Actually, I didn't get the H1N1 shot for a host of reasons, the above just being one of them. Our society is responsible for crimes such as murder. But the explanation is to long to go into now. I'm not bitter Shane, I'm sad.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-22 2:30:43 PM
And after giving it some thought, maybe the state in Canada has still killed more than private citizens, if you count war, and I do. Sending our citizens to fight, kill and die in wars that have nothing to do with Canada should count, yes?
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-22 2:40:07 PM
Remember, Steve, I said "in this country." The Canadians who perished in wars overseas were killed by the enemy, not by their own government, and as any student of Canadian history knows, the great majority were volunteers.
As for the H1N1 shot, I did not get it either, for one very specific reason--flu shots seem to give me the flu. On both occasions I've had one, I was sick within the week. At the very least, it didn't help. Unlike flu, polio and smallpox were eradicable because there were only a few strains of them.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-22 3:01:28 PM
By the way, private citizens have killed more private citizens in this country than the state ever has. Why no bitterness for that, Steve? Or is the state responsible for that as well, by criminalizing murder?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-22 2:09:04 PM
That is terrible. I would say there are some key differences here. For one, criminals are breaking the law. The state makes them and kills in the name of the law.
Posted by: TM | 2010-02-22 4:03:44 PM
"The Canadians who perished in wars overseas were killed by the enemy, not by their own government, and as any student of Canadian history knows, the great majority were volunteers."
This statement is certainly debatable. On so many levels.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-22 5:22:14 PM
This statement is certainly debatable. On so many levels.
Only to someone who chooses to ignore recorded history. The fact that you dismiss the statement as debatable without actually debating it does not help your argument. This is emotional rhetoric, not debate.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-22 6:23:03 PM
TM, I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here. The point I’m making is that criminals do not exist solely because someone calls them such. Their criminality is defined by their actions, not by someone else’s words.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-22 6:29:43 PM
Shane you state that criminals are defined by their actions, which is so, but do not forget that what was not a crime yesterday can become one overnight if the state decides. I am not against all laws, but we have far too many making criminals where there are none. I sight the gun registry as just one example, which has also demonstrated how the state can abuse its power. No warrant necessary for a search and seize, including forced home evasions.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-22 6:41:50 PM
Actually, Alain, Section 104 of C-68 states that only a structure other than a dwelling-place can be so entered at will, and then only if the police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to suspect that a) a crime has been committed or is about to be committed, or b) a collection of 10 or more firearms is present. Entering a dwelling-place still requires a warrant or the consent of the occupant.
I agree that some laws are foolish. Anyone who can read numbers will see that the murder rate has gone up even as availability of firearms has plummeted. However, is the person who then breaks the law, thus risking everything on a matter of principle, any less foolish? If someone is being persecuted or deprived of lawfully obtained property or livelihood (in effect being retroactively punished), that’s a good reason to stand firm—you stand to absorb, for no reason, a significant loss either way. However, the stakes are a lot smaller if it’s a case of “I miss getting high.”
Moreover, I have to wonder whether asset forfeiture would even have captured the Western Standard’s attention had the seizures been directed not at drug dealers but, say, at corporate embezzlers and widow-cheating scumbags. Because so much of what is written here is framed in the context of the so-called “drug war” that, sooner or later, everything seems to lead back to that.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-22 7:42:22 PM
Matthews,
I see you haven't changed. Twisting others' words to suit your argument. It should have been clear to anyone (but you apparently) that Steve was not disputing the fact that a huge number of soldiers have been killed at war by soldiers of opposing forces.
As for the state seizing assets - only if there is a legitimate victim that has a claim on those assets and only if those assets are handed to that said victim.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-23 5:40:01 AM
I see you haven't changed either, Charles. It's not your job to fight Steve's battles for him (and I wonder if you would have bothered anyhow, had it been anyone but me).
Where Steve's argument falls down is not over who actually pulled the trigger (as opposed to who ordered it done), but in the fact that most of the Canadian soldiers killed over the years have been volunteers, not draftees, so the state cannot be said to have "killed" them. He just threw that out there without thinking, as a hook to hang his displeasure upon, and doubtless now realizes he's overreached himself—by no means an unusual event.
As for the state seizing the proceeds of crime, the idea is to make crime unprofitable, which is a worthy end unto itself. The fact that all were willing parties to the transactions in question does not make their actions not criminal. And who defines what constitutes a "legitimate" victim? You?
Publius, with his emphasis on due process, is closer to a successful challenge to this practice than either of you two. Yet even his effort is hindered by his choice of bona fide crooks as poster-boy "victims"; i.e., he can't show that an innocent was wrongly deprived of property, only that factually guilty people have had their stuff seized and not returned.
I agree that the practice of seizing assets without a conviction doesn't sit entirely easily. On the other hand, our courts are so dysfunctional that convictions are exorbitantly expensive and time-consuming to obtain even with solid proof, and the actual sentences are the stuff of guffaws.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-23 6:37:42 AM
Because Shane Matthews can't use Google:
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html
http://www.progress.org/fold13.htm
http://www.fear.org/
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/civil_asset_2001.cfm
I'm sure the rest of you can use Google and find plenty more.
But none of these links will matter to Shane. As with 419, only bad people have their rights violated. Nice people are perfectly safe. Even if you ignore the large number of people never charged with a crime who have had their property seized and not returned, or not returned for many years, the potential for abuse inherent in such laws is obvious. Saying the courts are dysfunctional does not entitle the police to dispense with civil liberties.
If the law stipulated that assets were being seized pending a charge, and property returned within say 60 days if charges were never processed, that would be a restraint. If the law stipulated that property could be seized only if charges were pressed, and then returned once the accused was found not guilty or charges dropped, that would be a restraint.
But the issue - which is actually on another post - is that people who are never charged are having their property effectively stolen by the police AND that the police departments benefit from such seizures. Imagine if cops were paid a bonus for every arrest they made, there would certainly be more arrests, but not necessarily of people who were guilty of anything except crossing the patrolman's path. The same perverse incentive exists in Civil Asset Forfeiture, which is itself based on a bizarre legal principle that property can be guilty of a crime. You're innocent but the house you live in is guilty?
Posted by: Publius | 2010-02-23 6:59:44 AM
Because Shane Matthews can't use Google...
I can use it fine, Publius. The difference is I can tell the difference between a believable report from a reputable source and an opinion piece from an activist blog. Here's a tip: If the domain name is, in itself, a political stance or melodramatic sound bite, you're unlikely to be dealing with objective people.
But none of these links will matter to Shane. As with 419, only bad people have their rights violated. Nice people are perfectly safe. Even if you ignore the large number of people never charged with a crime who have had their property seized and not returned, or not returned for many years
"Large"? How large is "large"? And I notice that you do not proclaim their innocence, but instead merely insist that they have "never been charged with a crime," a statement which is itself likely untrue, since most if not all have criminal records, but were simply never charged with a crime in connection with that specific forfeiture. Publius, don't you know by now that weasel words don't work on me?
Saying the courts are dysfunctional does not entitle the police to dispense with civil liberties.
Actually, it is the courts who are "dispensing with civil liberties," not the police; as I understand it, all seizures must be approved by a court, correct? The courts are getting lazy. Perhaps it's time we tarred and feathered a few judges, to improve the work ethic of the others.
If the law stipulated that assets were being seized pending a charge, and property returned within say 60 days if charges were never processed, that would be a restraint.
If the law stipulated that the police could not do anything, ever, that would also be a restraint. The fact that something is a restraint on the state does not, in itself, make it fair, desirable, or in any way justify either its existence or the effect it has. Can you do no better than this "four legs good, two legs bad" nonsense?
But the issue - which is actually on another post - is that people who are never charged are having their property effectively stolen by the police AND that the police departments benefit from such seizures.
Actually, the original article—which never backed up this assertion with examples, by the way—stated that the money goes to the police department OR the prosecutors' office, so depending on where you are or who you believe, it can be the cops, the courts, or neither. My understanding is that in Canada it usually goes into general revenue.
Imagine if cops were paid a bonus for every arrest they made, there would certainly be more arrests, but not necessarily of people who were guilty of anything except crossing the patrolman's path.
[singsong voice] "Can you IMAGINE...?" This isn't an argument; it's sloganeering. If you ever decide to stop blogging, you can always get a job writing jingles.
The same perverse incentive exists in Civil Asset Forfeiture, which is itself based on a bizarre legal principle that property can be guilty of a crime. You're innocent but the house you live in is guilty?
The house isn't guilty; it is merely the proceeds of a crime, and hence not legitimately owned at the moment. Hell, if the house could talk, it would tell us that getting all that hydroponics gear hauled out of its basement and not having to put up with suffocating humidity and ruinous mould would constitute a release, not a punishment.
As I said, if it weren't for asset forfeiture's targeting of drug operators, you likely wouldn't even be bringing it up. You're seeding the whole blogosphere with these little darlings lately, Publius, but only some of them have anything approaching merit or timeliness; the rest are just you complaining about the same things you've complained about before, without bringing anything new to the table. It is quality not quantity that counts, Publius.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-23 8:07:00 AM
"since most if not all have criminal records"
How do you know? If i'd made such an assertion you'd be dismissing it as rhetoric.
"The house isn't guilty;"
Property can be guilty of crimes. It's a weird legal quirk but it does exist. Look it up.
"It is quality not quantity that counts"
Your epithet Shane. And please don't waste my time with the "you have provided no evidence" crap. No matter what evidence is presented, you always dismiss it as biased. All facts are wrong, unless Shane deems them to be correct.
"You're seeding the whole blogosphere with these little darlings lately, Publius"
Not yet. But I'm working on it.
Posted by: Publius | 2010-02-23 9:27:36 AM
How do you know? If i'd made such an assertion you'd be dismissing it as rhetoric.
Who's making assumptions? Your poster boy was nailed for a probation violation before the cops even found the grow op crap. And his last name is "Smelley"; how screamingly ironic is that? I'll never understand the talent some people have for picking the losing horse, never mind their insistence that it's the right thing to do.
Property can be guilty of crimes. It's a weird legal quirk but it does exist. Look it up.
And the punishment meted out to "guilty" property is...giving it to someone who isn't a crook? Maybe you should look up "punishment."
Your epithet Shane.
"Epitaph," not "epithet."
And please don't waste my time with the "you have provided no evidence" crap. No matter what evidence is presented, you always dismiss it as biased. All facts are wrong, unless Shane deems them to be correct.
How would you know? You don't present any. Those four links were all to opinion pieces on Lefty blogs you've bookmarked. Your main article was an opinion piece, too. The very domain names drip with attitude. Once again the losing horse, this time delivered up in force.
Not yet. But I'm working on it.
Ain't that always the way...you seed the world and come a cropper. Let me know when you've scattered enough seed to overgrow the government so I can get out the Agent Orange.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-23 9:43:08 AM
P.S. Charles, Publius: This thread is supposed to be about alcohol denaturing.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-23 9:45:18 AM
"and I wonder if you would have bothered anyhow, had it been anyone but me"
Actually Shane, I only bother for you and "Vegan".
"the idea is to make crime unprofitable, which is a worthy end unto itself."
So let's look at a simplified example of what you're saying there Shane. Imagine a group of 5 people. 4 hate to drink alcohol, while the fifth likes to have a drink every now and then. The 4 others decide to pass a law making it illegal to drink alcohol. Our drinker decides to drink anyway. The other 4 gang up on him, beat him up, throw him in jail, and take his property. We can also use the exact same example for the majority imposing higher taxes on a rich minority. What you're advocating is theft and a clear violation of civil rights. But hey. Who cares about civil rights right Matthews?
"And who defines what constitutes a "legitimate" victim? You?"
They're called natural rights. Look it up.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-23 10:31:43 AM
Some continue to believe that all laws are only there for our good and that the state can do no wrong, while others believe that all laws are bad and the state is always wrong. Life has taught me that neither of these views reflect reality, so I keep a healthy suspicion of the state and oppose the multitude of laws and regulations that are not necessary and do more harm than good.
Big government with unlimited control and power will always spell the death of liberty and freedom.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-23 11:14:00 AM
Actually Shane, I only bother for you and "Vegan".
At least you're up-front about your hypocrisy.
So let's look at a simplified example of what you're saying there Shane. Imagine a group of 5 people...
Entirely too simplified, actually. It overlooks such niceties of the fact that the CONSUMPTION of alcohol was never outlawed, even during Prohibition; the fact that asset seizure is aimed at goods paid for by the sale of contraband, not as a tactic to punish those who buy it for personal use; and the fact that police don't usually beat up people, even crooks, who don't first get violent themselves. My example of the man with the corpse in his truck and blood on his hands, yet daring the cops to prove anything, is a closer approximation of the situation and your response to it than your "little guy" sympathy ploy. From now on, leave the stories and metaphors to me; you suck at both.
What you're advocating is theft and a clear violation of civil rights. But hey. Who cares about civil rights right Matthews?
a) It's theft only if the property was legitimately owned. Proceeds of crime are illegitimate; thus, their confiscation is not theft.
b) Civil rights as defined by whom? Do you even know what that phrase means? Or do you imagine them as some nebulous, beneficent entity that confers unlimited license to do what you want, when you want, and fuck the world, or more specifically the state?
c) I may have offered an explanation for asset seizure's existence, calling it the least of a bad lot, but when did I actually "advocate" for it?
They're called natural rights. Look it up.
I did. The right to get stoned, the right to get drunk, and the right to break the law for financial gain are not among any widely accepted incarnation thereof. Now, hush up; I'm expecting a link to mybodymybong.org from Publius at any moment.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-23 11:36:07 AM
I agree that too much government is bad, Alain, and that we have too much already. But it's more instructive to ask oneself why we have too much law. One reason, as Dickens note nearly two centuries ago, is that it is the nature of the law to make business for itself. Another is that the laws we do have are being poorly enforced by an increasingly iconoclastic cadre of jurists who seem more interesting in ripping up laws than enforcing them, so the government keeps making new ones (without repealing the old ones, of course).
That said, I defy anyone to explain to me how society benefits by allowing criminals to keep their ill-gotten gains.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-23 11:43:45 AM
""The Canadians who perished in wars overseas were killed by the enemy, not by their own government, and as any student of Canadian history knows, the great majority were volunteers."
This statement is certainly debatable. On so many levels. "
Just didn't have time to respond Shane. I'm short on time now as well, so I will try to be brief. Yes, they were killed by the "enemy". I guess the question here is who decided "they" were the enemy? And why? Was Hitler a threat to Canada? Or the USA? There is a little debate about how the US got in that war, and why. It looks to me like it was all about money. Once again, human life comes second to cash. This is just an example, and would take months to debate like this, but hopefully I am making my point.
As to the volunteer angle, there are several reasons for this, and most of them are economical or educational. The "romance of war" taught to our kids since they could pick up a toy gun. How many rich well educated people choose to join the military? Not many, and when they do, they are sent to be officers, for the most part. The majority of our armed forces are, to put it politely, the C and less, students. I have friends who served in Bosnia, and while I love them, they are great people, none of them will ever be a doctor, or any kind of professional. They just don't have the smarts for that kind of thing. Most came from messed up families, or had few other choices economically. Essentially, it was the military or Tim Hortons. I know that is somewhat cynical, and the shoe doesn't fit all, but that's how I see the "volunteer".
Well, I'm sure you will kick that around. I'm off to fix a network. Caio
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-23 2:19:39 PM
"That said, I defy anyone to explain to me how society benefits by allowing criminals to keep their ill-gotten gains."
I'll be back for this one, unless someone else beats me to it.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-23 2:21:51 PM
Shane, I have never suggested that criminals should be allowed to benefit from the proceeds of their crimes. What I object to is this being allowed to happen without proof of conviction.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-23 3:48:38 PM
Yes, they were killed by the "enemy". I guess the question here is who decided "they" were the enemy? And why? Was Hitler a threat to Canada? Or the USA?
Yes, because Hitler declared war on the USA, not vice versa. When a country declares war on you, it tends to become a threat, and Germany proved a formidable foe indeed. Technically Canada could have opted out of the war, as it became nominally independent in 1931, but neither the government nor English Canada would likely have stood for that.
It looks to me like it was all about money. Once again, human life comes second to cash.
Please indicate how either England or Canada stood to benefit financially from the war. Because England especially suffered through two decades of privation and hardship afterward, and lest your history be rusty, they were the winners.
This is just an example, and would take months to debate like this, but hopefully I am making my point.
If your point was that you are beholden to unprovable conspiracy theories and determined to blame, if not George W. Bush, then at least, a Bush for all the evil in the world today, then yes, your point is well made. If your point was other than that, then ooh...don’t look so good.
As to the volunteer angle, there are several reasons for this, and most of them are economical or educational. The "romance of war" taught to our kids since they could pick up a toy gun.
Ah, yes, another conspiracy theory, specifically the theory of the cultural and economic conscript, another sad tale of the little guy getting shafted by the dehumanizing military-industrial complex. You anti-government types seem to have an excuse for everything. Unfortunately, that constitutes proof of nothing.
How many rich well educated people choose to join the military? Not many, and when they do, they are sent to be officers, for the most part.
And what difference does that make? Are you saying it makes sense to put those with less training in charge? The casualty rate among officers was huge, worse than the enlisted men in many cases. These well-bred upperclassmen considered it cowardly to take cover, so they ordered their men to crawl through the mud on their bellies while they walked into the enemy bullets. Cavalrymen, officers for the most part, still believed in the charge, attacking German gun emplacements and machine gun nests armed with sabres, with the result that most of Europe's aristocratic youth were shot from their saddles. Fighter pilots, also officers, carried no parachutes, deeming them unmanly. A knight of the air was expected to go to his doom tipping a salute at his rival. So what difference does it make who becomes an officer, Steve? Funny how the most class-conscious people today are the low classes and not the high.
The majority of our armed forces are, to put it politely, the C and less, students. I have friends who served in Bosnia, and while I love them, they are great people, none of them will ever be a doctor, or any kind of professional. They just don't have the smarts for that kind of thing.
When last I checked, the military had doctors, lawyers, pilots, engineers, and other educated professions. Here we go with the class crap again. Are you saying an officer is not a true soldier? King David, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Clovis, Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, Edward the Longshanks, Sir Francis Drake, Hernán Cortés, Napoleon, Erwin Rommel, Bernard Montgomery, George Patton, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf were not true soldiers?
Most came from messed up families, or had few other choices economically. Essentially, it was the military or Tim Hortons. I know that is somewhat cynical, and the shoe doesn't fit all, but that's how I see the "volunteer".
You base a great deal of your arguments on what you “see,” Steve. Perhaps—especially given your penchant for psychotropic hallucinogens—you should instead begin to base your beliefs on what you can prove. In this entire post, you have not proved a single thing, except your contempt for anyone who makes a living with his hands.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-23 8:13:52 PM
Hows the air up there Shane?
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-25 1:08:24 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.