Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The US needs to ban alcohol sales [View all]Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)116. The extent at which Prohibitionists were willing to impose their moral crusade --
The Chemist's War
The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences.
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.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html
The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences.
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.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html
Considering the eliminationist rhetoric that arises from many on DU who would ban guns there's no reason to believe another such atrocity wouldn't be perpetrated upon the American people.
It is not comparable to guns because guns are intended for one purpose: to KILL.
Is killing food to feed the family a bad thing? Is killing or threatening to kill violent criminals a bad thing? What about target shooting sports?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
170 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
True but we have common sense laws to keep Alcohol out of the hands of those.... .
CajunBlazer
Oct 2015
#129
It's on their blood-stained 90's-era faxed sheet of NRA "talking points" they're still working with
villager
Oct 2015
#12
Why not? Besides, if you gun fanciers were so "reponsible," as you claim, you'd voluntarily take
Hoyt
Oct 2015
#49
Not really, a gun or two at home is fine with me. Your 4 gun safes full of guns and ammo
Hoyt
Oct 2015
#50
I know, if that alone isn't enough to suggest that most of them are unbalanced.
smirkymonkey
Oct 2015
#68
And now that I think about it, I think that would be excellent for guns too: no marketing.
bemildred
Oct 2015
#25
More people are killed by unarmed assailants than one's armed with SS/semi rifles.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#92
That's why, in addition to sports, they're used for hunting and self-defense.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#120
For thousands of years the world was ruled by the physically superior.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#135
The problem isn't peaceable people but that's all grabbers fixate upon.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#145
Is it the deaths, period, regardless of method or does only the method matter?
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#158
You don't get to say, "I'd give that up so everyone else has to as well." That's not how
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#165
I hope you realize that what I meant is that is how it is perceived by too many, including
uppityperson
Oct 2015
#106
Fair 'nuff. As I noted in my post, the latter part of your post was spot on.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#115
It's only news to the willfully ignorant and no one has yet to show how the analogy fails.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#114
Alcohol is already more regulated than firearms. Equalizing the two would be fine with me.
nomorenomore08
Oct 2015
#57
In other words it's an apt analogy and so is the futility of gun prohibition as a solution.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#113
How many times has someone killed 10+people by simply bring a bottle of wine into a room w/ them?
LostOne4Ever
Oct 2015
#127
You can't kill people by simply bringing a gun into a room. It requires an act of will.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#134
You think you can abrogate rights of the innocent based on the motives of bad actors?
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#159
Once the legal banning of legal intoxicant starts, governmental banning becomes structural.
ancianita
Oct 2015
#78
Prohibition led to organized crime and lots and lots of deaths due to poisoning.
alarimer
Oct 2015
#84
The extent at which Prohibitionists were willing to impose their moral crusade --
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#116
Because we want booze so we will accept deaths related to it, but we don't want guns so we won'
Township75
Oct 2015
#133
We tried that. It led to a serious gun problem. Then congress banned automatic weapons.
Algernon Moncrieff
Oct 2015
#168