Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Our government killed 10,000 of its

collegekitchen
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 2:20:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
own people????

WTF why the heck didn't I hear of this sooner?

"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."

SOURCE: http://www.slate.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 2:31:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Almost as funny as FDR paying farmers to destroy their crops to increase the value of crops, all the while people were starving in the Great Depression.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 2:36:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 2:20:12 PM, collegekitchen wrote:

"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."

At 2/22/2010 2:31:56 PM, Nags wrote:
Almost as funny as FDR paying farmers to destroy their crops to increase the value of crops, all the while people were starving in the Great Depression.

This is why everyone should hate idiots and hate unreasonable belief.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 2:42:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 2:36:25 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
This is why everyone should hate idiots and hate unreasonable belief.

Are you saying that the OP and Nags have the unreasonable beliefs, or the governments that did the stuff described are idiots and have unreasonable beliefs? 'Twasn't immediately clear what you meant.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 3:03:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 2:42:23 PM, Volkov wrote:

Are you saying that the OP and Nags have the unreasonable beliefs, or the governments that did the stuff described are idiots and have unreasonable beliefs?

Guvment
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 3:03:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Alcohol is still denatured you know.

Though what's so shocking? Isn't that the whole point of passing laws? A law for the welfare of those it declares criminal is kind of silly.

Granted, there shouldn't be laws against alcohol, but as long as they are there it would be kind of stupid for the people who make them not to do this.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 7:23:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That's especially backwards since the reasons for laws against alcohol is that it's bad for people, but alcohol is never as bad for people as consuming deadly poison that's specifically made to kill you.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 10:44:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 7:23:19 PM, Harlan wrote:
That's especially backwards since the reasons for laws against alcohol is that it's bad for people, but alcohol is never as bad for people as consuming deadly poison that's specifically made to kill you.

What's special about it? Drugs are bad for you, so people stick drug users in cages to get raped and frequently catch AIDS, which is worse.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 10:52:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 3:03:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Alcohol is still denatured you know.

Though what's so shocking? Isn't that the whole point of passing laws? A law for the welfare of those it declares criminal is kind of silly.

Granted, there shouldn't be laws against alcohol, but as long as they are there it would be kind of stupid for the people who make them not to do this.

as long as a law is irrational they should make it even more irrational?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 10:53:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 10:52:22 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/22/2010 3:03:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Alcohol is still denatured you know.

Though what's so shocking? Isn't that the whole point of passing laws? A law for the welfare of those it declares criminal is kind of silly.

Granted, there shouldn't be laws against alcohol, but as long as they are there it would be kind of stupid for the people who make them not to do this.

as long as a law is irrational they should make it even more irrational?
It's not more irrational. It's more consistent. It's also more harmful, but that's because the original premise was harmful. If you rationally follow an evil premise, evil is what you will do. I wasn't saying they should do this, I'm saying it's not shocking and they would be quite laughable if they didn't do it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 10:57:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 10:53:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/22/2010 10:52:22 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/22/2010 3:03:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Alcohol is still denatured you know.

Though what's so shocking? Isn't that the whole point of passing laws? A law for the welfare of those it declares criminal is kind of silly.

Granted, there shouldn't be laws against alcohol, but as long as they are there it would be kind of stupid for the people who make them not to do this.

as long as a law is irrational they should make it even more irrational?
It's not more irrational. It's more consistent. It's also more harmful, but that's because the original premise was harmful. If you rationally follow an evil premise, evil is what you will do. I wasn't saying they should do this, I'm saying it's not shocking and they would be quite laughable if they didn't do it.

the purpose of the law was to protect people from themselves; by causing those same people harm they were actually working against the goal proposed by the law in the first place.

twould be like criminalizing attempted suicide and sentencing those convicted to the death penalty. self defeating.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 11:01:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 10:57:07 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/22/2010 10:53:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/22/2010 10:52:22 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/22/2010 3:03:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Alcohol is still denatured you know.

Though what's so shocking? Isn't that the whole point of passing laws? A law for the welfare of those it declares criminal is kind of silly.

Granted, there shouldn't be laws against alcohol, but as long as they are there it would be kind of stupid for the people who make them not to do this.

as long as a law is irrational they should make it even more irrational?
It's not more irrational. It's more consistent. It's also more harmful, but that's because the original premise was harmful. If you rationally follow an evil premise, evil is what you will do. I wasn't saying they should do this, I'm saying it's not shocking and they would be quite laughable if they didn't do it.

the purpose of the law was to protect people from themselves
Which is a contradiction.

by causing those same people harm they were actually working against the goal proposed by the law in the first place.
No such goal had any meaning, rendering this moot.


twould be like criminalizing attempted suicide and sentencing those convicted to the death penalty. self defeating.
The essence of criminalizing suicide is declaring that someone's life is not their property. The death penalty accomplishes this declaration quite effectively.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 11:08:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
regardless of whether or not there should be laws about it people most decidedly *can* cause themselves physical harm.

simply saying that preventing someone from harming themselves is a contradiction in terms doesn't change the purpose of the law, which is to prevent the physical harm done by alcohol abuse. combating such with an even greater physical harm is also a contradiction in terms, making an irrational law even more irrational.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 11:13:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 11:08:36 PM, belle wrote:
regardless of whether or not there should be laws about it people most decidedly *can* cause themselves physical harm.
Irrelevant, it remains impossible to protect them from it by law, since laws inherently consist of harming people.


simply saying that preventing someone from harming themselves is a contradiction in terms doesn't change the purpose of the law, which is to prevent the physical harm done by alcohol abuse.
Demonstrating something is a contradiction doesn't change whether it's true?
Please point to the nearest square circle.

combating such with an even greater physical harm is also a contradiction in terms, making an irrational law even more irrational.
No, because the alternative is a law that one is not willing to enforce, which is two contradictions instead of just one with a "bigger" harm as one of the premise.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:14:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 11:13:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/22/2010 11:08:36 PM, belle wrote:
regardless of whether or not there should be laws about it people most decidedly *can* cause themselves physical harm.
Irrelevant, it remains impossible to protect them from it by law, since laws inherently consist of harming people.

you're equivocating on harm here. laws may be "harmful" in a theoretical sense but they do not generally cause physical damage to the body.

combating such with an even greater physical harm is also a contradiction in terms, making an irrational law even more irrational.
No, because the alternative is a law that one is not willing to enforce, which is two contradictions instead of just one with a "bigger" harm as one of the premise.

one can enforce the law without resorting to the small subset of actions that goes directly against the stated purpose of the law, through actions such as imprisonment, fines, etc.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 9:52:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 8:14:56 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/22/2010 11:13:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/22/2010 11:08:36 PM, belle wrote:
regardless of whether or not there should be laws about it people most decidedly *can* cause themselves physical harm.
Irrelevant, it remains impossible to protect them from it by law, since laws inherently consist of harming people.

you're equivocating on harm here. laws may be "harmful" in a theoretical sense but they do not generally cause physical damage to the body.
Actually, they generally do when taken to conclusions. The only w to stop them from causing physical damage is to surrender early.

combating such with an even greater physical harm is also a contradiction in terms, making an irrational law even more irrational.
No, because the alternative is a law that one is not willing to enforce, which is two contradictions instead of just one with a "bigger" harm as one of the premise.

one can enforce the law without resorting to the small subset of actions that goes directly against the stated purpose of the law, through actions such as imprisonment, fines, etc.
And if someone refuses to go quietly?

One ends up resorting to physical force, generally harmful.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 11:28:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 9:52:55 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
one can enforce the law without resorting to the small subset of actions that goes directly against the stated purpose of the law, through actions such as imprisonment, fines, etc.
And if someone refuses to go quietly?

One ends up resorting to physical force, generally harmful.

touche.

however, locking someone in chains =/= poisoning.

that the law, intending to prevent physical harm, may lead to physical harm through enforcement is given. that such enforcement leads to such excessive harm is absurd, especially given the utilitarian arguments constituting the law's justification.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 2:40:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 11:28:22 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2010 9:52:55 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
one can enforce the law without resorting to the small subset of actions that goes directly against the stated purpose of the law, through actions such as imprisonment, fines, etc.
And if someone refuses to go quietly?

One ends up resorting to physical force, generally harmful.

touche.

however, locking someone in chains =/= poisoning.

Methyl alcohol is a CNS depressant and a mitochondrial enzyme inhibitor. In other words, it is a chain for the locking up of neurons and enzymes :P.


that the law, intending to prevent physical harm, may lead to physical harm through enforcement is given. that such enforcement leads to such excessive harm is absurd, especially given the utilitarian arguments constituting the law's justification.
In utilitarian terms? Utilitarians would say very few people now drink industrial alcohol, as a result of toxicity being raised from recreational to strong deterrent and probably fatal levels.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 2:48:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 11:28:22 AM, belle wrote:
that the law, intending to prevent physical harm

The purpose of the law is to protect one's person and property from others. The difference is self-induced damage. We should have the right to damage ourselves and our property to the fullest of our wishes. Otherwise, we don't really own ourselves or our property.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 2:52:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 2:48:39 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 2/23/2010 11:28:22 AM, belle wrote:
that the law, intending to prevent physical harm

The purpose of the law is to protect one's person and property from others.
She was speaking of the actual purpose of the specific Prohibition law, not the proper purpose of "law" as an abstraction.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 2:55:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 2:52:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2010 2:48:39 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 2/23/2010 11:28:22 AM, belle wrote:
that the law, intending to prevent physical harm

The purpose of the law is to protect one's person and property from others.
She was speaking of the actual purpose of the specific Prohibition law, not the proper purpose of "law" as an abstraction.

That's what I get for skimming.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 4:03:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 2:40:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2010 11:28:22 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2010 9:52:55 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
one can enforce the law without resorting to the small subset of actions that goes directly against the stated purpose of the law, through actions such as imprisonment, fines, etc.
And if someone refuses to go quietly?

One ends up resorting to physical force, generally harmful.

touche.

however, locking someone in chains =/= poisoning.

Methyl alcohol is a CNS depressant and a mitochondrial enzyme inhibitor. In other words, it is a chain for the locking up of neurons and enzymes :P.

and since i need food to fuel my metabolism i should go drink gasoline right!?

oh wait....


that the law, intending to prevent physical harm, may lead to physical harm through enforcement is given. that such enforcement leads to such excessive harm is absurd, especially given the utilitarian arguments constituting the law's justification.
In utilitarian terms? Utilitarians would say very few people now drink industrial alcohol, as a result of toxicity being raised from recreational to strong deterrent and probably fatal levels.

meaning- more people having no idea what they are doing and attempting to brew their own? meaning more contaminants and more risk of self poisoning? hmmmm
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Sky_ace25
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 7:54:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What?!? Our government put enforcement of the laws over the priority of protecting citizens?!!? Why that never happens! Locations that are shoot-on-site are merely a legend after-all...our police never shoot law breakers after all.
Seriously, Pluto is no longer a planet?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 10:11:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 4:03:08 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2010 2:40:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2010 11:28:22 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2010 9:52:55 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
one can enforce the law without resorting to the small subset of actions that goes directly against the stated purpose of the law, through actions such as imprisonment, fines, etc.
And if someone refuses to go quietly?

One ends up resorting to physical force, generally harmful.

touche.

however, locking someone in chains =/= poisoning.

Methyl alcohol is a CNS depressant and a mitochondrial enzyme inhibitor. In other words, it is a chain for the locking up of neurons and enzymes :P.

and since i need food to fuel my metabolism i should go drink gasoline right!?
That is not at all analogous.



that the law, intending to prevent physical harm, may lead to physical harm through enforcement is given. that such enforcement leads to such excessive harm is absurd, especially given the utilitarian arguments constituting the law's justification.
In utilitarian terms? Utilitarians would say very few people now drink industrial alcohol, as a result of toxicity being raised from recreational to strong deterrent and probably fatal levels.

meaning- more people having no idea what they are doing and attempting to brew their own? meaning more contaminants and more risk of self poisoning? hmmmm
Um, no in fact. I'm pretty sure today poisoning from contaminants in alcohol is down.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 11:50:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 10:11:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

That is not at all analogous.

if you're going to use chain metaphorically i am going to use fuel metaphorically.

Um, no in fact. I'm pretty sure today poisoning from contaminants in alcohol is down.

does "today" extend back to the prohibition?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 11:57:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 11:50:44 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/24/2010 10:11:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

That is not at all analogous.

if you're going to use chain metaphorically i am going to use fuel metaphorically.
Gasoline doesn't WORK as a fuel for humans. It doesn't promote motion. The metaphor is invalid.
Methyl alcohol, by contrast, does inhibit human motion.


Um, no in fact. I'm pretty sure today poisoning from contaminants in alcohol is down.

does "today" extend back to the prohibition?
No, but the point here was to measure the effects of methylating industrial alcohol, not prohibition as such. Besides, deterrence is a long run policy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:02:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 11:57:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/24/2010 11:50:44 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/24/2010 10:11:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

That is not at all analogous.

if you're going to use chain metaphorically i am going to use fuel metaphorically.
Gasoline doesn't WORK as a fuel for humans. It doesn't promote motion. The metaphor is invalid.
Methyl alcohol, by contrast, does inhibit human motion.

never said it did. i was trying to point out that you use "chain" in 2 very different senses of the word and calling them equal was bs


Um, no in fact. I'm pretty sure today poisoning from contaminants in alcohol is down.

does "today" extend back to the prohibition?
No, but the point here was to measure the effects of methylating industrial alcohol, not prohibition as such. Besides, deterrence is a long run policy.

no, the point was to examine the utilitarian basis for poisoning your own citizens
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:24:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 12:02:08 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/24/2010 11:57:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Methyl alcohol, by contrast, does inhibit human motion.

never said it did. i was trying to point out that you use "chain" in 2 very different senses of the word
No, I don't. Motion inhibitor and motion inhibitor.

No, but the point here was to measure the effects of methylating industrial alcohol, not prohibition as such. Besides, deterrence is a long run policy.

no, the point was to examine the utilitarian basis for poisoning your own citizens

"utilatirian basis for poisoning your own citizens" = "effects of methylating industrial alcohol" as measured by good*number assuming a constant capacity for good.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:49:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 12:24:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/25/2010 12:02:08 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/24/2010 11:57:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Methyl alcohol, by contrast, does inhibit human motion.

never said it did. i was trying to point out that you use "chain" in 2 very different senses of the word
No, I don't. Motion inhibitor and motion inhibitor.


and gasoline and food both fuel things. doesn't make them the same thing


No, but the point here was to measure the effects of methylating industrial alcohol, not prohibition as such. Besides, deterrence is a long run policy.

no, the point was to examine the utilitarian basis for poisoning your own citizens

"utilatirian basis for poisoning your own citizens" = "effects of methylating industrial alcohol" as measured by good*number assuming a constant capacity for good.

infinitely into the future?

given that the knowledge of safer home-brewing techniques was completely unknown to those who wrote the law, thats kind of irrelevant.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:57:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 12:49:22 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/25/2010 12:24:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/25/2010 12:02:08 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/24/2010 11:57:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Methyl alcohol, by contrast, does inhibit human motion.

never said it did. i was trying to point out that you use "chain" in 2 very different senses of the word
No, I don't. Motion inhibitor and motion inhibitor.


and gasoline and food both fuel things. doesn't make them the same thing
No, gasoline fails to fuel the relevant context-- human. If it did fuel human, they would not be "the same thing" per se, but neither would they be in two different senses of the word, the word would simply be expressing incomplete info.



No, but the point here was to measure the effects of methylating industrial alcohol, not prohibition as such. Besides, deterrence is a long run policy.

no, the point was to examine the utilitarian basis for poisoning your own citizens

"utilatirian basis for poisoning your own citizens" = "effects of methylating industrial alcohol" as measured by good*number assuming a constant capacity for good.

infinitely into the future?

given that the knowledge of safer home-brewing techniques was completely unknown to those who wrote the law, thats kind of irrelevant.
Home-brewing techniques had nothing to do with it, deterrence did :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.