By Christopher McCollum

It is apparently old news that the United States government poisoned alcohol during prohibition in a bid to stop drinking altogether, but I had not heard of it until reading an article on Slate a couple days ago.

During the 1920’s, at the height of prohibition and the underground world of Speakeasies, some 60 million gallons of industrial alcohol were being stolen each year and re-distilled back into drinkable alcohol. The government had a problem with this, and president Coolidge’s administration decided that drastic measures must be taken to preserve the sanctity of American life. Obviously, the logical decision was to poison industrial alcohol, so that whenever anyone imbibed in it, they would get incredibly sick and possibly die. Some 10,000 people died from these efforts, and possibly many more. Newspapers in Chicago decried the act, calling it barbarous, while the Omaha Bee in Nebraska defended it.

Despite critics vehemently arguing against this tactic, from politicians to medical experts, the government persisted in tainting alcohol supplies until the end of prohibition. Socially speaking, it seemed that the upper class imbibers were not being affected nearly as much by the poison–which included kerosene, gasoline, camphor, formaldehyde, methyl alcohol,  carbolic acid and who knows how many others–because they could afford more expensive, smuggled liquor. The primary victim of this insane plot were the poor and lower middle class who were the famous consumers of bathtub gin.

New York City medical examiners knew something was wrong during the Christmas season of 1926, when some 60 violently ill people were admitted to hospitals, of which 23 died. The explanation was chalked up not to alcohol poisoning as they were very accustomed to seeing, but to just plain poisoning. The source was a mystery until word began getting out that it was actually a government mandated operation to solve the drinking problem; During the years of prohibition it is estimated that alcoholism rose by 300%.

The obvious moral question (with an obvious answer, I feel), focuses around the government’s knowledge that this drinking was going on: Knowing that people are using industrial alcohol to consume, is it okay to poison that supply and essentially engage in mass murder in order to stop it?

While it may have been illegal to produce and transport alcohol, it was not illegal to consume it, as many people erroneously believe. Even if it was illegal to consume, does that justify a death sentence?

This was an egregious violation of civil rights and human rights, and I can only hope that sentiments such as these have ceased to exist in this advanced society that we live in.

Here’s hoping, and my drink tonight will be in honor of those victims of an unwarranted, deadly prohibition crackdown.

By Micah Hanks

Recently, I had a chance to catch up with my good friend Lesley Groetsch, owner of one of the nicest new bars to hit Asheville North Carolina in recent years: The Asheville Sazerac.

As stated at their website, much of the location’s inspiration is drawn from old New Orleans, though the Sazerac “is a uniquely Asheville restaurant and cocktail lounge.” Asheville may be “Beer City East,” but there is no doubt still quite a cocktail culture here as well; The Asheville Sazerac helps affirm this in the minds of Southern cocktailians everywhere.

“Classic and contemporary cocktails, a full menu of sumptuous small plates, lounge seating and rooftop dining have all made Sazerac an instant favorite. Whether you are a seasoned local or a sophisticated tourist, put Sazerac on your must-visit list today.” Indeed, to draw so well from the spicy flavors and culture of the Big Easy, The Asheville Sazerac speaks to the heart of its hometown. In future posts here at the site, we’ll be sure and get more information from Lesley about her fine new venture she and her husband, Jack, have brought to the table. In the meantime, if you’re planning on visiting Asheville soon (or better yet, you’re already a local), you can learn more about the Sazerac by following the link below:

The Asheville Sazerac

A new study conducted by researchers at the University of California-Davis has discovered that naturally occurring silicon found in malted barley and hops has bone strengthening qualities that can prevent the bone disease osteoporosis. The researchers have found that pale-colored beers, especially IPA’s, have the highest concentration of silicon due to the ingredients used and the brewing process.

While India Pale Ales have the highest concentration of silicon at an average of 41.2 milligrams per liter, wheat beers have the second lowest concentration at 18.9 mg/L, just above light beers at 17.2 mg/L.

This study adds to the list of things that beer is good for in the health of adults, lining up with blood pressure and heart disease. Although there do indeed appear to be notable benefits to drinking beer, it has to be stressed more than ever that the benefits only outweigh the negatives when consumed in moderation. Experts have not back down from their stance that one to two beverages a day should be the maximum consumption, however unrealistic  that may sound to the drinking crowd.  Just remember, as with most indulgences, too much is not a good thing.

So with osteoporosis, high blood pressure, and heart disease being  combated by different types of beer, one has to wonder what the ultimate healthy beer would taste like. Taking a pale ale and a stout, then mixing them together into one concoction certainly doesn’t sound very appealing, but maybe a surprise is in order. Many stouts, of course, do contain some very fine roasted hops, but in order to get the bone strengthening silicon, it needs to be a pale ale, preferably an IPA.

What would this drink be called? A Pale Black? Has it been done before? I challenge you, dear readers, to give me your ideas for the ultimate health-conscious beer.

Until then, in the immortal words of the Most Interesting Man in the World, stay thirsty my friends.

Cheers!

The law is the law: persons under the age of 21 in the United States are legally bound from purchasing or consuming alcohol. Nonetheless, there is the philosophy that advocates how some parents, under direct supervision and at their own discretion, may choose to serve small quantities of wine, beer, or other beverage to their children. Under ideal circumstances, there could certainly be benefits to this practice; for instance, it helps demystify the “taboos” associated with alcohol consumption, something that has been suggested as a way to prevent young adults from breaking the law and illegally obtaining alcohol so they can experiment on their own terms. Given this situation, it is arguable that responsible parents giving their children limited, controlled access to an alcoholic beverage might be educational, whereas seeking it out and using alcohol on their own may lead to excessive recreational use, as well as a tendency to try and hide such activity from their loved ones.

The argument remains, and the way it is interpreted by individuals in various cultures around the world differs no less than it does here in the states. Recently, an Australian Liberal “backbencher” named Luke Simpkins has proposed that fines be placed on those who provide children with alcohol; even if it takes place in the home under strict parental supervision (note that the Liberal Party of Australia is actually considered “right of center,” and is associated with what would be labeled conservative politics in the United States and England). According to an article featured in the Australian Chronicle, Simpkins says that, “Given it is illegal for pubs and clubs to supply alcohol to persons under 18, that should be extended to all parents.”

(more…)