Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
"Should alcohol cause cancer?"
How – and more importantly WHY – would you want to make it do that?
Maybe the question should have been "Does alcohol cause cancer?" I am in my late 60's and I am an alcoholic and I have never been diagnosed with any form of cancer. So if it does, it failed in my case.
"Should"?
Do we mean like, "should the government put chemicals in it to make it poisonous like they did during prohibition (and still do to some types of alcohol)? (in which case the answer is no)
Otherwise, I have no idea what this question is asking. Re-phrase it.
What poisons? And which "types" of alcohol?
All grain alcohol not branded for consumption in the US is denatured with wood alcohol or benzene, which has the effect of rendering it poisonous to anyone who might drink it, and has been since before even you were born. The reason is (and was) to avoid alcohol excise taxes on industrial uses. In the 20s, the government was adding kerosene and a lot more methyl alcohol to this sort of stuff than they do now. That killed a lot of people.
This was also far more extensive a problem in the 1920s and early 30s when people could not as easily acquire regular drinking alcohol, which was "illegal", but could still easily acquire (or steal) alcohol for legitimate non-recreational purposes (usually for use in industrial manufacture of paint or solvent, etc), and then often used it for those recreational purposes, after re-distilling it to make it roughly drinkable. There's a reason we have lots of mixed drink cocktails today. And it's largely because people were then drinking actual poison, not just semi-poisonous regular alcoholic drinks.
People today (alcoholics especially) will occasionally end up hospitalised from drinking such things as rubbing alcohol, varnishes, etc. Since the question is poorly written and non-specific about "types of alcohol", and just says "alcohol", and the government used to poison as much of it as it could (pretty much any of the non-medicinal/non-sacramental legal domestic alcohol production during the 1920s), it's not that hard to draw a ridiculous conclusion that the question is asking if the government should return to poisoning alcohol more generally as opposed to its current methods.
There was a story about it last year. http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/ But virtually any text on the history of Prohibition will include this as an actual thing the government undertook.