Police in the US - or should it be "policing the US?!"

[PhilF]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Still, dropping charges against a very big fish because the fish was too big to haul in, does not enhance the credibility of enforcement of prohibition. And just think of what it is doing to morale at the DEA. A lot of its agents, I am sure, worked long and hard to build a case against a powerful ally of a major drug cartel. They saw it pay off when charges were brought. Then all their work suddenly got thrown away by the Attorney General. I would be surprised if a significant number of folks at the DEA didn't decide in the near future that they just can't do it any more.

The prosecutors at DOJ who handle drug cases likely aren't too happy with their capo de tutti capi right now, either.

We probably disagree on this, but I describe all of what you wrote as a good thing. Especially when viewed in a big-picture, long-term point of view.

I picture a time when the DEA and the War On People Drugs is a distant, foul memory.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by PhilF

We probably disagree on this, but I describe all of what you wrote as a good thing. Especially when viewed in a big-picture, long-term point of view.

Ulysses Grant said in his first inaugural,

I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.

That hasn't seemed to work out so well WRT the "War on Drugs." After 49 years, its achievement of mass incarceration is in full force.

Perhaps the spectacular public failure of an attempt to execute the law stringently will help effect reform.

I note, however, that it only took 13 years to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment after it went into effect.

[LaurV]

The bigger the fish, less bones and thorns...

Easier to chew...

We like it fried...

[PhilF]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

I note, however, that it only took 13 years to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment after it went into effect.

But it took another 33 years before the last state went "wet" (Mississippi). My home state of Oklahoma didn't go wet until 1959, and even then it was called "liquor by the drink". I remember when I was a kid it was illegal to walk into a bar in Oklahoma and buy a drink, even though it was being done (aka liquor by the wink). Legally, you had to bring your own bottle, and you would be served from that bottle.

To this day, if you buy cold beer in Oklahoma it is required to be the watered-down 3.9% stuff.

And all that is for the "accepted" drug we call alcohol. But when it comes to The War on Drugs, brainwashing and stigmas will likely linger on much longer, like a hemorrhoid.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by PhilF

To this day, if you buy cold beer in Oklahoma it is required to be the watered-down 3.9% stuff.

Knowing people from Oklahoma, keeping them more sober is not a bad thing. It will minimize their Darwin awardees.

[PhilF]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Knowing people from Oklahoma, keeping them more sober is not a bad thing. It will minimize their Darwin awardees.

The problem is that such laws and restrictions do nothing towards keeping people sober.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by PhilF

But it took another 33 years before the last state went "wet" (Mississippi). My home state of Oklahoma didn't go wet until 1959, and even then it was called "liquor by the drink". I remember when I was a kid it was illegal to walk into a bar in Oklahoma and buy a drink, even though it was being done (aka liquor by the wink). Legally, you had to bring your own bottle, and you would be served from that bottle.

To this day, if you buy cold beer in Oklahoma it is required to be the watered-down 3.9% stuff.

And all that is for the "accepted" drug we call alcohol. But when it comes to The War on Drugs, brainwashing and stigmas will likely linger on much longer, like a hemorrhoid.

Individual States are free to pass their own liquor laws. And if a State is "dry," Section 2 of the Twenty-First Amendment which repealed Prohibition nationally, makes rumrunning into that State a Federal offense.

For many years, Colorado did not allow grocery stores to sell "real" beer. You had to go to a liquor store to buy full-strength (usually around 5% ABV) beer. Grocery stores were limited to "three-two beer" AKA "near beer" (3.2% ABV or less).

Some years ago, I heard about citizens of Chicago who became concerned about all the gang activity at nearby bars. After pleas with the bar owners and efforts to use law enforcement failed to mitigate the problems, they resorted to a more drastic remedy: They organized political campaigns that resulted in some precincts voting themselves "dry," forcing all the bars in those precincts to close.

One national liquor prohibition that was in effect until relatively recently was on Absinthe. It was outlawed on the rationale that an essential oil in the principal flavoring, wormwood, rots your brain. Upon further review decades later, the Powers that Be decided that, with Absinthe as with any other alcoholic drink, what rotted the brain was imbibing too much of the stuff over too long a time. (Wormwood, Artimesia absinthium, imparts an extremely bitter, licorice-like flavor. Wormwood has long been touted as an anthelmintic, or destroyer/expeller of intestinal worms, which may account for its name.)

After Absinthe was legalized, I got some that was produced by a small regional distillery. I also got the accoutrements (goblets and special for-the-purpose strainer that looks like a pie server or mason's trowel, from the clearance bin at the liquor store; and sugar cubes and spring water from a grocery store).

There is a bit of a ritual with Absinthe. You put a dose of Absinthe in the goblet, put the strainer on top, put a sugar cube on the strainer, and slowly pour cold water on the sugar cube. The water dissolves the sugar and goes through the strainer, sweetening the drink. The dilution with water causes some of the essential oils to come out of solution, making the liquid opalescent and nearly opaque.

I suppose you could drink Absinthe straight ("neat"), but, at 130 proof, the stuff I had was a bit strong for that. It was also expensive.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

I suppose you could drink Absinthe straight ("neat"), but, at 130 proof, the stuff I had was a bit strong for that. It was also expensive.

Wimp (if you are on my side of the pond) or wuss (on your side).

130 (American) proof is only 65% EtOH. Absinthes up to 85% are readily available throughout Europe. I drink them neat.

I have an amusing alpha-male story about strong liquor. The FlyBase organization was, and is, based in Cambridge (UK), Cambridge (MA) and Bloomington (IN). I left the organization ten years ago but back then we would have an annual meeting in Cambridge (MA) hosted by the Harvard arm. A highlight was always the restaurant dinner.

One year the head honcho at Harvard (Bill Gelbart, RIP) invited along his post-docs. One of them, I forget his name, asked if we would care to join him with a shot of Barcardi 151 which, as the name might suggest but he did not explain, is a 75.5% ABV rum. I pretended to be naive. One of his colleagues, I, and one of mine agreed. He knocked his back in one. So did I. Our colleagues were more cautious. The other Brit took hers more slowly and it lasted her almost a minute. I had been drinking neat Bacardi 151 for over 15 years by that time: when I could get it, that is, as it is very difficult to find in the UK

We gained a great deal of respect and street cred. We also had a second round and agreed not to show off this time. Another of the British women joined in that one once she had learned what the term"Bacardi 151" meant.

Moral: do not meddle in the affair of chemists. They are subtle and know how to re-distill some of the contents of the solvent cupboard to produce a not particularly toxic solution of 98% ethanol and 2% water.

[kladner]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everclear_(alcohol)

Everclear is a brand name of rectified spirit (also known as grain alcohol and neutral spirit) produced by the American company Luxco (formerly known as the David Sherman Corporation). It is made from grain[1] and is bottled at 60%, 75.5%, 94.5% and 95% alcohol by volume (120, 151, 189, and 190 U.S. proof respectively).[2] Due to its market prevalence and high alcohol content, the product has become iconic, with a "notorious reputation" in popular culture.[3][4] Sale of the 190-proof variation is prohibited in some states, which led Luxco to start selling the 189-proof version.[5][6]

According to the manufacturer, Everclear "should be viewed as an unfinished ingredient", not consumed directly in undiluted form, and the company acknowledges that the product "has a rather notorious reputation" due to its high alcohol content.[4] Rather than consuming Everclear directly, the company says it should be diluted by mixing it with water (to make vodka) or other ingredients until the alcohol strength of the drink is "no more dangerous than other spirits or liqueurs on the shelf".[4] For example, ordinary vodka and gin have an alcohol concentration typically around 40% alcohol by volume (80 proof), and liqueurs are typically around 20% alcohol (40 proof).[4]

Everclear is also used as a household "food-grade" cleaning and disinfecting alcohol because its fumes/smell is fairly non-toxic, (as opposed to isopropyl or rubbing alcohol, which is toxic to breathe or drink), Everclear is also used for extracting flavor from other ingredients to make infusions and tinctures because of its neutral flavor profile.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Journalist acquitted in Iowa case seen as attack on press

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — An Iowa jury on Wednesday acquitted a journalist who was pepper-sprayed and arrested by police while covering a protest, in a case that critics have derided as an attack on press freedoms and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury found Des Moines Register reporter Andrea Sahouri and her ex-boyfriend Spenser Robnett not guilty on misdemeanor charges of failure to disperse and interference with official acts.

The Des Moines verdict is an embarrassing outcome for the office of Polk County Attorney John Sarcone, which pursued the charges despite widespread condemnation from advocates for a free press and human rights.

[Dr Sardonicus]

In case you hadn't heard: On Tuesday, March 16, 2021, there were two mass shootings at massage parlors in the Atlanta area which left eight dead, six being Asian women.

Cherokee County Sheriff's Office spokesman Jay Baker, seemingly acting as the suspect's defense counsel, explained that the suspect was "pretty much fed up and kind of at the end of his rope. Yesterday was a really bad day for him and this is what he did."

He also gave the suspect's excuse that he "apparently has an issue, what he considers a sex addiction, and sees these locations ... [as] a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate."

It seems the suspect was living with his parents, but they got sick and tired of him constantly watching online pornography, and had kicked him out of their house. Yeah, that's a bad day.

It also seems that spokesman Baker had previously promoted a T-shirt blaming China for COVID-19. He has been kicked off the case.

Whether the Cherokee County Sheriff's Office will conduct a proper investigation has been called into question. I can't imagine why.