Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: the ban
The Fée Verte Absinthe Forum - The Oldest, Largest, Most Authoritative Absinthe Forum. > Absinthe & Absinthiana > Absinthe History
Pages: 1, 2
delirium
So I was curious to find out when the ban was lifted in different countries, and noticed wikipedia saying:

Most countries (except Switzerland) presently do not possess a legal definition of absinthe (unlike Scotch whisky or cognac). As such, producers are free to label a product 'absinthe' or 'absinth', whether or not it bears any resemblance to the traditional spirit.

So excepting at least Switzerland, they didn't simply ban absinthe, because there was no official definition of it, am I right? How was the ban defined? By regulating the allowed tujone content of the drink or what?

(I'd still like to know about the end of the ban in more detail.)
Artemis
In the United States, the Food and Drug Act of June 30th, 1906, forbid the importation of consumable products either banned in the country of origin or considered to be harmful to health. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, on July 25th, 1912, in Food Inspection Decision 147, decreed that absinthe met both of these criteria and therefore could not be imported into nor sold within the U.S in interstate commerce. As to the end of the ban in the U.S.:
http://www.oxygenee.com/USDA-Absinthe-Policy-1912.pdf

Text in red added in July 25th edit.
Père Ubu
Except for the CH, could someone just about piss in a bottle and label it 'absinthe"?

Sure seems to be the case with some brands anyway.
L'Assommoir


You can find a lot of info about the ban right here on the front.

http://www.oxygenee.com/absinthe/prohibition1.html
Artemis
I took the question to be about how absinthe came to be banned in the absence of a legal definition of absinthe, the liquor. I'm not sure such definitions existed in the U.S. at the time (and a definition for absinthe in particular still doesn't), but in any case, no such definition was needed to ban it in the U.S. back then. It was banned as:
1. A consumable product which had been banned in its country of origin
2. A consumable product considered to be harmful to human health
It's the same sort of ban that can be implemented in the U.S. by the FDA today.

That "front" page at the absinthe museum is about the ban in France, which came after the bans in Switzerland and the U.S. The technicalities and legal fine points of both the ban and the lifting of the ban no doubt varied from one nation to the next, thus there is no short and easy answer to delirium's question. But in general, I'd say that when it came to banning, it was pretty well understood by all concerned in all countries back then that absinthe was an alcoholic extract of wormwood.
Bruno Rygseck
Switzerland had a legal definition of absinthe and substitute drinks before lifting the ban. See this thread. Funny thing is the ingredients list in the book mentioning 'thuyone' among herbs…
delirium
Thank you for the information. I'm looking for the years when the ban was removed in different countries.

QUOTE("wikipedia")
In 2000, La Fée Absinthe became the first commercial absinthe distilled and bottled in France since the 1914 ban.


QUOTE("wikipedia")
In May 2011 the French Absinthe Ban of 1915 was repealed following petitions by the Fédération Française des Spiritueux, who represent French distillers.


Does this mean that absinthe was first exported from France in 2000, and later sold in France in 2011, or what?

QUOTE("wikipedia")
In Switzerland, the constitutional ban on absinthe was repealed in 2000 during an overhaul of the national constitution, although the prohibition was simultaneously rewritten into ordinary law instead. That law was later repealed such that as of March 1, 2005, absinthe was made again legal in its country of origin.


And in 2005 in Switzerland?

QUOTE("wikipedia")
In December 2007, St. George Absinthe Verte, produced by St. George Spirits of Alameda, California, became the first brand of American-made absinthe produced in the United States since the ban.


2007 in USA?
delirium
You are not aware of these details?
Artemis
I'm not. That Wikipedia page was largely the work of a long-time member here (I've forgotten his name - was it Ari?). It's more than likely accurate.
Jack Batemaster
Ari était assez bête.
Artemis
Il était un des nôs.
Tibro
Didn't he get tight and do knife tricks?
Jack Batemaster
Et assez bête.
Tibro
I do believe The Lard™ was impressed.

Musta ben gud nahledge.
Jack Batemaster
Comment on dit «noroM™» en français ?
Tibro
Can I guess? Is it "Ari" in real French? And, uh, maybe "le Lard" in that Beliquian French?

I seem to recall he had blue hair, which seemed a little odd to me, considering his Goth/emo leanings. But the knives made it unnerstandable.
Jaded Prole
As long as he didn't have orange hair, a cape and an assault rifle.
Jack Batemaster
.«La Grosse»
Jack Batemaster
QUOTE(le prolétariat blasés @ Jul 24 2012, 12:02 PM) *

Tant qu'il n'a pas eu les cheveux orange, une cape et un fusil d'assaut.


IPB Image
Tibro
Did he suffer mental illness? Can we tell by the color of his hair? By his preferred choice of weapons?

Unfortunately, only by the body count.

Although I'm sure Ari wasn't clever enough to weasel grant money from the government for a doctorate.
Tibro
Does anybody really believe that assault weapons and 1000's of rounds of ammo are everybody's unquestionable right?
Artemis
"Assault weapon" is a term that was invented by politicians in an attempt to ban rifles that sort of look like assault rifles, but don't function the same way. If you're comfortable with such a process, here's a donut for you.
cdog-plain.gif
Tibro
Sorry, I'm not a "weapons" guy (as you realize). Please, define for me what is an "assault rifle"? My son asked me, I waffled (not being a "weapons" guy). I'd rather have your recommended search results than trust my own judgment on this one. Or better yet, your own personal definition.
Artemis
Assault rifles are capable of automatic fire, like a machinegun, but unlike a machinegun, they don't fire on automatic all the time. They have selector switches that allow the rifleman to go from single shot fire, to bursts of three rounds or so, to full automatic, which would empty the magazine with a single squeeze of the trigger. It's a way of delivering some of the firepower of a machinegun, which is typically a heavy, not easily portable, crew-served and/or vehicle-mounted weapon, into the hands of all the riflemen in a rifle squad. M-16 is an assault rifle. AR-15 is not, but it looks like an M-16 to the casual observer. Assault rifles were already illegal in the U.S. when the "assault weapon" ban (later repealed) was enacted. If words mean what they say, than an ax is an assault weapon, but Congress people aren't known for meaning what they say, much less saying what they mean.
Tibro
Thank you. In words I can understand and convey. Much appreciated.

Is the AR-15 reasonably classified as a hunting rifle?

In your opinion, are assault rifles something that all resident US citizens of some quantifiable degree of mental health should be entitled to own? I mean, under the right to bear arms clause.
Père Ubu
Assault rifle was dumbass Hitler's lame attempt to rename what the German Army had correctly labeled a Machine Carabine. Namely the MK-43
A carabine is a weapon shaped like a rifle, but whose size is less. A size somewhere in between the short ranged pistol (P), and the long ranged rifle (G). Machine (M) is used to designate automatic firing (full auto as the commie media calls it).
The German Army realized most eastern front fighing happened to at most 700m, and that there was no need for the uber powerful and cumbersome Mauser rifle. Also in urban combat, being able to select auto sure was handy, so they designed a carbine using a medium sized cartridge, detachable magazines, and be able to select between automatic fire, and semi-automatic fire (1 round per trigger pull). Hitler promptly banned it, because he was a dumb douchebag. The Army kept making them under the table because they were sorely needed. When Hitler realized this, and realizing there were popular, renamed them Assault Rifles so machine carabines could still be illegal, but assult rifles were not. (StuG-44). The StuG-44 was the same weapon, but with a new cool and socialist friendly name.
Tibro
Seems to me that a weapon designed for these purposes isn't terribly reliant on accuracy. Hell, in war, it's more effective to wound your enemy than to kill him. Takes more man-power away caring for the wounded than for the dead.

Isn't a hunter, someone shooting game for provisions, better served by a weapon designed for accuracy?

Or are we talking self-defense? With legal access to 1000 rounds at a go.
Artemis
QUOTE
Is the AR-15 reasonably classified as a hunting rifle?

I don't hunt, but if I did, I can't think of anything I'd want to hunt with it. The bullet is only .22 caliber (actually, slightly bigger at .223), but with a whole lot more gunpowder in the cartridge than a .22 has. For small game (rabbit), it's overkill, and for large game (deer), the bullet isn't heavy enough to ensure a knockdown and clean kill. But some people do like to shoot at non-living targets with them.
QUOTE
In your opinion, are assault rifles something that all resident US citizens of some quantifiable degree of mental health should be entitled to own? I mean, under the right to bear arms clause.

All full auto firearms have been illegal in the U.S. since the Prohibition era or so, in the absence of a special license that has to be obtained from the Feds, even though technically this is contrary to the Second Amendment, but the majority of the people have been able to live with that.

Père Ubu
AR-15 is great for coyote. For what it is it is quite accurate, far more than the automata kalashnikova.

2A is not about hunting, but about protecting the 1A. the nutball was just a nutball. As a phyicist, he would have known bombs cause far more carnage, but I guess the sick bastard wanted to personaly kill a 6 year old. A handfull of gun owners in that theater could have ameliorated the bloodbath, but it is hard to second guess.
Artemis
QUOTE
Seems to me that a weapon designed for these purposes isn't terribly reliant on accuracy.

Depends upon the weapon, I'm sure. M-16 is pretty damned accurate up to about 460 meters (and the reason for that is, that's about as far as the average rifleman can see to make a shot with the naked eye). When I qualified with the M-16 in the military, I put the whole magazine (20 rounds) into a space the size of your clenched fist, even though I hadn't fired one before.
Range instructor said "NRA, huh?"
At the time, I barely knew what the NRA was, but I said "yes sir" anyway.

Tibro
So, technically, you think private citizens ought to have the right to own stinger missiles or other ground to air missiles, under the second amendment? I mean, they are "arms", right?
Artemis
I think there was little to no standing army at the time of the Founding Fathers, so disarming the people was equivalent to a poorly-equipped military. Today we have a standing military and a government-armed militia, and it's up to them to protect me from threats that warrant the use of missiles in defense.
Tibro
But you're not going to count on them to protect you against "small arms" threats?

As long as you allow the government the heavy stuff without giving the citizenry the right to equal fire-power then a basic argument for the right to bear arms is being eroded. No?
Père Ubu
Nope. When seconds count, the nanny state is minutes away.
Tibro
Oh, yeah, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria.

They all won with their righteousness and their small arms.

Never mind the big shadows.
Artemis
QUOTE
But you're not going to count on them to protect you against "small arms" threats?

Depends upon the threat. An invasion, yes. A random thug, obviously not. But I don't need a missile for him.
QUOTE
As long as you allow the government the heavy stuff without giving the citizenry the right to equal fire-power then a basic argument for the right to bear arms is being eroded. No?

Yes. All such rights started eroding before the ink on the Bill of Rights was dry. It was inevitable. But that doesn't mean it has to continue until the citizenry has nothing but sticks and rocks, which is how it would be if the gun control crowd had their way.
QUOTE
Oh, yeah, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria.
They all won with their righteousness and their small arms.

You forgot George Washington and his ragtag crew.
Tibro
I didn't forget George. Just seems that there aren't any dominant armies still using muzzle-loaders. Times have changed. And the shadows have grown.

As far taking care of thugs, some nations do it admirably with a rubber bullet constabulary. Imagine that.

Imagine…
Jack Batemaster
QUOTE(Père Ubu @ Jul 24 2012, 02:50 PM) *

Nope. When seconds count, the nanny state is minutes away.

Au Canada ?
Artemis
I've got nothing against rubber bullets.
"Nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot" - Dirty Harry.
This is instructive:
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/2185...ould-be-robbers
Now what if old Sam had been in the theater that night? Maybe he gets killed before he can draw. Maybe he shoots Granny in the dark. But maybe, just maybe, he nails the freak before anybody else gets shot, or at least, fewer than the number who were shot. Increase the number of Sams in the theater, and we greatly tip the scales against the freak. Hell, if he knows that going in, he's not likely to even go in. But if all the law-abiding patrons are restrained from being armed? Then it's a foregone conclusion.
Tibro
I don't want to take anybody's gun away. Certainly not if I'm going to walk the urban streets of Amerika late at night with my friends. I'd be reassured I have friends in Amerika that I can walk the streets with that have carry permits.

What bothers me is why Amerika is plagued with more gun violence than any other culture on the planet. Not talking about lunatics going on shooting sprees. That's been seen in a number of surprising places around the world. I'm talking about the inordinate amount of gun violence that takes place daily in Amerika.

Thugs? Doesn't every country, every culture, have thugs? Hooliganism, racism - that's universal. Sorry fucking statement about humans.

But you know what, there's something going on in Amerika that leads to more violent deaths by firearms than anywhere else in the world. That's a problem. Not the guns, per se. The culture that's behind so many people being killed by guns.
Artemis
No argument there.
It's about mental health, for lack of better words.
We have to take a realistic look at what we are and strive to be what we ought to be.
Prohibition never accomplished anything but the creation of more criminals.
I read something about that freak's mother suspecting her son was behind it as soon as she heard about the massacre. Something not right with that.
On the true crime shows you see the murdered son's mother talking about what a nice smile he had, and how he had three nice children (no marriage to go with it, more often than not). And he was going to community college (while he wasn't ripping off a drug dealer and getting himself killed in the process).
People know when they're not right.
Time to deal with it instead of sweeping it under the rug and diverting themselves by watching Batman and hoping the next election will make things better.
Jack Batemaster
Déménageons à la Belgique.
eric
QUOTE(Artemis @ Jul 24 2012, 05:27 PM) *
I've got nothing against rubber bullets.
"Nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot" - Dirty Harry.
This is instructive:
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/2185…ould-be-robbers
Now what if old Sam had been in the theater that night? Maybe he gets killed before he can draw. Maybe he shoots Granny in the dark. But maybe, just maybe, he nails the freak before anybody else gets shot, or at least, fewer than the number who were shot. Increase the number of Sams in the theater, and we greatly tip the scales against the freak. Hell, if he knows that going in, he's not likely to even go in. But if all the law-abiding patrons are restrained from being armed? Then it's a foregone conclusion.


I am not a "Pro-Gun" type of guy but I do approve of the way the old man turned the tables on those robbers.The guy did show some real courage there in that instance.
While you correctly pointed out that "It's about mental health, for lack of better words.", I am not so sure that having more guns is any kind of a reasonable solution to our society's mental health issues. We already have more than 300.000.000 privately owned firearms in this country, yet we also have extremely high violent crime statistics as well.
sbmac
One of the reasons for a great deal of our problems is that many of our citizens feel like they have no voice,
and that they simply don't matter. The less powerful we feel, the more vulnerable we feel. We see our
ass-clown leaders breaking the fucking law and getting away with it…there has to be a trickle-down. Don't even get me started on accountability…it seems to be a fading memory. Speaking of memory, we are defining
"short-term" memory as a society. How quickly we forget…as long as we can buy Pepsi, Cap'n Crunch and lotto tickets, other peoples' pain fades fast from our lives. I wish I knew what to do about it, other than just trying to do my best every day, setting good examples for my kids, and hoping everyone else does too.

More respect for the human condition is the only answer, and if our leaders lack this, we're in deep shit. They talk about caring, but clearly don't. This whole country used to be a free speech zone, and now that term is defined by a cyclone-fence cage 1/2 mile away from the event people want to protest. I'm too stupid to know any answers outside of my personal world (where my stupidity works just fine), and I'm at a point where I can't really believe anything I see or read. I guess they got us where they want us, and perhaps that's what's really the problem. Of course people will go nuts. They feel lost and out of control… some can handle it, others twist and morph. The next step for them is to show us that, just like the guy in CO did.

Artemis
QUOTE
We already have more than 300.000.000 privately owned firearms in this country, yet we also have extremely high violent crime statistics as well.

Most of those guns are at home in the closet when the shit hits the fan.
Provenance
QUOTE(Artemis @ Jul 24 2012, 12:26 PM) *
Assault rifles were already illegal in the U.S. when the "assault weapon" ban (later repealed) was enacted.

A clarification. The repeal was passed as part of the legislation. Subtitle A of TITLE XI of Public Law 103-322 contained an automatic sunset provision. Technically, you're right, the provisions were "later" repealed but not as the result of subsequent legislation. Sec. 110105 states,
QUOTE
This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle—
(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act; and
(2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years
after that date.
Tibro
QUOTE
I am not so sure that having more guns is any kind of a reasonable solution to our society's mental health issues. We already have more than 300.000.000 privately owned firearms in this country, yet we also have extremely high violent crime statistics as well.

Until the collective, cultural mental health deficit is addressed shouldn't we be erring on the side of caution? How about reinstituting the draft to insure everyone old enough to carry a firearm has the proper respect for its use and destructive capability? Not a proposal likely to help anyone gain or retain an elected office. On the other hand, I don't think there's a better source for training in handling firearms.
Tibro
QUOTE
One of the reasons for a great deal of our problems is that many of our citizens feel like they have no voice, and that they simply don't matter. The less powerful we feel, the more vulnerable we feel. We see our ass-clown leaders breaking the fucking law and getting away with it…

Oh please, Amerika doesn't have a monopoly on political corruption and lack of accountability. In fact, some countries grant their politicians immunity from prosecution as a basic right of office. But it doesn't lead to the levels of gun violence that Amerika suffers from. What the fuck is that about?

QUOTE
More respect for the human condition is the only answer…

Amerikans are exponentially less respectful of human life than people in other countries?
Tibro
QUOTE
We have to take a realistic look at what we are and strive to be what we ought to be.

Yup, sounds about right.

People balk when they're told they "have to" do something though. Even more so when mandated by law, because, as you said, that just creates more criminals.

And, of course, there's always the problem of determining whose perspective on the problem constitutes the most "realistic" look at it.

I like to think having these discussions in some way constitutes a manner of striving. And I'm not much of a "talk therapy" proponent. Particularly the way media usually does it.

Something's gotta change though, dontcha think?
sbmac
QUOTE(Tibro @ Jul 25 2012, 01:40 AM) *

QUOTE
One of the reasons for a great deal of our problems is that many of our citizens feel like they have no voice, and that they simply don't matter. The less powerful we feel, the more vulnerable we feel. We see our ass-clown leaders breaking the fucking law and getting away with it…

Oh please, Amerika doesn't have a monopoly on political corruption and lack of accountability. In fact, some countries grant their politicians immunity from prosecution as a basic right of office. But it doesn't lead to the levels of gun violence that Amerika suffers from. What the fuck is that about?

QUOTE
More respect for the human condition is the only answer…

Amerikans are exponentially less respectful of human life than people in other countries?


Agreed on both counts. I was only speaking of what it's like here, not implying that we are exclusive in these areas. We don't have the insane human rights violations of many countries for certain, but the effect of being held back and powerless, no matter what country you live in, takes its toll. I wish gun laws were stricter, and that training would be required (we need a license to drive a car, and have to pass a test). A couple years ago the stat was that one had a 48% chance of shooting the wrong person, or having an accident, with 1 gun in your home. That's pretty fucked up. Also, this guy in CO was able to legally skirt reporting the 4 guns in 2 months that he bought legally. He also bought his ammo online. Something's just wrong there.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.