Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 337 posts

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#21

Post by fsckboy »

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #9
fzeindl wrote: post #5

In Norway alcohol is very expensive, so many people distill at home illegally. Every travel guide tells you to not accept home-distilled drinks, since they can be poisonous.

Anything that decants below 78.4C is going to have methanol in it, I usually separate out the first 100ml or so that decants after 78.4C to play it safe. I've been doing it for about 20 years, no poisoning cases yet. Home distillation has been legal in NZ since 1996.

>Anything that decants below 78.4C

do you mean distills? decanting is just pouring carefully

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#22

Post by ghastmaster »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #14
ghastmaster wrote: post #7

The article is devoid of any meaningful legal language. It is important to note that this ruling applies only to the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi as the fifth circuit is the court that decided this. That said, when parties bring cases to other federal circuit courts, they may cite this case. Frequently, circuit decisions can impact other district courts decisions.

The court invalidated IRC Sections 5601(a)(6) and 5178(a)(1)(B), finding they go beyond Congress’s taxation powers. The court’s reasoning was that these provisions amount to an “anti revenue provision” that prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence, since under 26 U.S.C. § 5001(b) taxation begins as soon as the spirit exists, so banning production eliminates the taxable event entirely. Here are the offici…

I like the analysis of "necessary" and "proper" sections of this opinion. Hopefully, this ruling gets expanded to other circuits and eventually leads to the US Supreme Court ignoring stare decisis with regard to wickard v filburn and let it be thrown in the dust bin of history.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#23

Post by bsder »

mattmaroon wrote: post #15
smackeyacky wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the modern world they don’t have to be. I’m not sure a bubbling still in every home is a great idea but they won’t be wood fired so that’s a start. You could also test alcohol cheaply these days for the poisonous alcohols. Having said that, fake booze in Thailand has killed and blinded people so it’s not risk free

That’s because they adulterate it with methanol. Methanol can be derived from natural gas cheaply. I wrote a long comment above about why this isn’t a risk with home distilling. The much bigger danger for home distilling is fire, as you have open flames and combustible vapor. The fire codes for a distillery are very strict.

> The much bigger danger for home distilling is fire, as you have open flames and combustible vapor.

This would suggest that using induction heating would be significantly safer and have the possibility of precise temperature control. Is there any reason why home distilling does/does not do this?

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#25

Post by retrac »

d--b wrote: post #3

I always thought the reason was that badly distilled drinks were dangerous.

Home distillation has been legal in New Zealand since 1996. I'm not from NZ, but from what I can tell from afar, it has not caused any significant problems. Stills are legal and can be bought in shops. There are commercially available countertop appliances which can produce half a litre of 80 proof vodka from a few litres of fermented sugar water.

North Americans probably have some cultural hangover from Prohibition about the dangers of small-scale distillation. Methanol in particular is probably overstated as a danger. Methanol poisoning seems to mostly happen from adulteration, often with what is mistakenly thought to be industrial ethanol. It is produced at very low levels by fermentation (less than 0.1%) and so at the home distillation scale there's not enough in one batch to be a significant concern. Fire, however, is a genuine risk.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#26

Post by mattmaroon »

bsder wrote: post #23
mattmaroon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because they adulterate it with methanol. Methanol can be derived from natural gas cheaply. I wrote a long comment above about why this isn’t a risk with home distilling. The much bigger danger for home distilling is fire, as you have open flames and combustible vapor. The fire codes for a distillery are very strict.

> The much bigger danger for home distilling is fire, as you have open flames and combustible vapor. This would suggest that using induction heating would be significantly safer and have the possibility of precise temperature control. Is there any reason why home distilling does/does not do this?

Electric heating does reduce the risk of fire, yes, and some of us do it. (It’s also just a lot easier than a turkey fryer.) I rigged a water heater element up for this purpose.

(Technically there actually isn’t temperature control in distilling, the temperature is just the boiling point of the mixture, which changes over time as the mixture changes from distillation, but you do control the heat input which effects the speed at which you distill. Tangential, but counterintuitive.)

The reason most don’t is just cost/practicality. You really need to have a fair bit of liquid to get good results. Like tenish gallons (~40L). You probably can’t fit a still that big on your stovetop (and you really want to do this outside anyway) and you’d need a 240v connection to provide enough heat. Your standard American wall outlet doesn’t provide enough juice.

But the standard 240v 50a you charge an EV with or, in my case, plug in your RV does. People run drier cords out a window too.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#27

Post by Aurornis »

monero-xmr wrote: post #4

FYI you can also grow psychedelic mushrooms at home in all 50 states legally. The precursors are legal

This is bad information. The precursors being legal doesn’t mean anything about the legality of producing scheduled drugs from them. The precursors for home distilling are also legal.

Possessing schedule I controlled substances is illegal. If you grow the substance, you also possess it. Therefore it’s not legal.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#28

Post by awesomeusername »

mattmaroon wrote: post #13
d--b wrote: post #3

I always thought the reason was that badly distilled drinks were dangerous.

That’s actually a common myth perpetuated by the American government during prohibition. The Feds added methanol to bootlegged hooch to blind people, then they told people they’d go blind from moonshine to discourage it. Distillation doesn’t create alcohols, it only concentrates them. The ratio of ethanol to methanol in a distilled spirit will be approximately the same as in the wash it was distilled from. Drinking b…

Experienced distiller here. This comment is spot on.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#29

Post by frankzander »

fzeindl wrote: post #5

In Norway alcohol is very expensive, so many people distill at home illegally. Every travel guide tells you to not accept home-distilled drinks, since they can be poisonous.

Alcohol is always poisonous (but mixed with methanol quite a bit more poisonous ) :-)

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#30

Post by InvertedRhodium »

fsckboy wrote: post #21
InvertedRhodium wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that decants below 78.4C is going to have methanol in it, I usually separate out the first 100ml or so that decants after 78.4C to play it safe. I've been doing it for about 20 years, no poisoning cases yet. Home distillation has been legal in NZ since 1996.

> Anything that decants below 78.4C do you mean distills? decanting is just pouring carefully

Yeah. No idea why I wrote decant.
Post reply on HN