Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

61–70 of 337 posts

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

#61

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.

This doesn’t make sense. Whether or not you have methanol depends on what you are distilling from. Distillation doesn’t create methanol and many sources of ethanol contain negligible methanol. TBH, your assertion reads like chemistry word salad. It doesn’t parse.

Everyone is talking in circles.

As distillation continues the concentration of methanol drops.

The highest concentration is at the start. This is also generally full of undesirable flavours.

People also forget that ethanol competitively inhibits metabolism of methanol in a way that protects healthy adults from toxicity.

A safe alcoholic drink can have methanol in it, iirc it's about 80:1 ethanol:methanol by EU rules. And generally considered tolerable [0].

What is actually toxic is much higher ratios of methanol than that.

Unless you have severely f'd up your fermentables you shouldn't even have that much methanol in the starter!

This is why everyone is disagreeing with the safety in this thread.

It's also why people wonder why so many tourist destinations have been mixing methanol into alcoholic drinks. They probably could serve drunk people high concentrations relying on ethanol already in their blood and follow up drinks to stop noticeable harm.

Probably most adults could drink 5-10% methanol (if ethanol is about 50%) and never notice the toxicity.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11926610/

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

#62

Distillation of spirits is a necessary requirement for life on the Aramco compound in Saudi Arabia. Outside the compound, the locally-distilled "sid" is on offer. Both varieties have been available for a half-century with no reports of poisoning.

>Distillation of spirits is a necessary requirement for life on the Aramco compound in Saudi Arabia. How so? For medical reasons? For the facilitation of the Saudi Aramco oil production which funds the life and habitation of humans in Dhahran? I suspect something was lost in translation.

Saudi Arabia is a famously dry country in all meanings of the word, there's not much fun to be had as an expat unless you make your own.

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

#65
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 ) :-)

And if you have one of those poisons the antedote is the other one.

Edit: only one way round! This is not medical advice. I am not a doctor. I am not your doctor or drinking doula.

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

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is actually a myth. I’ll have to see if I can find the papers I read but mass spectrometry has shown that methanol comes out throughout the entire process. The idea that things come out at their boiling temperature is a drastic oversimplification. Please do find those papers! They may be describing a radical new chemistry that I'm not familiar with. To be clear - methanol boils at 64C and ethanol boils at 78C.…

From what I understood ethanol and methanol form an azeotrope and boil together at a mixed temperature. And the going blind stuff is just prohibition propaganda both to make home distilled alcohol seem dangerous and to scapegoat the fact that the government was actively poisoning "industrial" ethanol.

> From what I understood ethanol and methanol form an azeotrope

I don't think so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeotrope_tables

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

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And contrary to lore, mass spectrometry shows that the idea that methanol comes off the still first (meaning that if you collected the early results, called heads, and drank them, you might get too much) is false or at least drastically oversimplified. This is wrong. The boiling point of methanol is 65C vs ethanol at 78C. Methanol will come out first from distillation.

Having seperate boiling points wont matter if they form into an azeotrope. Not all liquids can be distilled from one another even though every liquid has a different boiling point.

Ethanol and methanol don't form an azeotrope.

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

#68
post #59

Edit: According to AI, I've got this a bit backwards. The ruling hits the taxing power, not the commerce clause. It's nonetheless interesting, since the machine gun ban may be affected. The court says that you can't use a tax to ban something outright, which is what the post-1986 machine gun ban is: refusing to collect a tax on post-1986 machine guns, effectively banning them. That leaves the commerce clause as the r…

> No EPA, no federal minimum wage, no forced integration, reduced civil rights, only direct interstate commerce being regulated.

States can still do civil rights etc.

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

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Distillation of spirits is a necessary requirement for life on the Aramco compound in Saudi Arabia. How so? For medical reasons? For the facilitation of the Saudi Aramco oil production which funds the life and habitation of humans in Dhahran? I suspect something was lost in translation.

Saudi Arabia is a famously dry country in all meanings of the word, there's not much fun to be had as an expat unless you make your own.

Why do you need to distill your spirits? If you really need alcohol, can't you drink undistilled beverages to have 'fun'?

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

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t make sense. Whether or not you have methanol depends on what you are distilling from. Distillation doesn’t create methanol and many sources of ethanol contain negligible methanol. TBH, your assertion reads like chemistry word salad. It doesn’t parse.

Everyone is talking in circles. As distillation continues the concentration of methanol drops. The highest concentration is at the start. This is also generally full of undesirable flavours. People also forget that ethanol competitively inhibits metabolism of methanol in a way that protects healthy adults from toxicity. A safe alcoholic drink can have methanol in it, iirc it's about 80:1 ethanol:methanol by EU rules.…

Genuine q then. Why don't the destinations serve watered down shots instead? If it is just to save money.
Post reply on HN