Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

71–80 of 337 posts

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

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you suggest additional drinking methanol when you're "normally" drunk?? that's dangerously counterfactual.

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

#72
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I visited Norway and was blown away by the price of alcohol. Given that the sun only comes out for a fraction of an hour in winter I struggled to believe it. At a local bar... (I think I was in trondheim?) I asked how they afforded booze? (it worked out to 15$ USD per pint), "We don't, but we do it anyways"

Why is it so expensive? High vice taxes?

Prices tend to correlate strongly with wages and wages are very high in Norway for all work, so they also have some of the highest prices on basically everything. Another lol example is a Big Mac combo meal in Oslo - you're looking at around $20.

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

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good question, I think it's to get people drunk and buying more drinks.

As opposed to the crowd sobering up and leaving.

But also I believe the bar (staff) often genuinely don't know what their serving is harmful.

I should have added the limit to safety at low levels of methanol is actually that your body processes ethanol much faster than methanol. So it's more that the crowd goes home and then hours later (once ethanol has been cleared) the methanol finally is picked up by the enzymes that makes it toxic. If they stay drunk (on ethanol) for days the methanol might have been excreted before being toxified.

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

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably because a- people can tell, and b- you sell more to already drunk people, so getting them drunk sooner is better.

So maybe the answer is water down the shots of your obviously drunk customers.

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

#75
post #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.

A quick look at our history shows why this was important at a federal level.

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

#76

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.

this is dangerously wrong in several dimensions

methanol and ethanol do not form an azeotrope with each other, they only (both, each) bind to water. that's why separation of methanol and ethanol by holding key temperatures works at all.

furthermore, the azeotrope effect only becomes relevant at concentrations beyond 90% alcohol. so when you're producing pure methanol and ethanol, then distillation won't cut it beyond 90+% as water+(m)ethanol then *at these high concentrations* boil and evaporate together. that's the grain of truth in your statement.

last not least going blind from methanol is _very_ real.

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

#77
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Probably because a- people can tell, and b- you sell more to already drunk people, so getting them drunk sooner is better. So maybe the answer is water down the shots of your obviously drunk customers.

Ah I didn't realise methanol had the same psychological effect. I thought it was just tasteless poison.

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

#78
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.

I went to Bin Inn in Masterton NZ because it was supposedly where you could recycle a certain brand of glass jar. The guy running the place clearly had no idea what I was talking about but took them anyway because he was nuts. I was looking around the place a bit as I'd never been there before, not realising he was following me. I paused to read a bottle on the shelf and suddenly he was talking very loudly over my shoulder:

You shouldn't buy those, terribly expensive. Oh I don't really drin... Used to be a chap in here all the time, made his own, beautiful stuff. Ok well like I say I'm not rea... I can sell you everything you need, you should make your own gin, much cheaper. Oh, so did you drink his stuff too? Nah I'd never touch it. What but you said it was beau... Yeah he drank it and died.

Definitely up on the list of bizarre interactions I've had here.

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

#79
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you suggest additional drinking methanol when you're "normally" drunk?? that's dangerously counterfactual.

vice versa

> Ethanol is the most commonly used antidote to block the metabolising of methanol. Ethanol works by competing with the metabolic breakdown of methanol, thereby preventing the accumulation of toxic byproducts.

MSF: https://methanolpoisoning.msf.org/en/for-health-professional...

I can see the ambiguity of my comment. I was trying to phrase as a riddle but can be interpreted both ways.

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

#80
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you suggest additional drinking methanol when you're "normally" drunk?? that's dangerously counterfactual.

No, ethanol is an antidote to methanol
Post reply on HN