Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

131–140 of 337 posts

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

#131
post #88

As tourists to sketchy places in Asia discovered, methanol poisoning is a real risk, even from large scale distillation. It is the quality control that matters. Illegal stills make quality control impossible, so legalisation and government certified testing can make it safe. However, this ruling is not about alcohol, it is about dissolving Federal authority exercised via the trade and commerce clause of the Constitut…

> Illegal stills make quality control impossible, so legalisation and government certified testing can make it safe. Another way to increase safety is to reduce the availability of illegal stills without quality control by enforcing the ban. (Anyone who thinks otherwise presumably also thinks all hard drugs should be legalized since this presumably wouldn't lead to an increase in consumption.)

I think hard drugs being legal would greatly increase the amount of responsible consumption. Methamphetamine used to be purchaseable from any pharmacy over the counter in the US, and there was not a meth crisis at that time. Now there is.

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

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many hobbies with which people can kill themselves if they don't understand what they are doing. I don't see how brewing is different. A grown-up person has rights and bears the consequences of negligence and that's totally normal, that's what freedom is. As long as the product is not sold outside but for personal consumption, it must be legal to make without any certifications.

I forget the exact wording, but the seat belt law are a good example of it. Laws are passed to protect the populace from self harm so that society doesn't suffer from it. It probably doesn't apply here because home distillation is very niche. However, if a bunch of people show up in emergency rooms and it drives up health care costs then expect a quick reversal in policy.

Right, and I, as someone living in France and paying a hefty part of my income to fund public healthcare, understand that the state would want to limit people doing stupid shit costing the society a fortune in fixing them (though, of course, this just creates a debate on where to draw the line).

But isn't the point of non-socialized healthcare, like in the US, that you pay for care out of pocket? Or maybe via your insurance, which will probably increase your premium if you repeatedly engage in stupid actions that need expensive fixing?

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

#133
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it works so well, perhaps delegate authority even more centrally. To the UN or so?

I mean you said it yourself, it's a compromise. Giving the states free reign to terrorise their populations didn't work out so great. The relatively strong federal government of more recent times however seems to have worked out not so badly. Now there's a retarded paedohpile in office starting random wars and of course all bets are off. The US political system actually probably is quite shit, but I don't think it's…

> Giving the states free reign to terrorise their populations didn't work out so great.

Be careful not to be anachronistic. When the US was a young country, before telegraphs and railways were widespread, most people's primary interface with the government was perhaps their municipality or at the highest level perhaps their county.

> The relatively strong federal government of more recent times however seems to have worked out not so badly.

I am not so sure. Different people in different parts of the country have different preferences. Much easier to satisfy them, if you don't centralise too much.

> [...] but electing an unaccountable king every 4 years is just a retarded and easily exploitable system.

Much better to elect 3,143 kings, one for every county. If you don't like the one your neighbours (and you) voted for, just move to the next town over.

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

#134

As tourists to sketchy places in Asia discovered, methanol poisoning is a real risk, even from large scale distillation. It is the quality control that matters. Illegal stills make quality control impossible, so legalisation and government certified testing can make it safe. However, this ruling is not about alcohol, it is about dissolving Federal authority exercised via the trade and commerce clause of the Constitut…

pretext to context.

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

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forget the exact wording, but the seat belt law are a good example of it. Laws are passed to protect the populace from self harm so that society doesn't suffer from it. It probably doesn't apply here because home distillation is very niche. However, if a bunch of people show up in emergency rooms and it drives up health care costs then expect a quick reversal in policy.

Right, and I, as someone living in France and paying a hefty part of my income to fund public healthcare, understand that the state would want to limit people doing stupid shit costing the society a fortune in fixing them (though, of course, this just creates a debate on where to draw the line). But isn't the point of non-socialized healthcare, like in the US, that you pay for care out of pocket? Or maybe via your in…

> Or maybe via your insurance, which will probably increase your premium if you repeatedly engage in stupid actions that need expensive fixing?

US insurers can only discriminate by age and smoking status.

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

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From ~1906 through prohibition the Feds purposely poisoned industrial alcohol with methanol and other chemicals as a deterrent. 100 years ago, in 1926, they increased it, up to as much as 10%. This was true rotgut. Around 10,000 people, mostly poor, died from it. Blindness, organ failure, paralysis. This was legal and regulated by the Volstead Act. It was the primary source of methanol poisoning during prohibition.

Do you have a source?

Not parent, but after 1 minute of googling: https://historyfacts.com/us-history/fact/the-u-s-government-...

Note that we are talking about industrial alcohol, which was not made for human consumption but could be distilled to make it palatable (before the toxic additives were added).

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

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forget the exact wording, but the seat belt law are a good example of it. Laws are passed to protect the populace from self harm so that society doesn't suffer from it. It probably doesn't apply here because home distillation is very niche. However, if a bunch of people show up in emergency rooms and it drives up health care costs then expect a quick reversal in policy.

Right, and I, as someone living in France and paying a hefty part of my income to fund public healthcare, understand that the state would want to limit people doing stupid shit costing the society a fortune in fixing them (though, of course, this just creates a debate on where to draw the line). But isn't the point of non-socialized healthcare, like in the US, that you pay for care out of pocket? Or maybe via your in…

Society still has paid at least for your education, depends on your working power to at least fund your dependents, and at least on some degree of reasonableness from you not to raise everyone's insurance premiums.

There's a line to draw somewhere, but even the most ra-ra-individualist heavily depends on society, and has/should have obligations in turn.

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

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forget the exact wording, but the seat belt law are a good example of it. Laws are passed to protect the populace from self harm so that society doesn't suffer from it. It probably doesn't apply here because home distillation is very niche. However, if a bunch of people show up in emergency rooms and it drives up health care costs then expect a quick reversal in policy.

Right, and I, as someone living in France and paying a hefty part of my income to fund public healthcare, understand that the state would want to limit people doing stupid shit costing the society a fortune in fixing them (though, of course, this just creates a debate on where to draw the line). But isn't the point of non-socialized healthcare, like in the US, that you pay for care out of pocket? Or maybe via your in…

Let's be honest here: there is no benefit to alcohol (for example wine) and is only detrimental. As a true French person who does want the government paying for "stupid shit" you need to call for the end of wine making and its consumption.

But I guess that might be the debate line of which you spoke.

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

#139
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you said it yourself, it's a compromise. Giving the states free reign to terrorise their populations didn't work out so great. The relatively strong federal government of more recent times however seems to have worked out not so badly. Now there's a retarded paedohpile in office starting random wars and of course all bets are off. The US political system actually probably is quite shit, but I don't think it's…

> Giving the states free reign to terrorise their populations didn't work out so great. Be careful not to be anachronistic. When the US was a young country, before telegraphs and railways were widespread, most people's primary interface with the government was perhaps their municipality or at the highest level perhaps their county. > The relatively strong federal government of more recent times however seems to have…

"just move" is not always a simple act for the most vulnerable in society.

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

#140

As tourists to sketchy places in Asia discovered, methanol poisoning is a real risk, even from large scale distillation. It is the quality control that matters. Illegal stills make quality control impossible, so legalisation and government certified testing can make it safe. However, this ruling is not about alcohol, it is about dissolving Federal authority exercised via the trade and commerce clause of the Constitut…

Methanol/CH3OH/MeOH is poisonous and its consumption causes a life-threatening health crisis that often results in death or permanent blindness. As little as 100 ml of methanol can kill or cause lifelong damage to one's health.

One shouldn't have to restate these well-known facts but they have to be repeated at every opportunity because in many ways methanol too closely resembles ethanol/EtOH, it tastes the same and induces drunkenness, and consumers may not become aware they have consumed it until its toxic effects manifest. By then, it's often too late.

Methanol's similarly to ethanol and that it's a very important industrial chemical made and used in huge qualities that makes it doubly dangerous. Many ways exist for methanol to enter the food chain both accidentally and through deliberate substitution for ethanol so it's especially important that strict regulations exist covering its handling and use.

Outside of lab grade reagents, methanol should always be denatured in ways that make its consumption both obvious and intolerable, that's best achieved by adding the denaturant denatonium (benzoate or saccharinate) in trace amounts that have little or no effect on methanol's final use.

Denatonium (aka, Bitrix, Bitrex and others), a quaternary ammonium compound, is a bitterant and likely the bitterest substance known and can be tasted by humans in parts per billion. Not only is it extremely bitter but unlike lemons it's a nasty bitterness that lingers and will immediately alert anyone who tastes it (I know, having deliberately tasted it).

HN is read internationally, so in places with good methanol handling regulations there's little doubt I'm sounding like an annoying schoolteacher overstating the obvious but from my experience many people do not know how dangerous methanol really is. As mentioned, one reads of travelers in foreign countries poisoned with drinks laced with methanol without giving a thought where their drinks originate (moreover the most vulnerable are those who come from places with good food regulations as they automatically assume what they're served is suitable for consumption).

My rave isn't to put the kibosh on homebrew spirits as I'm essentially in favor of this decision—government already dictates too many things we citizens cannot do. That said, there has to be strict regulations concerning distillation methods and commercial sales should definitely be unlawful with tough penalties.

Finally, whether this decision hold up under appeal or not, we need readily-available methanol detectors that are both cheap and portable and that anyone can easily use.

Post reply on HN