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

141–150 of 337 posts

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

#141

Post by philwelch »

avidiax wrote: 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…

You’re confusing a few of the issues here. This isn’t an interstate commerce case, it’s a tax power case, which does reflect on the NFA but not on Wickard v Filburn or civil rights. The important aspects of federal civil rights law aren’t legally justified by the commerce clause either.

Though I would gladly see Wickard v Filburn overturned. Commercial regulations already vary by state, and the US would still be more cohesive than the EU is today, but the amount of water that flows through my showerhead doesn’t have to be a concern of the federal government. In fact, we don’t even need Wickard v Filburn to be a more cohesive federation than Canada, which doesn’t even have free trade between provinces.

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

#142

Post by [deleted] »

dmantis wrote: post #116
angry_octet wrote: post #86

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…

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.

[deleted]

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

#143

Post by philwelch »

macintux wrote: post #139
eru wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You’re right, it’s much easier to replace the entire federal bureaucracy.

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

#144

Post by ihalip »

inglor_cz wrote: post #96
ihalip wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's your eyesight?

The eastern part of Czechia (Moravia) plus Slovakia will distill anything that grows, too, and methanol poisonings are almost non-existent here. Don't underestimate centuries of tradition and know-how. The only exception was a methanol affair 15 years ago, but that had nothing to do with home distillation. In that particular case, two bozos inspired by a badly understood Wikipedia article bought and mixed enormous am…

Not underestimating, but I've seen first hand how these are made, from my uncles and neighbours as I'm from rural Romania. The equipment may not be clean, people tend to get drunk because QA is literally drinking it and that affects the next batch, the precursor fruits could be half rotten, etc. I appreciate homemade spirits because of the genuine taste, but be aware of the conditions they're made in.

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

#145

Post by bamboozled »

eru wrote: post #69
decimalenough wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'?

Why would you drink an undistllled beverage, do you mean alcohol free ?

I remember being in college a lot of Muslim kids coming to our parties drinking alcohol because we didn’t care and asking us not to tell anyone…Sake is wonderful.

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

#146

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

> … 1868 … $10,000 fine.

If the original 1868 law stated $10,000, that’s insane (equivalent of millions, these days). If not, then that might mean this law has been regularly reviewed and updated, so it’s not just something that was lost in the back of the cabinet.

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

#147

Post by juliusceasar »

angry_octet wrote: post #86

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…

[flagged]

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

#148

Post by daveidol »

SapporoChris wrote: post #122
dmantis wrote: post #116

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.

Seat belt laws are an interesting example though because they only apply when driving on public roads. You can drive your car with no seat belt on a private track all day if you want to.

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

#149

Post by refurb »

delichon wrote: post #108
angry_octet wrote: post #86

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…

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.

This is still done today if you buy tax free ethanol.

The intent is not to poison people, since the alcohol is not intended for consumption.

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

#150

Post by [deleted] »

dmantis wrote: post #116
angry_octet wrote: post #86

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…

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN