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

151–160 of 337 posts

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

#151

Post by martin-t »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #146

> … 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.

If laws were written by engineers, all sums of money would be expressed relative to median income.

And at that point it wouldn't be a stretch for most people to make the connection that some people are more privileged than others and fines should be relative to personal wealth and income.

Imagine if laws were written by people who know what a function is...

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

#152

Post by decimalenough »

gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #138
vladvasiliu wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You must be fun at parties? Some forms of alcohol are tasty and all of them loosen inhibitions, which is beneficial for both recreation and procreation.

Obviously there are downsides too, but booze is popular for very good reasons.

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

#153

Post by reisse »

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…

Well, I live in a country with both huge distillation culture and significantly non-zero number of methanol poisonings, and they never happen from home brewing. It's really hard to homebrew/distill methanol in a quantity enough to poison you in an otherwise ethanol solution (which acts as an antidote).

It's so rare this thread is literally the first time I've heard about possibility of methanol poisoning from homebrewing.

Methanol poisonings happen from bootlegging, where someone in the chain of supply sells industrial methanol as an ethanol, because the first one is cheaper, easier to obtain and untaxed.

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

#154

Post by [deleted] »

theodric wrote: post #106
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…

The common knowledge about methanol being a huge risk is wildly overstated in reality, and likely continues in part because it benefits the government for people to believe strongly in the danger and continue to purchase taxed liquor. Distillation does not create new chemicals: there is methanol in your bottle of wine, and distilling that wine into brandy does not change the ratio, it only removes (primarily) water.…

[deleted]

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

#155

Post by someothherguyy »

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

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

#156

Post by summa_tech »

mrob wrote: post #100
akersten wrote: post #40

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.…

>They may be describing a radical new chemistry that I'm not familiar with. It's probably pot still vs. reflux still. Chemists use fractionating columns to get better separation. Home distillers won't necessarily do so, so official advice has to assume they will not.

We could be breaking new grounds with spinning band distilled moonshine.

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

#157

Post by refurb »

akersten wrote: post #40
mattmaroon wrote: post #17

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. Methanol is really only present in significant amounts in fruit mashes because it comes from fermentation of pectin. Grain or sugar-derived alcohol barely has any at a…

> 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.…

There are azeotropes - mixtures that distill together at a different temperature than either alone.

You can’t distill ethanol to higher than 95% because of the 95-5 ethanol-water azeotrope that boils at 78.2C, versus ethanol alone at 78.4C.

Methanol-water and methanol-ethanol don’t form an azeotrope so if properly done you can separate methanol via distillation.

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

#158

Post by ciupicri »

theodric wrote: post #106
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…

The common knowledge about methanol being a huge risk is wildly overstated in reality, and likely continues in part because it benefits the government for people to believe strongly in the danger and continue to purchase taxed liquor. Distillation does not create new chemicals: there is methanol in your bottle of wine, and distilling that wine into brandy does not change the ratio, it only removes (primarily) water.…

Though it's harder to drink the same amount of methanol if you have to drink lots of water too, i.e. the wine has not been distilled.

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

#159

Post by btreecat »

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…

As someone who's involved in said home production, the only way someone is getting methanol poisoning is if it's intentional done.

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

#160

Post by btreecat »

theodric wrote: post #106
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…

The common knowledge about methanol being a huge risk is wildly overstated in reality, and likely continues in part because it benefits the government for people to believe strongly in the danger and continue to purchase taxed liquor. Distillation does not create new chemicals: there is methanol in your bottle of wine, and distilling that wine into brandy does not change the ratio, it only removes (primarily) water.…

Or do break the law as a form of protest

W/e, I'm not your dad.

Post reply on HN