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

171–180 of 337 posts

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

#171

Post by ciupicri »

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…

It's the same in Romania. Basically there shouldn't be any issues with drinking home made alcohol, it's like eating a home made cake.

We also had some cases of crap being sold, but that's a different thing.

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

#172

Post by functionmouse »

lores wrote: post #137
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…

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.

Either pay for my health care or get your nose out of it. If my healthcare is going to be my own private matter, then it should be just that. How insulting.

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

#173

Post by MikeNotThePope »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #132
SapporoChris wrote: post #122

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…

Dumb people doing dumb stuff incur a cost for all of us, whether it's through taxpayer-funded healthcare or higher premiums for private insurance.

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

#174

Post by cwmoore »

lores wrote: post #137
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…

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.

Insurance, alcohol, and other lobbies pay for our laws in the US.

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

#175

Post by cmiles8 »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #132
SapporoChris wrote: post #122

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…

Individual heath insurance premiums aren’t linked to your behavior or health or activities (apart from smoking). Most of that was made illegal by the insurance reforms in the “ObamaCare” bill.

If many people started doing stupid things though then yes it would raise premiums for all.

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

#176

Post by strus »

fzeindl wrote: 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.

Home distillation is very popular in Poland too. Risk of getting poisoned from it is near zero in practice. In some parts of Poland there is more home-distilled alcohol bottles at the tables during weddings than commercial ones.

In many European countries you will be offered home-distilled drinks, you would be very unlucky to get anything else than hangover.

The problem is overblown.

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

#177

Post by pcrh »

frankzander wrote: post #29
fzeindl wrote: 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 ) :-)

Ethanol is a naturally occurring substance, humans and many animals have specifically evolved ways of processing it. In moderate doses it does no harm.

It's almost impossible to avoid ingesting some alcohol during the course of a natural diet, and that includes if you avoid fermented food such as bread, let alone beverages deliberately brewed to be alcoholic.

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

#178

Post by ciupicri »

martin-t wrote: post #151
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...

From https://etsc.eu/billionaires-eur-25000-drink-driving-fine-pu...

> A Norwegian billionaire that recorded a BAC level three times higher than the legal limit has been banned from driving and handed a 250,000 krone fine (EUR 25,000). But the fine could have been much higher as, under Norwegian law, fines are linked to monthly income and in some cases overall wealth.

> Finland has a ‘day fine’ system, with penalties linked to an offender’s wages.

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

#179

Post by _heimdall »

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.

There's a whole ball of wax here that boils down to whether a society would rather be individualistic or collectivist.

Its a chicken and egg problem as well, the way we regulate and manage health care and health insurance (at least in the US) allows for costs to pretty easily bleed out to the rest of society. That implies that we must then be collectivist in other policies, though that is counter to many of the original goals of our country and the question is whether we changed those goals or inadvertantly built a system that requires changing gials after the fact.

We have a similar problem with immigration laws. Our immigration laws today are completely counter to what they once were, and counter to what is still written on the Statue of Liberty. We have immigration laws now that are necessary because of the welfare programs we implemented, even if we wanted to live up to the older ideals we couldn't without abandoning those welfare programs entirely.

Post reply on HN