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

181–190 of 337 posts

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

#181

Post by yonaguska »

_heimdall wrote: post #179
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.

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 origi…

The statue of liberty poem was never a legally binding immigration policy. Not to detract from your point, which I agree with.

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

#182

Post by Loughla »

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #9
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.

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.

Hey I've been wanting to get into home distilling for years but haven't found any good resources to start. Do you know of any books or other print resources that I should look at to learn what I need to learn before starting?

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

#183

Post by somenameforme »

magicalhippo wrote: post #94
somenameforme wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A large Bic Mac meal with plain fries and soda is 123 NOK or $12.91, and a large double Quarter pounder menu is 168 NOK or $17.63. It's actually relatively cheap right now, I expect a price hike soon given how much grocery prices have increased.

Is that in Oslo or elsewhere? Have prices gone down for some reason?

EDIT: Ahh! I was basing my statement on data from quite a number of years back, and just assuming prices tend to go in one direction in inflationary economies. The nuance here is that the NOK has weakened somewhat dramatically against the dollar, so relative prices aren't quite as insane now as they were in the past.

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

#184

Post by andrewmg »

For those wondering, the opinion[0] doesn't address the Commerce Clause power (and Wickard and Raich) becaue the government abandoned that argument. See footnote 5.

The Commerce Clause issue is raised in our other case[1] that's now pending before the Sixth Circuit.

(I argued both cases.)

[0] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-10760-CV0.pd...

[1] https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/issues/detail/ream-v-us-dep...

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

#185

Post by smnrchrds »

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...

Australia already does something like this. I don't know if there were any engineers involved in designing it.

https://www.afsa.gov.au/professionals/resource-hub/penalty-u...

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

#186

Post by vladvasiliu »

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.

I don't know, maybe? There already are laws around advertising alcohol, to the dismay of the local wine industry.

I don't have stats on hand, but I seem to remember that smoking costs much more than alcohol, despite a sizeable (1/3? not sure) proportion of car accidents being caused by the latter. Alcohol and drug use is already considered an aggravating circumstance in some situations (car crashes, assault, etc).

But yeah, I think there are activities that are clearly extremely risky and some that are clearly not. I guess alcohol lies somewhere in the middle: I never felt compelled to drive after drinking; I usually just zone out on my couch or go to bed.

There's also the fact that alcohol seems pretty much unstoppable. See how well prohibition worked in the US. Ditto for drugs and smoking, where, despite our local flavor of "war on drugs", cannabis consumption has exploded in recent years. Taxes on tobacco are extremely high here, yet many people still smoke. I understand smoking is relatively less popular than before, but people do still smoke. Alcohol consumption has also gone down, but people do still drink. Despite the communication campaigns that they're not healthy.

So I think that since there are some activities in which people tend to engage in anyway, even if they're outlawed (cannabis comes to mind), we, as a society, should figure out ways to mitigate that. Have people be accountable. Wanna do stupid shit? Knock yourself out, but don't have society bear the burden.

I don't know, as someone who mostly rides motorbikes, I wouldn't be shocked if I had to pay a premium at the hospital if I left half my face on the pavement in a crash because I figured wearing a helmet, or even serious equipment, was somehow not cool, or whatever people tell themselves to justify riding next to naked. Yes, I wear all my gear even under 40ºC. Even in the US desert, where I understand helmet wear is not mandatory. Yes, I sweat. I've only ever had a minor crash despite riding a big-ass "dangerous" crotch rocket, but I enjoy having my skin attached to my body more than not sweating. Should I pay a (lower?) premium anyway, since motorbikes are statistically more dangerous than walking? Maybe?

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

#187

Post by hilbert42 »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #125
donatj wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The antidote to methanol is just ethanol. If you find yourself drinking something untrustworthy you can at least cure yourself with a chaser of an equivalent amount of everclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_toxicity#Treatment

The way you're saying it is deeply irresponsible. The way to deal with methanol poisoning is not "just ethanol", and you cannot "cure yourself" by drinking everclear. If you ever find out you have been drinking methanol by all means do drink safe spirits if you have immediate access to them (after throwing up what you can if you're still in time), but get medical help now . Ethanol will not cure you from methanol poi…

Exactly. I'm unsure why the myth that EtOH is a 'satisfactory' antidote for MeOH poisoning persists but unfortunately it does—even here on HN.

I echoed the dangers of MeOH poisoning (in drink substitution, etc.) in my two posts and I've been downvoted several times without reason given.

Such misunderstandings are why I'm an advocate for strong regulations that ensure commonly-available MeOH is always denatured.

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

#188

Post by DM70 »

Generally, majority of bans are wrong. Excessive freedom limitations limit personal development and economic growth. For thousands of years people were brewing, cooking and making things at home. People dying from car accidents, yet we do not ban cars, don't we? Because cars have major utility value plus play huge part in economy. At the same time, some forces pent decades fighting tobacco companies, destroying true American and British business icons. And somehow replaced them with proliferation all kinds of narcotics and dangerous chemical vapes, which earn huge revenues for literal potential military enemies, and with chemical sin food, water and air, which kill people more than tobacco did. Which suggests it could have been more about money/geopolitics rather than people's safety.

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

#189

Post by Spooky23 »

reisse wrote: post #153
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 homebre…

One leads to the other. Once you have distillation everywhere, bootlegging follows.

This was literally the basis of one of the first conflicts of the early federal government.

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

#190

Post by cobbzilla »

andrewmg wrote: post #184

For those wondering, the opinion[0] doesn't address the Commerce Clause power (and Wickard and Raich) becaue the government abandoned that argument. See footnote 5. The Commerce Clause issue is raised in our other case[1] that's now pending before the Sixth Circuit. (I argued both cases.) [0] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-10760-CV0.pd... [1] https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/issues/detail/ream-v-us-d…

Is there a genuine opportunity to overturn either Wickard or Raich? That would be exciting.
Post reply on HN