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

271–280 of 337 posts

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

#271

Post by freedomben »

cubefox wrote: post #195
freedomben wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Anyone who thinks otherwise presumably also thinks all hard drugs should be legalized since this presumably wouldn't lead to an increase in consumption.) Why should the government be in the business of reducing consumption? Do you believe alcohol to be immoral, and the government's role to be enforcing morality?

Do you believe heroin is immoral? I don't. I think it's dangerous, which is bad, and it causes addiction, which reduces freedom more than banning it.

I do think heroin is dangerous, but I'd favor regulation (such as we do for alcohol, which is also dangerous, though certainly less so) over prohibition. By far the most dangerous aspect of heroin and all the illicit opiates is that you don't know what you're actually getting. Makes it extremely easy to unintentionally overdose.

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

#272

Post by eru »

jjtwixman wrote: post #270
eru wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

County, not country!

Sorry, I couldn't even type it out it would seem, it was too silly. Anyway, you sound like me when I was about 19, lots of abstract theories and ideas without any ties to the real world we find ourselves in. I don't regret it but I'm glad I grew out of it . It's not stuff to be taken seriously. All the best.

Oh, I put my money where my mouth is: I moved to Singapore.

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

#273

Post by bluGill »

btreecat wrote: post #257
bluGill wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is wrong and dangerious! Home brewing very well can cause methanol poinonings. It doesn't happen often because the process is complex enough to get settup that anyone likey talk to someone (or read a book) and get the simple process to avoid it (throw out the beginnigs of each batch since the harmful stuff comes first).

That's incorrect. The methanol bonds tighter to water and doesn't distill out clean in the heads.

Some does. You don't need perfection of distilation to make a difference.

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

#274

Post by eru »

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.

> I don't see how brewing is different.

It's very lucrative to tax brewing and even more distilling.

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

#275

Post by eru »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #227
_heimdall wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> whether a society would rather be individualistic or collectivist Like many of these sorts of choices, its false to think of it as binary because its about choosing a place on the continuum between them. On the methanal risk issue, one possible compromise would to have places which can run free checks on booze for methanal. Not too different from the practice in France where you can bring in mushrooms you've collec…

> [...] its false to think of it as binary because its about choosing a place on the continuum between them.

Yes. It's not even a continuum: it has more than one dimension.

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

#276

Post by eru »

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.

> Society still has paid at least for your education, [...]

Against my will!

> 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.

That's why I pay for stuff, and other people pay me. That's how money is supposed to work. It coordinates communities.

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

#277

Post by eru »

MikeNotThePope wrote: post #173
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…

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.

> whether it's through taxpayer-funded healthcare or higher premiums for private insurance.

Insurance should insure your risk, and that's fairly independent of what other people are doing. (Of course, other people driving dangerously can endanger your health, and thus drive up your health insurance costs.)

What you have in mind is probably a consequence of forbidding insurance companies from charging people according to risk, and forcing them to charge people some average of a pool they are placed in?

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

#278

Post by dv_dt »

_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…

| We have immigration laws now that are necessary because of the welfare programs

They may have had an effect of causing a political discussion, but fiscally, immigration policy has little impact on welfare programs.

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

#279

Post by eru »

cmiles8 wrote: post #175
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…

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.

Well, that's an argument against that particular method of regulation. Not against people doing stupid stuff.

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

#280

Post by eru »

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.

That's like saying watching movies has no benefit.

It's entertaining for some people.

Post reply on HN