> [Judge Edith Jones] also said that under the government’s logic, Congress could criminalize virtually any in-home activity
US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
11–20 of 369 posts
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#12[flagged]
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#13Do this one next:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#14It's been way too long since I've taken a political science course, but does this mean that the ban is struck down for the entire country, or just the area that the 5th Court of Appeals covers?
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn’t great. Would love a second attempt focused on distilling not individualist v collectivist or immigration. (Except for relevant connections around sharing your creations with neighbors and/or internationally inspired novel spirits.)
I am not really a fan of liquor, but I do like the idea of having skills which are universally valuable. If you air dropped me into a random village in Africa I doubt I could 'code for cassava' but I could almost certainly make a living if I knew how to set up a basic pot still and safely create booze.
You could sanitize and disinfect with that alcohol! You could also make extracts of any plants nearby that were useful. Whiskey and vanilla beans are sufficient to make vanilla extract!
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#16Missed in the previous discussion: methanol is irrelevant. Grain based ferments have essentially zero methanol.(And methanol risk is a function of its concentration relative to ethanol — the treatment for methanol poisoning is… ethanol!) even fruit based fermentations with significantly higher pectin concentrations only produce trace methanol, and it’s not all that well concentrated in a distillation due to azeotrope…
> the treatment for methanol poisoning is… ethanol!
My grandpa drank a shot of schnapps every night and called it his medicine. I thought it was a euphemism but apparently he was actually taking an antidote prophylactically. You can't be too careful. He never once got methanol poisoning.
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#17Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)
I'd imagine one wants to litigate Wickard v. Filburn in its entirety, rather than just the downstream Gonzales v. Raich
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#18Bought and rigged up a 'hand sanitizer plant' about five months into COVID. Populated the thing with thermocouples, load cells and automation with nodered on raspberry pi and a bunch of esp32s flashed with tasmota doing sensing and control. Everything talked over mqtt. Great little architecture and having it highly automated allowed me to focus on the parts that were less easily controlled for.
Dashboard: https://imgur.com/a/so7iZJX
Sanitizer run: https://imgur.com/a/iWDlNfb
Quite a lot of fun actually.
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#19It's been way too long since I've taken a political science course, but does this mean that the ban is struck down for the entire country, or just the area that the 5th Court of Appeals covers?
Prior to this year, the entire country. Today, thanks to SCOTUS shenanigans, it likely only applies to the states involved in the lawsuit, LA. But who knows, hard to keep up with the game of calvinball the SCOTUS is playing.
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#20It's been way too long since I've taken a political science course, but does this mean that the ban is struck down for the entire country, or just the area that the 5th Court of Appeals covers?
Appeals court decisions generally only apply to their own jurisdiction. But they obviously hold a lot of weight when cited in others.