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

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 369 posts

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

#41

Post by jppope »

ryandamm wrote: post #4

Missed 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…

> Methanol poisoning stories in the news almost exclusively result from people trying to sell denatured or industrial alcohol

Pretty sure this was a relic of prohibition right? The feds would contaminate ethanol with methanol to keep people from drinking it, but then they hurt a bunch of people and never faced any consequences...

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

#42

Post by [deleted] »

mothballed wrote: post #38
tt24 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interstate commerce clause is just craziness. It touches everything and gives justification to regulate nearly anything.

You could just as easily stuff most of those things under the "general welfare" clause if you do the same rigamarole of years and years of precedent hand-waving. We live in a post constitutional state. The constitution is just something worked to backwards so the guys who function as our priests/gods point to the document because that's the only way to feign some sort of legitimacy to our government. Ultimately none…

[deleted]

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

#43

Post by aqme28 »

superjan wrote: post #33

Might as well plug this recent Criminal Podcast episode: https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-358-the-formula-3-27-2026 TLDL: During prohibition, US government required adding 5% methanol to industrial alcohol, hoping that this would stop bootleggers from selling it as liquor. It was sold anyway, resulting in many deaths.

To be fair, we still add 5-10% methanol to industrial alcohol. But also a bunch of bitterants to discourage use.

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

#44

Post by bee_rider »

jmyeet wrote: post #29
bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do 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 looked at the actual decision [1] and didn't see Filburn mentioned once. I find that odd. Filburn [2] was a controversial and far-reaching decision that said that the Federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce extended to people growing wheat on their own property for their own use. The rationale was that by growing wheat you weren't participating in the interstate wheat market. That seems like a…

That seems like a pretty over-reaching interpretation. It makes sense in the context (needing to support federal economic control during WW2). But in some sense the economy is a dynamic system that touches and is touched by almost every decision we make. I made a pot of coffee this morning, should the federal government have the ability to decide whether or not I’m damaging the cafe market by not supporting my local cafe?

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

#45

Post by EgregiousCube »

mothballed wrote: post #24

The post '86 machine gun ban relies on basically the exact principle overturned here.

Yes, it'd be interesting if this gets appealed and the SC gets to take a look at if $0 tax stamps are allowable under the tax and spending clause.

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

#46

Post by dmitrygr »

tdb7893 wrote: post #40
bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do 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 think much more likely is that it will just be made legal federally sometime in the next decade. Marijuana legalization has majorities across ideologies ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legal... ) and even though the inability to create federal law on something so popular seems like a good case study on how the US system doesn't always do a good job representing it's actual people, it seems…

You’re probably right, though I dread the possibility. I cannot stand the smell, and one of the best things about moving from California to Texas was avoiding that pervasive smell being everywhere. Negative externalities of personal behavior really need to be handled better in our society. If you want pot to be legal, fine, but only inside your own personal enclosed house.

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

#47

Post by mordae »

aqme28 wrote: post #43
superjan wrote: post #33

Might as well plug this recent Criminal Podcast episode: https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-358-the-formula-3-27-2026 TLDL: During prohibition, US government required adding 5% methanol to industrial alcohol, hoping that this would stop bootleggers from selling it as liquor. It was sold anyway, resulting in many deaths.

To be fair, we still add 5-10% methanol to industrial alcohol. But also a bunch of bitterants to discourage use.

Are adding it or just distill both because it's cheaper?

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

#48

Post by esseph »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #36
tyre wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another case based on interstate commerce: the US ban on racial segregation. The example given, iirc, was restaurant competition across state lines.

I wouldn't be surprised if this one unironically goes given that Uber/Lyft are fully doing "women only" ride shares now. Gen Z / Alpha have embraced X-"realism" and fully accept essentialism/reject "intersectionality". They're far more conservative/prudish than millennials, even at their young age.

> Gen Z / Alpha have embraced X-"realism" and fully accept essentialism/reject "intersectionality". They're far more conservative/prudish than millennials, even at their young age.

This does not meet up with my experience with them at all.

Just quick check, what percentage of onlyfans creators are Gen Z / Alpha vs other nonsense year demographics?

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

#49

Post by barbazoo »

dmitrygr wrote: post #46
tdb7893 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think much more likely is that it will just be made legal federally sometime in the next decade. Marijuana legalization has majorities across ideologies ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legal... ) and even though the inability to create federal law on something so popular seems like a good case study on how the US system doesn't always do a good job representing it's actual people, it seems…

You’re probably right, though I dread the possibility. I cannot stand the smell, and one of the best things about moving from California to Texas was avoiding that pervasive smell being everywhere. Negative externalities of personal behavior really need to be handled better in our society. If you want pot to be legal, fine, but only inside your own personal enclosed house.

That's only one of many ways to consume it, many people vape, have edibles or drinks and you just don't notice.
Post reply on HN