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

51–60 of 369 posts

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

#51

Post by caycep »

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.

I mean, there are plenty of neighborhoods in CA that don't have that smell...

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

#52

Post by cogman10 »

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…

I think the issue is this isn't seen by politicians as a motivating vote driver. It is, however, a motivation for someone to go out and vote against a politician.

That's ultimately what keeps things like MJ illegal. There are just far too many people that will get upset about it if it were made federally legal.

My state, Idaho, has one such politician that is constantly bringing up and trying to find ways to keep the wacky tabacy out of the state. Including trying to amend the state constitution for it. He does this because he's mormon and the mormons are scared of the devil's lettuce.

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

#53

Post by jbellis »

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…

> the treatment for methanol poisoning is… ethanol!

I looked this up, it is directionally correct but if you are in a hospital setting they have better options https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482121/

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

#54

Post by cucumber3732842 »

mordae wrote: post #47
aqme28 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To make it poisonous enough that the tax men leave you alone.

So cheaper in a circuitous way.

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

#56

Post by tastyfreeze »

mordae wrote: post #47
aqme28 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Adding. That majority of things we ferment and distill will not produce anywhere close to 5-10% methanol.

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

#57

Post by bsimpson »

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…

I don't even smoke - it just offends me deeply to see the Supreme Court rule in a direction that's so blatantly against the Constitution.

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

#58

Post by pdonis »

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.)

In Wickard v. Filburn, back in 1942, they said the same thing for wheat.

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

#59

Post by pdonis »

bsimpson wrote: post #57
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…

I don't even smoke - it just offends me deeply to see the Supreme Court rule in a direction that's so blatantly against the Constitution.

That's been going on for a long, long time.

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

#60

Post by cogman10 »

tt24 wrote: post #37
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.

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

A lot of stuff does have interstate implications. Especially now that most corporations operate in an interstate fashion.

That said, I agree that it's overused. I personally think that the 9th amendment should be used in a lot of cases, like civil rights, instead of the interstate commerce law.

The supreme court, however, has basically decided that the 9th amendment doesn't really exist.

Post reply on HN