Live data from Hacker News

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

nypost.com

81–90 of 369 posts

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

#81

It'll be interesting to see how many people get methanol poisoning from trying their hand at it without doing the research properly. That being said, so long as it's for private or non-profit use, I don't really see the harm here.

Unless they try to make booze from woodchips, they'll be fine. Using fruit or grains or potatoes makes it really hard to end up with enough methanol to be dangerous.

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

#82
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…

I agree, from the other side of the aisle. The Constitution is merely a well-guarded piece of toilet paper now. Culture matters way more than legal documents in preserving a nation, and our culture has waned too significantly. I believe we've entered the "Byzantine" phase of America.

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

#83
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.

> but only inside your own personal enclosed house.

Isn't it usually illegal to smoke things like cigarettes inside rented homes, legality aside? And don't most people rent? That seems like a whole can to deal with.

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

#84
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

THC is perfectly legal here (Quebec, Canada) and believe me, there is no smell on the streets! What is actually disgusting and happens often in the streets is the smell of ordinary cigarette smoke.

This might be controversial, but smelling either in public makes me happy! Now the stale smell of tobacco-infused clothing, that is awful.

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

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

General Welfare Clause only applies to taxing and spending, though, not just general regulation (e.g., making drugs illegal or banning segregation).

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars … But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

Federalist No. 41 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp

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

#86
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.

Some people say the same about the smell or noise of babies. It's not a very strong argument for getting ones way in controlling others.

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

#87
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! 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.

Was his doctor Dr. McGillicuddy?

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

#88
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 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…

I personally would be okay with having it legal if smoking could still be banned in multifamily complexes. I don't care if my neighbors are using edibles, but since I know that legalized weed means more smoke coming from my neighbors' balconies, I will always vote "No" when marijuana legalization is on the ballot in my location.

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

#90
post #50

how...uh...explosive...are home stills?

they're really not. they're generally not a pressure vessel, and even when I've had leaks of ethanol, the fire went out immediately after being removed from heat.

today's home stills are usually plug-in resistance heated chambers with a still head, and are very high quality. my flame-out was from a pot still that was sealed with flour and water, not a modern still.

Post reply on HN