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

91–100 of 369 posts

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

#91

Post by jotux »

lenerdenator wrote: post #27

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.

>It'll be interesting to see how many people get methanol poisoning from trying their hand at it without doing the research properly.

If you're into home brewing or distilling, the first and only comment people completely unfamiliar with the process say is something about going blind because of methanol. It's disappointing because the process is so rich with history and really interesting problems to solve but the zeitgeist is completely poisoned by prohibition-era propaganda.

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

#92

Post by torstenvl »

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.)

The word "interstate" does not exist in the text of the Constitution.

There's arguably some merit to your position, but the argument that some case law is invalid because it doesn't meet the definition of a term defined in other case law is circular and incoherent.

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

#94

Post by codexb »

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.)

The controlling case is Wickard v Filburn (1942).

A farmer was told he could only grow X acres of feed on his own land; feed that he had no intention of selling and was being fed entirely to his own livestock on the same land.

This seems to overturn that in part, but until Wickard is overturned, and the interstate commerce clause reigned in, there will be weird side effects of it like this.

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

#95

Post by codexb »

torstenvl wrote: post #92
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.)

The word "interstate" does not exist in the text of the Constitution. There's arguably some merit to your position , but the argument that some case law is invalid because it doesn't meet the definition of a term defined in other case law is circular and incoherent.

It uses the phrase “regulate commerce between the states” which effectively has the same meaning.

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

#96

Post by pattilupone »

sir0010010 wrote: post #88
cogman10 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can smoking tobacco be banned in multifamily complexes currently? I'd think the policy would be the same.

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

#97

Post by FergusArgyll »

lenerdenator wrote: post #27

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.

I dunno, I tried making some myself when I was quite young and I can still see. Don't know what I did wrong / right...

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

#98

Post by semiquaver »

codexb wrote: post #94
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.)

The controlling case is Wickard v Filburn (1942). A farmer was told he could only grow X acres of feed on his own land; feed that he had no intention of selling and was being fed entirely to his own livestock on the same land. This seems to overturn that in part, but until Wickard is overturned, and the interstate commerce clause reigned in, there will be weird side effects of it like this.

Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, this decision purports to rest on the “Necessary and Proper” clause, avoiding Wickard (decided on commerce clause grounds)

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

#99

Post by jonnycoder »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #86
dmitrygr wrote: post #46

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.

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.

Are you ok with ciggarete smoke then if you are ok with marijuana smoke?

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

#100

Post by mynameisash »

caycep wrote: post #50

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

I would say: not explosive. I've seen a decent number of setups, and I can think of three areas where you could be concerned with safety (not necessarily where you should be):

1. Most use propane burners (the exact thing you'd use for homebrewing which is already legal and safe, and also similar to what some large turkey fryers use) which can be risky, but some are electric (120v or 240v).

2. Stills are an open system insofar as there is a way for pressure to escape - if you're goofing things up, you might vaporize and not recondense your ethanol (eg, because you have the heat way too high and/or aren't doing a good job of cooling down the vapors), and it's possible for that vapor to start on fire. I've seen it happen, and it's certainly a spectacle but wasn't particularly dangerous.

3. The distillate itself (ie, ethanol) is usually pretty potent, especially the foreshots and heads. Let's say 70%+. Especially as it's coming out, it's still prone to evaporation, and you could have a combustible/explosive risk here, but I've never seen this to be an actual problem.

Post reply on HN