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

101–110 of 369 posts

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

#101

Post by embedding-shape »

barbazoo wrote: post #49
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.

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

Even as a daily weed smoker myself though, it's hard not to acknowledge that a more liberal marijuana stance in a geographic location does lead to that smell being more commonly encountered when in public and out and about.

Personally I don't mind, almost the opposite, but for people who don't like the smell, obviously they feel differently. Good thing we can have different policies in different places, and people can generally, one way or another, move themselves to other places. Could be easier, but could also be way worse.

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

#102

Post by ryoshoe »

pattilupone wrote: post #96
sir0010010 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

HOAs tend to manage this kind of thing

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

#103

Post by laughing_man »

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.)

If they reversed Gonzales v. Raich they'd be under a lot of pressure to reverse Wickard v. Fulburn, which would have such wide ramifications I just don't see the court doing it no matter how warranted.

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

#104

Post by 0x457 »

caycep wrote: post #51
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.

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

There just no smell like this in any neighborhood outside of college campuses and area close to those.

You might get a whiff here and there, but you're going to encounter a lot of smells you don't like here and there.

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

#105

Post by rdbl27 »

rtkwe wrote: post #26
GenerWork wrote: post #14

It'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?

The ruling only has binding precedent in the 5th Circuit, other circuits aren't bound to follow it. Formerly this kind of ruling would come with a nationwide injunction to force the issue but now that those are severely curtailed by the Supreme Court it's only binding to the courts under the jurisdiction of the 5th circuit. Decisions in other circuits can be very persuasive to other circuits but they're not required…

Nationwide injunctions are a very recent legal innovation -- as in, extremely rare until the 2000s, and uncommon until the 2010s.

They were not how this situation was handled for nearly all of the existence of the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction

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

#106

Post by rdbl27 »

rtkwe wrote: post #70
dcrazy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be confusing precedent-setting decisions with nationwide injunctions.

Probably though the old pattern was that the plaintiffs would request and the Circuit would issue a nationwide injunction with the ruling when finding that a law in full unconstitutional. Now we have the weird situation where the constitution is more patchwork because you have to get rulings in all the Circuits or wait for one case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

No, that was never the old pattern. Nationwide injunctions were unheard of until very recently -- as in, within the past 10-20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction

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

#107

Post by laughing_man »

gbacon wrote: post #73
swiftcoder wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd imagine one wants to litigate Wickard v. Filburn in its entirety, rather than just the downstream Gonzales v. Raich

You have identified a root perversion. Roscoe Filburn’s wheat did not leave Ohio or even his farm. He didn’t offer it for sale; the wheat was for his own use. It was deemed to “affect interstate commerce” and thus within the scope of the interstate commerce clause. With that, a provision intended to remove power of states to tax each other’s goods and services and promote a free trade zone instead became a mechanism…

I don't see SCOTUS ever overturning Wickard, sadly. Too many federal programs and regulations would lose their legal basis if that happened.

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

#108

Post by semiquaver »

999900000999 wrote: post #80
dylan604 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is if you say the government can’t regulate MJ, then all drug regulations fall apart. No, that's not what's being said. If you grow your own plant for personal use, there's no need for the federal government to be involved. If you grow that plant and then try to sell it, then there's some commerce which does fall under some regulation (we'll leave the interstate nuances aside). Having the fed being allo…

Okay. So if you decide to visit a friends house does him sharing still count as personal use ? In many communities you have a guy who cooks plates of food and sells them. While technically this is illegal with out a permit, it’s usually tolerated. I’m all for the legalization of everything for adults, but it’s a very complex issue. Education is the way here, not punishment

No one argues these things are not able to be regulated. Instead, per the 10th amendment, it must be left to state law since Congress does not have unlimited power and may only legislate where power has been granted to them by the constitution.

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

#109

Post by malfist »

rdbl27 wrote: post #106
rtkwe wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably though the old pattern was that the plaintiffs would request and the Circuit would issue a nationwide injunction with the ruling when finding that a law in full unconstitutional. Now we have the weird situation where the constitution is more patchwork because you have to get rulings in all the Circuits or wait for one case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

No, that was never the old pattern. Nationwide injunctions were unheard of until very recently -- as in, within the past 10-20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction

Your own source says they've been common since 1960

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

#110

Post by ravenstine »

caycep wrote: post #50

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

Not explosive, but still a potential fire hazard, especially if a still gets way too hot (coolant system fails) and alcohol vapors escape. The risk becomes extremely minimal when using an electric still.
Post reply on HN