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

211–220 of 369 posts

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

#211

Post by TylerE »

jrflowers wrote: post #182
bonesss wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VOCs and carcinogens are a health hazard. Asthma, kids development, allergies, and occasional migraine trigger. It’s not random we call it ‘dank’ or ‘skunk’ and if it’s good it should piss off your neighbours. It’s 2026. Dry flower vapes get you higher, with less product, and sparing the lungs. They have a smell more in line with popcorn than a cigarette. They come in everything from one-hitter to portable-volcano. F…

> VOCs and carcinogens are a health hazard. Asthma, kids development, allergies, and occasional migraine trigger. This is the foundational reasoning for making perfume, air fresheners, deodorant, and scented cleaning supplies illegal to possess or use.

Frankly, as an asthmatic I'd be 100% onboard with everything. There are plenty of scent free deodorants that work just fine, btw.

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

#212

Post by dfdsjsdklfjs »

dmitrygr wrote: post #207
dfdsjsdklfjs wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>> Are you ok with ciggarete smoke then if you are ok with marijuana smoke? > Yep. Why wouldn't I be? I'm not a brainwashed Karen. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/health.html

[flagged]

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

#213

Post by asadotzler »

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.

Until we start throwing cigar, pipe, and cigarette smokers in prison for smoking where I can smell it, I'm totally okay smelling some pot. The playing field needs to be leveled.

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

#214

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

lokar wrote: post #187
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…

This gets at something I think a lot of people don't really understand. They see polls that show strong support for policy X, and then complain that politicians don't enact it. What they fail to consider is that while a strong majority may be in favor of the policy, it's not the top (or top 3) priority, and they will support candidates that have the opposite position on X, if they support their top priority. This is…

Yeah, that's essentially what happened here in Oregon.

And the 2nd chapter of it is after the ballot measure passed, the state liquor commission drug its heels for a couple years, because most of their executives are far more conservative than the median voter here (a side effect of a lot of them being Salem locals vs Portland, but anyhow).

Eventually the state legislature got fed up with the obstructionism and passed a "ok, we're just doing it how CO did, stop stalling" bill.

And here we are. The sky didn't fall.

There's a lotta ways ballot measures can go into stupidity, but this is an instance where it helped force the bureaucracy to align with the majority voter position.

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

#215

Post by throwaway173738 »

lokar wrote: post #187
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…

This gets at something I think a lot of people don't really understand. They see polls that show strong support for policy X, and then complain that politicians don't enact it. What they fail to consider is that while a strong majority may be in favor of the policy, it's not the top (or top 3) priority, and they will support candidates that have the opposite position on X, if they support their top priority. This is…

Also it doesn’t matter if there’s majority support for a lot of things because most people don’t vote. If you want to get a policy enacted make sure you and your friends vote in elections regularly.

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

#216

Post by asadotzler »

embedding-shape wrote: post #101
barbazoo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

See also, cigarettes, cigars, and pipe smoking. I find those smells about 10x as offensive as smoked weed. I don't see the HN crowd coming out against tobacco despite these two being roughly equivalent in use. And that 20 ft from the door thing is a joke when it's on the sidewalk you have to walk through to reach the bus stop or your car. At least the pot smell doesn't stick to my clothes until they're washed like the tobacco smell.

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

#217

Post by throwaway173738 »

asadotzler wrote: post #213
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.

Until we start throwing cigar, pipe, and cigarette smokers in prison for smoking where I can smell it, I'm totally okay smelling some pot. The playing field needs to be leveled.

I don’t want my toddler exposed to secondhand pot smoke. Unfortunately it’s more common than secondhand cigarette smoke in my experience. I wouldn’t get upset on my own behalf but he’s too young to choose and it’s my responsibility to act in his behalf as much as I can.

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

#218

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

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…

> even fruit based fermentations with significantly higher pectin concentrations only produce trace methanol

Would using pectinase to break it down first reduce the risk?

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

#219

Post by semiquaver »

DrDeadCrash wrote: post #191
hackeraccount wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the question I'd love to see asked to people running for President. Name something you think the States can do that the Federal government is prohibited from doing.

The answer isn't something we should accept as an opinion, though. For example, laws prohibit the federal government from (direct) involvement in elections.

I think you are confused. The constitution explicitly grants Congress the right to pass laws regulating federal elections:

  > The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

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

#220

Post by asadotzler »

declan_roberts wrote: post #115
realo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's legal in many states here. In SF it's absolutely everywhere and disgusting. Austin smells like tobacco and it's much better to my nose.

Your nose is literally a special flower. What smells good to it may not to another and vice versa. I far prefer the smell of pot smoke on the sidewalk to the smell of tobacco smoke. You youngsters missed the years of indoor workplace smoking and smoke breaks with 20 smokers surrounding the office entry door. It's just another smell to you. But for those of us who lived through the bad days of smoking, it's a toxic soup, a smoke inferno hell pit we're not thrilled about revisiting right outside of our favorite restaurant. A little bit of grass burning, no big deal. A cigarette and my meal's ruined.
Post reply on HN