By that logic it would be acceptable for the state to regulate all sorts of common culinary techniques. Note that those
are regulated in a commercial setting. I'd have no objection to similar regulations pertaining to restaurants that wanted to serve alcohol that was distilled, brewed, or otherwise prepared on site. In that context it's equivalent to the regulations pertaining to the handling of raw meat.
Similarly, perhaps the state ought to regulate the use of refrigerators in a residential setting since various failure modes there can easily land you in the hospital.
Enough people have contracted botulism poisoning by storing chopped garlic under oil in their fridge that the FDA has a warning about it on their website. So I suppose that would also be acceptable to regulate? Or perhaps just cooking oil in general? After all, it's quite flammable and people commonly start house fires when frying things.
While we're at it, perhaps canning things at home ought to require a permit?
The standard that "thing could pose a hazard therefore regulation is acceptable" is far too broad a criteria as it applies to approximately everything that exists and entirely disregards individual freedoms.
> It requires care and craft
A fine whiskey? Sure. The equivalent of vodka? Don't be ridiculous.
> alcohol is not only a drug but a transformed product
It most certainly is not. Distillation concentrates something that is already there.
Alternatively, fried eggs are a transformed product but at that point the term as used is so absurdly broad as to be rendered entirely useless.