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

161–170 of 369 posts

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

#161

Post by ianferrel »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #118
pdonis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Wickard v. Filburn, back in 1942, they said the same thing for wheat .

You say that like interstate commerce regulation was more egregious for wheat than it was for marijuana. But Raich is significantly more egregious: the theory on which the government won Wickard v. Filburn , that private consumption of wheat could affect the interstate market for wheat, doesn't even apply, because there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade.

>there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade.

There is in fact an interstate market in many substances that are illegal to trade because laws against things do not make those things fail to exist.

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

#162

Post by Tangurena2 »

beedeebeedee wrote: post #154
Tangurena2 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're a significant fire hazard which is why ATF regulations for stills require them to be located at least 100 feet from a residence. I live in a city with 2 distilleries. You can smell when they're dealing with the mash because everyone in town can smell it. Also, we all get some black mold (not the really bad one) all over our siding which I think is some byproduct of the fermentation step. My father worked in t…

Thanks for sharing your comment. I was skeptical about your claim that black mold would be a consequence of living near a distillery, but in fact, it is. It is called Whiskey Fungus and is related to the aging of the spirits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudoinia

Yep, that's it. They all look the same with a human eyeball. Or I need better eye glasses.

> The fungus can be removed from buildings using high pressure water jets, bleach, etc. According to a report from the Kentucky government, it has not been shown to cause anything other than cosmetic effects thanks to its mode of nutrition via the carboniferous atmosphere, rather than the decay of building materials in general.

It reaches higher up the siding than I can reach with household cleaners. It makes the house look dirty. Which I really don't care about, since most folks in the neighborhood have the same schmutz on their homes. It doesn't seem to like cement, so sidewalks & foundations aren't affected (that I can see).

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

#163

Post by lovich »

dfdsjsdklfjs wrote: post #141
declan_roberts wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that so many people think it's fine to get high and drive is baffling to me.

[flagged]

It still negatively affects your ability to drive. You shouldn’t be taking anything that negatively affects reaction time or attention and drive.

I’m pro legalization but definitely not pro reckless behavior like that

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

#164

Post by 01100011 »

beedeebeedee wrote: post #158

The best liquor I ever had was by a state police detective who had been home distilling since he was 12. It was made from rye and corn, but tasted like peaches. I think it is kind of magical to witness the process. I only experimented a few times, and never aged it, so every was very sharp. The best was a sharp brandy made from a bottle of wine I bought. The worst was using a leftover keg of beer, which bittered the…

To me, the refractive index of hot ethanol makes it sparkle like a diamond when leaving the still.

I don't drink anymore, but man I loved distilling. It's like magic.

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

#165

Post by bonesss »

dfdsjsdklfjs wrote: post #136
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.

[flagged]

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. Fans exist too.

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

#167

Post by sir0010010 »

toast0 wrote: post #144
dfdsjsdklfjs wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't think it's unreasonable to desire to be free from the noxious odors of others. > The right to waft my smells in any direction ends where your nose begins. - Abraham Lincoln or Ben Franklin or Mark Twain or someone

It's not just because marijuana "smells bad". Secondhand marijuana smoke contains many of the same toxic chemicals as secondhand cigarette smoke and likely is similarly deleterious to your health [1]. I also believe everyone should have the right to be able to open their windows and have clean air come through. Smoking on balconies denies people this right. Edibles only effect the user and therefore should be permitted.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/health-effects/secondhand-smoke...

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

#169

Post by gowld »

semiquaver wrote: post #98
codexb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

> Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent.

That's a Supreme Court opinion that only applies if the new case reaches their docket and gets reaffirmed.

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

#170

Post by cogman10 »

limagnolia wrote: post #160
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…

Mormons voted strongly to legalize MJ in Utah. Maybe your politician is just an odd man out? edit: Well, I should note the Utah vote was only for "medical" MJ.

It got through via a ballot initiative. It wouldn't have been passed by the legislators in UT without that.

That's why the guy in my state, C. Scott Grow, has also been fighting to make ballot initiatives harder. He's terrified that an MJ initiative would make it's way in that way.

Post reply on HN