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

261–270 of 369 posts

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

#261

Post by d4v3 »

VectorLock wrote: post #205
thaumasiotes wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty sure this was a relic of prohibition right? The feds would contaminate ethanol with methanol to keep people from drinking it We still do this now. We don't do it because alcohol is illegal, we do it because we levy higher taxes on non-poisonous alcohol, and if someone decides to drink the poisoned alcohol, they deserve what they get.

No going to the gas station and getting blitzed on ethanol fuel on a Saturday night.

More like solvents at the hardware store

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

#262

Post by kelnos »

dfdsjsdklfjs wrote: post #233
fennecbutt wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Their church/religious attendance is up This was debunked, at least in the UK. Not sure about the US but I'll bet it's the same sham (church sponsored) statistics. I think more of each generation is coming to realise that religion is an outmoded parasite.

The church certainly is, but religion isn't and will never be.

At this point I don't see any difference between the two. Modern religions are shaped (warped, really) by the larger organizations that control them.

Sure, the concept of "spiritual/non-scientific belief" isn't a parasite in and of itself, but even if the existing organized religions ceased to hold their sway, and people treated religion as a personal thing without centralized authorities, I still don't see an end to (for example) people trying to get their religious beliefs enshrined in law. That's parasite behavior.

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

#263

Post by cogman10 »

ribosometronome wrote: post #256
cogman10 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> isn't seen by politicians as a motivating vote driver ... It got through via a ballot initiative Those two seem a little at odds. People are going to vote against it, but not when it's specifically on the ballot?

It's not.

If 90% of party A supporters support the issue, and 70% of party B supporters support and issue and the election is close to 50/50 with B in power. B putting forward the issue can make them lose the next election because that 30% will either withhold their vote or vote for the other party.

But if that same issue is a ballot measure, then the 90% of A voters and 70% of B voters will overwhelmingly pass it.

This is what I mean by a motivating issue. Nobody will withhold their vote if MJ stays illegal. But there are certainly people (mostly religious) that absolutely will withhold their vote if a politician makes it legal. Even if that's a super popular move.

That's why pretty popular things aren't done. It's also why unpopular things can be easily done. If nobody withholds their vote because of the "send the kids to the mines" act (because they are happy about the mandatory Bible study), then a politician can get away with really horrible things so long as they make the core of their voters happy. After all, you aren't going to let the other guy win now are you.

It's what's broken about parties and FPTP elections.

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

#264

Post by kelnos »

torstenvl wrote: post #197
bsimpson wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're working awfully hard to be pedantic without comparing the actual language: > to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

[flagged]

A paraphrase isn't a lie. The actual quoted passage from the constitution does indeed amount to a regulation of interstate commerce.

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

#265

Post by kelnos »

MichaelDickens wrote: post #68
999900000999 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is if you say the government can’t regulate MJ, then all drug regulations fall apart. On one hand you should have a right to buy whatever you want at 21( which should be the minimum enlistment age), but I’d be concerned about Billy selling homemade GPLs or whatever.

I believe the original idea of the Constitution was that most things would be regulated at the state level. This is pretty much already the case with marijuana, where it's illegal at the federal level, but in practice if it's legal in your state then it's legal.

"Pretty much" is doing quite a bit of work there. The feds ignoring marijuana use in states that have legalized or decriminalized it is the DoJ actively deciding not to prosecute MJ cases. They could absolutely send the FBI or whatever into a state with legalized marijuana and raid dispensaries and arrest people if they wanted to.

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

#266

Post by thaumasiotes »

d4v3 wrote: post #261
VectorLock wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No going to the gas station and getting blitzed on ethanol fuel on a Saturday night.

More like solvents at the hardware store

During the covid period, the price of hand sanitizer, which is thickened alcohol, rose to exceed the price of drinkable alcohol.

Several beverage factories proposed to rework themselves to produce sanitizer instead, which would have been good for everyone.

But they couldn't, because federal law would have required them to poison the sanitizer, which would have contaminated their machinery so badly that they would have been unable to switch back to producing drinkable alcohol afterwards.

So - even if we ignore the idea that intentionally poisoning people is wrong - there was a serious cost to the legal regime, one that still exists.

Are there any benefits?

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

#267

Post by lmm »

rtkwe wrote: post #195
rdbl27 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Seems like a perfectly valid one. If the government is violating the constitution or a persons rights why should there be suits all across the country to get that recognized? Especially when the question isn't on something with a lot of particularized tests that's sensitive to the exact case, eg 4th amendment law? Why should rights be so dependent on someone in my particular part of the country having sued?

> If the government is violating the constitution or a persons rights why should there be suits all across the country to get that recognized?

Because one judge in one county shouldn't be defining the laws for the whole country? Sure it's great when they issue a ruling you like, but what about when it's a ruling that you don't. If it's a knife-edge situation then letting several judges rule and having the supreme court sort it out is the right thing; if there's an obvious right answer then every court will rule the same way and it doesn't matter.

> Why should rights be so dependent on someone in my particular part of the country having sued?

Your rights are always dependent on your willingness to sue to defend them. It's nice if someone else does the legwork and sets the precedent, but you shouldn't depend on that.

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

#268

Post by mark124mj »

Homebrewing beer and wine was illegal at the federal level until 1978, and the sky didn't fall when that changed. Distilling is the same kind of personal-use activity — the main difference is that the law just never caught up. Good to see the courts pushing this forward.

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

#269

Post by AceJohnny2 »

mark124mj wrote: post #268

Homebrewing beer and wine was illegal at the federal level until 1978, and the sky didn't fall when that changed. Distilling is the same kind of personal-use activity — the main difference is that the law just never caught up. Good to see the courts pushing this forward.

Wrong thread. You probably meant to post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47755629

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

#270

Post by porksoda »

dfdsjsdklfjs wrote: post #237
jotux wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ze…

Yes, it's exhausting. Methanol is only ever a tiny portion of the fermented output and that's only with grain fermentation. There's nowhere near enough to blind anyone. Fruit or sugar fermentation does not produce any methanol. In that case the unwanted contaminate is ethyl acetate, which is less harmful but still ruins the drink. It gives bad whiskey its burn and causes hangovers. In both cases the procedure is the…

In this very comment section an earlier post claimed the opposite (that specifically grain fermentation did not produce the big M), and sounded just as knowlegable and plausible to the lay-ear.
Post reply on HN