Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

321–330 of 337 posts

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

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methanol/CH3OH/MeOH is poisonous and its consumption causes a life-threatening health crisis that often results in death or permanent blindness. As little as 100 ml of methanol can kill or cause lifelong damage to one's health. One shouldn't have to restate these well-known facts but they have to be repeated at every opportunity because in many ways methanol too closely resembles ethanol/EtOH, it tastes the same and…

Methanol is dangerous. But you are simply misinformed about the risk of methanol showing up in your homebrew spirits. It's not your fault: this has been a propagandized issue. But methanol poisoning was only a thing during the prohibition because the feds started poisoning the fuel ethanol supply with it, and people either served it to people unwittingly, maliciously, or tried and failed to separate out the ethanol.…

"But you are simply misinformed about the risk of methanol showing up in your homebrew spirits."

I did not say that. I'm sick of being misquoted (at least twice to this story).

I well know that methanol only appears in trace amounts in drinking spirits (also naturally in trace amounts in one's gut/body sans drinking—it's even in fruit juice). That is not what I was talking about. What I said was:

"Many ways exist for methanol to enter the food chain both accidentally and through deliberate substitution for ethanol…"

In that paragraph I made no mention of homebrew spirits and it's clear I was referring to methanol manufactured in industry on an industrial scale. Industrially-manufactured methanol has found its way into the food chain and has killed people.

You should read my reply to reisse where I make it clear how methanol could enter the food chain (right, I also mentioned it earlier).

It's pretty obvious to me that if a large cultural rush/sudden fad to homebrew spirits were to happen (assuming the decision is upheld) then things will in all probability go wrong unless there's a broad reeducation about the potential for methanol substitution coupled with regulations covering sales especially through third parties.

I'm specifically referring to the US here, the entrepreneurial nature of business being what it is this decision will be seen by some (and a few is too many) to run amok and start trading HB spirits in ways traditional homebrewers would never (or very rarely) do

It's also worth reading the link on methanol poisoning in my reply to pessimizer.

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

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the conclusion you drew from that article, you either didn't read large sections of it or failed to understand it. Not sure how to help you but to suggest you try again. The principle is the same reason why when you distill at 180 degrees, you do not wind up with a distillate with zero water in it.

Sure you don't get zero water at 180 degrees - but you get less water which is why we can distill alcohol at all to remove water. Likewise you get more methanol in the early stages - that doesn't mean you get it all in the early stages, but you will get an elevated amount.

Exactly, now you've got it! The last caveat is that while methanol is slightly elevated in the heads, it's not meaningfully so. It's present throughout the run at nearly the same concentration. There just isn't enough methanol in a home brew to produce a meaningful early spike. And you certainly do not discard all or even a majority of the methanol if you toss the heads.

And this is why home brewing and distillation cannot cause methanol poisoning.

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

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suggest you read the link in my reply to pessimizer .

If you don't want to provide a link and quote to the source, I'm going to treat it as it's unsourced. If you want to claim the link and source are in another castle, I'm not playing games. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1306022/ > A 10% ethanol solution administered intravenously is a safe and effective antidote for severe methanol poisoning. Ethanol therapy is recommended when plasma methanol concentration…

[deleted]

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

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suggest you read the link in my reply to pessimizer .

If you don't want to provide a link and quote to the source, I'm going to treat it as it's unsourced. If you want to claim the link and source are in another castle, I'm not playing games. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1306022/ > A 10% ethanol solution administered intravenously is a safe and effective antidote for severe methanol poisoning. Ethanol therapy is recommended when plasma methanol concentration…

https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/12/12/924. Point 7.

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

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More is in the tails, neither is enough to be of concern.

In small batches. In very large batches there is enough to be a concern. Where the line is, is something I don't know but you better figure out if you are going to make concentrated alcohol.

Batch size has nothing to do with it.

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

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't want to provide a link and quote to the source, I'm going to treat it as it's unsourced. If you want to claim the link and source are in another castle, I'm not playing games. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1306022/ > A 10% ethanol solution administered intravenously is a safe and effective antidote for severe methanol poisoning. Ethanol therapy is recommended when plasma methanol concentration…

https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/12/12/924 . Point 7.

Under > 7.4. Antidotes and Elimination Enhancement

> 7.4.2. Ethanol A therapeutic blood ethanol level of about 22 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) is recommended.

...

>If ethanol was coingested with methanol and the blood ethanol level initially was >22 mmol/L (100 mg/dL), the bolus dose of ethanol can be skipped.

It's like you didn't even read your own source.

They are calling it recommended for certain conditions, and saying you can skip parts of treatment for co-ingestion!

Then in the conclusions section

> Despite its extensive use, methanol poisoning remains a critical public health concern globally, often resulting from accidental or intentional ingestion and outbreaks linked to contaminated beverages.

They've called out contaminated beverages, not outputs of distillation.

You've been had by misinformation and now you're peddling lies.

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

#327
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dumb people doing dumb stuff incur a cost for all of us, whether it's through taxpayer-funded healthcare or higher premiums for private insurance.

> whether it's through taxpayer-funded healthcare or higher premiums for private insurance. Insurance should insure your risk, and that's fairly independent of what other people are doing. (Of course, other people driving dangerously can endanger your health, and thus drive up your health insurance costs.) What you have in mind is probably a consequence of forbidding insurance companies from charging people according…

You want the best spread possible, by having the largest pool possible.

We can all debate and discuss the best way to get there, but mathematically it's a pool that includes most everyone.

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

#328
post #282

As tourists to sketchy places in Asia discovered, methanol poisoning is a real risk, even from large scale distillation. It is the quality control that matters. Illegal stills make quality control impossible, so legalisation and government certified testing can make it safe. However, this ruling is not about alcohol, it is about dissolving Federal authority exercised via the trade and commerce clause of the Constitut…

Batches under a certain size don't have a problem with methanol poisoning. You need a large enough batch that you get a high percentage of methanol in the "heads". Usually for batches under 100L, it's not an issue. A sensible policy would be limiting "home" distillation to 50L batches (which is a lot of booze; hard to argue you need more than that in a batch for private consumption).

Batch size has nothing to do with it

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

#329
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batches under a certain size don't have a problem with methanol poisoning. You need a large enough batch that you get a high percentage of methanol in the "heads". Usually for batches under 100L, it's not an issue. A sensible policy would be limiting "home" distillation to 50L batches (which is a lot of booze; hard to argue you need more than that in a batch for private consumption).

Batch size has nothing to do with it

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please Google it.

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

#330
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethanol is a naturally occurring substance, humans and many animals have specifically evolved ways of processing it. In moderate doses it does no harm. It's almost impossible to avoid ingesting some alcohol during the course of a natural diet, and that includes if you avoid fermented food such as bread, let alone beverages deliberately brewed to be alcoholic.

Isn't the problem of poisoning caused by Methanol and not Ethanol? Gemini says this: "Ethanol is the type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, spirits) meant for consumption. While ethanol is safe for moderate consumption, methanol is extremely toxic and can cause poisoning, blindness, or death, even in small amounts."

I was replying to the statement that "alcohol is always poisonous". It isn't.
Post reply on HN