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

351–360 of 369 posts

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

#351

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

Government tobacco smoking bans in indoor spaces accessible to the public (or outdoor spaces near the entrances to such spaces) are not uncommon in the US, nor are private contractual (via leases for rental properties and sometimes CC&Rs that bind property owners) bans for non-public spaces.

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

#352

Post by IAmBroom »

Tangurena2 wrote: post #123
mothballed wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sub saharan africa already has a very large informal distilling network (especially of bananas), a niche largely reserved for women in many regions (not sure for what the reason is for that exactly).

Probably because it involves some form of cooking, which is a feminine-coded skill.

Historically, brewing, fermenting, and distilling are all "wife chores", probably because of the feminine-coding you mention... until it becomes highly profitable, at which point men take it away.

Wine has always easy to trade. Mead and ciders, ditto.

Beer/ale, prior to preservative hops, doesn't keep long enough to be viable for intercity trade. The acceptance of hops in a communities' drinkers coincides with a gender change in brewers (documented in PhD dissertations and books).

Distillation always results in a shelf-stable product; ergo it quickly becomes male dominated in a cash society (even supplanting cash in colonial America!).

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

#353

Post by ZeWaka »

ilamont wrote: post #296
moron4hire wrote: post #288

If you have a stock pot, a steel bowl that is large enough to sit on top of the stock pot, and a Pyrex measuring glass, you can start distilling now. Put the glass in the center of the pot. Fill the pot with not enough mash to float the glass. Top the pot with the bowl. The condensate will form on the bowl and run towards the bottom center of the bowl, where it will drip into the glass. I was able to distill a few bo…

> I was able to distill a few bottles of home made apple wine that I had screwed up some additional flavorings on. It took a couple of hours for 3 or 4 bottles. My grandfather used to make something called Apple Jack using a method known as freeze distillation. He'd put fermented cider (widely available in rural New York) in a cask and place it out in the barn on a really cold night. The water would freeze, but the a…

Done out West in the apple-growing states as well!

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

#354

Post by LastTrain »

mattmaroon wrote: post #312
LastTrain wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“They can pass a law that says that all left-handed people are subject to a 50% income tax even though such a thing would clearly violate the constitution” I think that would be constitutional, but in conflict with other laws.

It would violate equal protection.

Someone forgot to tell Brett Kavanaugh.

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

#355

Post by LastTrain »

yieldcrv wrote: post #336
nineseventynine wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Left handed people aren't human. Just like how criminals aren't treated like normal humans with equal rights. Seriously though, I don't think it technically violates anything given that we do have a set of humans (criminals) that we treat unequally. Culturally we believe theft and murder gives us the right to treat such people who do such things unequally and we've encoded that into law. It is simply another…

The left handed tax law could be passed and declared unconstitutional almost instantly under a challenge brought by any individual that referenced the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, to any federal court. if the government appealed it at all, the appeals court would agree with the lower court, if the government appealed it again, the Supreme Court would also agree with the appeals court and lower court…

Didn't go that way for brown people with accents did it.

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

#356

Post by hansvm »

IAmBroom wrote: post #332
hansvm wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if it extends to box wines or Spanish wines, but my main complaint of bottom-shelf wines in the US is that they're pure sugar/acid/alcohol with almost no extra flavors and pretty bad distributions of the main components (especially being far too sweet). A small pattern I'm noticing in your description is the presence of sugar in the distillation inputs. Assume I know nothing about distillation; is that r…

> A small pattern I'm noticing in your description is the presence of sugar in the distillation inputs. Assume I know nothing about distillation; is that relevant? Sugar should be completely removed by a proper distillation setup (although a lazy setup can allow some "contamination" with sugars).

Yes, but distillation involves heat, and I'm curious if possibly the sugar reacts with anything to cause different aromatics or something, or perhaps fermentations stopping at higher sugar concentrations have a better aromatic profile for distillation even when the raw material is sub-par.

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

#357

Post by wiredfool »

hansvm wrote: post #257
wiredfool wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best I’ve ever done was a double distilled Spanish box wine we picked up for 1eur/l. The wine was undrinkable, but the brandy was sooooo smooth. Next best was cheap tokaij furmint, distilled once and then mixed back into some of the undistilled wine. Basically the same thing as pineau de charante, but Hungarian and on the kitchen table.

I'm not sure if it extends to box wines or Spanish wines, but my main complaint of bottom-shelf wines in the US is that they're pure sugar/acid/alcohol with almost no extra flavors and pretty bad distributions of the main components (especially being far too sweet). A small pattern I'm noticing in your description is the presence of sugar in the distillation inputs. Assume I know nothing about distillation; is that r…

I doubt it. The spanish (really tetra pack) wine was dry, and after double distilling it was basically moonshine. The Hungarian one was more in the mixing back into the undistilled wine -- making something akin to port+ strength that drinks like wine. It's the same idea behind pineau, first distilling + the cheap young white wine of the region.

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

#358

Post by lovich »

schiem wrote: post #331
porksoda wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The person you're responding to is incorrect, fruit fermentation produces methanol: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8125215/ The primary mechanism of methanol production during fermentation is from pectin degradation. Grain contains considerably less pectin than fruit, so grain fermentation produces less methanol than fruit.

The person hes responding to isnt a person at all. Its a 3 day old account spamming shit all over the board and is weirdly combative

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

#359

Post by yieldcrv »

LastTrain wrote: post #355
yieldcrv wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left handed tax law could be passed and declared unconstitutional almost instantly under a challenge brought by any individual that referenced the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, to any federal court. if the government appealed it at all, the appeals court would agree with the lower court, if the government appealed it again, the Supreme Court would also agree with the appeals court and lower court…

Didn't go that way for brown people with accents did it.

what specifically are you referring to? more like, which?

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

#360

Post by lmm »

rtkwe wrote: post #297
lmm wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cou…

It's rarely down to one judge in one county though, most are entered pending appeal and the appeals court can immediately put the injunction on hold or in cases like this the first injunction might come from a circuit court who's far from one judge, by the time it gets to a circuit it's gone through multiple judges and some cases are heard by a bank of judged instead of just one. > Your rights are always dependent on…

> It's rarely down to one judge in one county though, most are entered pending appeal and the appeals court can immediately put the injunction on hold or in cases like this the first injunction might come from a circuit court who's far from one judge, by the time it gets to a circuit it's gone through multiple judges and some cases are heard by a bank of judged instead of just one.

When the circuit court rules the ruling is binding on that whole circuit, which is a pretty huge area and population (bigger than most countries). When one judge in one county rules the ruling is binding in that county, when the supreme court rules it's binding on the whole country. Isn't that kind of how it should work?

Post reply on HN