Live data from Hacker News

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

nypost.com

361–369 of 369 posts

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

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So "the water freezes, the alcohol does not," is not actually how freeze-distillation works. The entire batch freezes solid. You then let the block melt and collect the first meltings. If you start off with a 5% ABV solution, freeze it, and then melt off half of it, you'll end up with two halves where one is maybe 7% ABV and the other is maybe 3% ABV. You will need to reprocess those halves to further concentrate (ye…

Just telling you how my father remembered it. Not sure how big the cask or barrel was, but if time and temperature are controlled, how will that affect the rate of ice formation inside the cask? What happens to the remaining unfrozen liquid in terms of ABV?

Sorry, it's just that these kinds of threads have a lot of people repeating things that aren't really all that correct. It creates an image of things that doesn't match reality that continue to persist in the collective conscience. Like how hibernation for bears isn't really "the bear sleeps all winter." Anyway, neither here nor there (I'm still not happy I lived 35 years of my life believing bears curled up in caves and take 3-month-long naps for winter. It's preposterous on its very face).

Solutions of alcohol and water are weird. If you had a solution of salt and water, you could boil 100% of the water out in one go and have 100% of the salt left over. With alcohol and water, you don't get that. You get a continuum of concentrations that changes over time, as the distillation progresses.

And there is more than one alcohol that you're dealing with, with different phase change temperatures for each. So it's a bit like homeopathy. At any particular point, you are dividing the batch into two sections, one that is increasing on the gradient of alcohol concentration and one that is decreasing. But each part of the batch will actually have some proportion of each chemical in it. All you can do is change the relative proportions and repeat until you've changed the ratios such that the one you don't want is negligible.

Water's freezing point is 0C, of course. Methanol's is, like, -97C. Ethanol's is around -115C. Something like that. So "the water freezes first". But it's not just water. It will be some proportion of all three, as well as trace other acetyl alcohols where the flavor comes from. It's just that more of it will be water than what you started. On the flip side, the ethanol freezes "last". But again, it will be a certain proportion of all three. So the "remaining, unfrozen liquid" increases in ABV over time. But the frozen liquid is not free of alcohol. And if we were trying to run a production distillery, we'd want to reprocess the frozen portion to extract the remaining aclohol from it as well.

It's an infinite series on which we're performing a manual, physical Taylor expansion approximation.

One of the nice things about boiling distillation is that it is the methanol with the lowest boiling point and the water with the highest. So, you can more easily bracket your product away from the beginning parts of the process to avoid the methanol. You can't really do that with freeze distillation, because the methanol is sitting in the middle between the water and ethanol in the phase change spectrum. Thankfully, it's impossible to make yourself go blind from in-good-faith home brewing and distilling. The amount of methanol you can produce will--at worst--give you a wicked hangover. But that's why more people don't do freeze distillation.

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

#362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep it's more distinctive, more intrusive, spreads further, smells worse.

But is it more unhealthy? The rest are simply adult "preferences".

Are you arguing that my toddler should be okay with it? The point is that it’s not about what I am okay with it’s about my being responsible for my son and what his adult self might want. We had opinions about the positive health effects of cigarettes in the 1940’s and 1950’s that turned out to be wrong. There’s a possibility you’re wrong about pot smoking too.

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

#363
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re probably right, though I dread the possibility. I cannot stand the smell, and one of the best things about moving from California to Texas was avoiding that pervasive smell being everywhere. Negative externalities of personal behavior really need to be handled better in our society. If you want pot to be legal, fine, but only inside your own personal enclosed house.

THC is perfectly legal here (Quebec, Canada) and believe me, there is no smell on the streets! What is actually disgusting and happens often in the streets is the smell of ordinary cigarette smoke.

It’s illegal in London but you wouldn’t know it from the smell. That city stinks of weed.

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

#364
post #360
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ru…

Rights violations because of federal laws or actions are almost never contained to a particular circuit and if the Supreme Court wants to quietly allow them to continue it can refuse to hear appeal(s) from the circuit decision so without nationwide injunctions the only way to relatively quickly vindicate people's rights is to file 11 cases one in each circuit wasting tons of time and money when it can easily be decided by a singular case.

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

#365
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

I swear there was one cheap sanitizer brand that smelled like tequila. Figured this is what they were doing.

Most of the really cheap sanitizers I got smelled like bad tequila.

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

#366
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people say the same about the smell or noise of babies. It's not a very strong argument for getting ones way in controlling others.

If you truly think that "having babies" and "smoking weed" can be compared in any meaningful sense like this, I'm not sure what to tell you.

I truly think "it's not a very strong argument". If only I had said those exact words in order to communicate clearly.

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

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But by the text of the constitution (the thing we made up) Congress does not have the power to criminalize “anything,” but only things in specific areas. Everything else is left to state law.

So make an "amendment" then. You've got a bunch already

If someone wants to propose an amendment allowing the feds to do this, they can. They just need to get 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate to approve the proposal and then get 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify it.

Not sure why you’re acting like I think changing the law in this way would be a good idea, though.

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

#368
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

Quotation marks don't indicate a paraphrase. Are you confused or just pathologically disingenuous?

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

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So make an "amendment" then. You've got a bunch already

If someone wants to propose an amendment allowing the feds to do this, they can. They just need to get 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate to approve the proposal and then get 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify it. Not sure why you’re acting like I think changing the law in this way would be a good idea, though.

My point was the constitution stands for little if it can be amended
Post reply on HN