Live data from Hacker News

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

nypost.com

71–80 of 369 posts

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

#71

It'll be interesting to see how many people get methanol poisoning from trying their hand at it without doing the research properly. That being said, so long as it's for private or non-profit use, I don't really see the harm here.

Probably none. Unless someone is intentionally adding methanol to it.

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

#72
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think much more likely is that it will just be made legal federally sometime in the next decade. Marijuana legalization has majorities across ideologies ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legal... ) and even though the inability to create federal law on something so popular seems like a good case study on how the US system doesn't always do a good job representing it's actual people, it seems…

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.

Oh no, the thought of catching a whiff! No one must smoke in texas, since you know, everyone follows the law. Smoking weed only started in general with legalization. It was mythical beforehand.

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

#73

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

I'd imagine one wants to litigate Wickard v. Filburn in its entirety, rather than just the downstream Gonzales v. Raich

You have identified a root perversion. Roscoe Filburn’s wheat did not leave Ohio or even his farm. He didn’t offer it for sale; the wheat was for his own use. It was deemed to “affect interstate commerce” and thus within the scope of the interstate commerce clause. With that, a provision intended to remove power of states to tax each other’s goods and services and promote a free trade zone instead became a mechanism to nitpick and micromanage every last little detail, ossify existing practice, protect large players, give loopholes to the politically connected, and enable mass regulatory capture. It cannot be overturned quickly enough.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/

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

#74
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would also invalidate the civil rights act, as the (similar) 19th century CRA was already struck down because the 14th amendment binds against discrimination by public not private actors. The reason why the modern CRAs weren't also struck is because they rested on the laurels of Wickard v Filburn declaring the CRA (this time) is about regulating "interstate" commerce.

fixing the interstate commerce clause is one of those things that needs to be done eventually, but will likely never be done - even if just to "fix" it so everything remains the same but is based on simpler allocation of powers than through a "loophole".

John Roberts will find a way to screw it up.

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

#75
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised if this one unironically goes given that Uber/Lyft are fully doing "women only" ride shares now. Gen Z / Alpha have embraced X-"realism" and fully accept essentialism/reject "intersectionality". They're far more conservative/prudish than millennials, even at their young age.

> Gen Z / Alpha have embraced X-"realism" and fully accept essentialism/reject "intersectionality". They're far more conservative/prudish than millennials, even at their young age. This does not meet up with my experience with them at all. Just quick check, what percentage of onlyfans creators are Gen Z / Alpha vs other nonsense year demographics?

I think there's a selection effect there that makes it an unrepresentative sample.

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

#76
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone living in the Balkans, home brewing is a national passtime for every nation around. When every family has its own recipe for brewing alcohol, killing ourselves would've been achieved many centuries ago if it was a real concern. Methanol is an issue when some dumbshit decides to cell chemically produced trash on industrial scale instead of buying the expensive ingredients.

almost every year there is a news story of some Western tourist visiting another country dying from bootleg methanol alcohol

Raised and addressed in an earlier post on an earlier article on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47736298#47737600

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

#78

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.

> The problem is if you say the government can’t regulate MJ, then all drug regulations fall apart. No, that's not what's being said. If you grow your own plant for personal use, there's no need for the federal government to be involved. If you grow that plant and then try to sell it, then there's some commerce which does fall under some regulation (we'll leave the interstate nuances aside). Having the fed being allo…

And before people say you are being hyperbolic, the government still regulates sex positions. Sodomy is illegal in 12 US states.

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

#79
post #67

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’d be concerned about Billy selling homemade GPLs or whatever. Would it be better with a BSD license?

Been samplin’ a little bit of Grandpa’s attribution clause, have we?

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

#80

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.

> The problem is if you say the government can’t regulate MJ, then all drug regulations fall apart. No, that's not what's being said. If you grow your own plant for personal use, there's no need for the federal government to be involved. If you grow that plant and then try to sell it, then there's some commerce which does fall under some regulation (we'll leave the interstate nuances aside). Having the fed being allo…

Okay. So if you decide to visit a friends house does him sharing still count as personal use ?

In many communities you have a guy who cooks plates of food and sells them. While technically this is illegal with out a permit, it’s usually tolerated.

I’m all for the legalization of everything for adults, but it’s a very complex issue. Education is the way here, not punishment

Post reply on HN