Yeehaw, time to fire up them stills boys.
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
70 points (100.0% liked)
Law
398 readers
1 users here now
Discussion about legal topics, centered around United States
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Haven't done a ton of research, but on its surface... This ban makes no sense if we also allow at home brewing and wine making.
Especially given the flimsy justification of essentially "taxes, and because they want to limit the plants that produce it". How is distilling spirits functionally different than brewing beer, or fermenting wine? It looks more like something nearly identical that just wasn't explicitly included when Jimmy Carter legalized home brewing in 1978, because the lobbying at the time was from brewers. The actual Act originally was about excise tax changes, that was the basis for removing the ban, so it makes sense it should be extended to other at home alcohol methods.
Not sure it's up to a judge to do that exactly, but the reasoning that home brewing was allowed easily applies to spirits and wine as well.
Although brewing wine and beer are similar at the start, distillation does have a few dangers that aren't present with brewing: alcohol is volatile and can explode, and the less obvious danger is the methanol and other potentially poisonous off cuts that come out of a still at the beginning and end of a run.
In this day and age of information, it makes no sense to prohibit home distillation. Stills are expensive, and anyone taking up the the hobby has access to a wealth of excellence information on the Internet.
Agreed that with modern access to information at the tips of everyone's fingers it makes no sense if the only reason is a higher danger. There's a TON of other shit that's legal for us to do, make, ferment, use, etc. that's just as dangerous as the various processes used in distilling. Botulism spores are found in honey, but making mead at home is fine. Pressure cookers are basically pipe bombs, but those are perfectly fine to cook with. Danger doesn't inherently mean it should be banned.
But I also want to point out again that the DOJ isn't arguing the ban based on any sort of danger. They're reasoning is only taxation, and that reason was removed for other alcohol brewing in 1978. So based on that reasoning... why should taxing spirits result in an at-home ban while other methods of alcohol production explicitly had the ban removed?
It essentially breaks down to letter of the law versus spirit of the law I think. The 1978 law wording says brewing, but uses a justification that would seem to apply to all alcohols, regardless of manufacturing process. So do we apply it only to brewing because that's the word that's used, or apply it broadly because that's what the actual change would do it you just change references of brewing to something slightly more broad like alcohol production since the reasoning still applies.
They’re reasoning is only taxation, and that reason was removed for other alcohol brewing in 1978. So based on that reasoning… why should taxing spirits result in an at-home ban
I don’t know how either the ban or the 1978 law are phrased but I don’t see why you couldn’t make the argument solely on taxation. Distilling concentrates the alcohol, so it is higher proof, more taxes.
I guess I’m comparing to something like income tax, where you get a personal exemption so lower income people aren’t taxed. Or maybe like a speed limit, where a few mph over aren’t worth enforcing
https://www.masterofmalt.com/blog/post/what-the-blazes-a-history-of-distillery-fires.aspx/
https://www.uptodate.com/contents/methanol-and-ethylene-glycol-poisoning-management#H1671374508
The first article is not very in depth, but you can find more by searching distillery explosion or distillery fire. The fire and explosion hazard, along with the toxicity hazards of poor distillation cuts are why home distillation is not allowed.
Except the danger isn't what's been argued - it's taxation.
I'm sure this ruling has a healthy respect for past precedent
I mean, the justification from the DOJ is taxes. But in 1978 Jimmy Carter signed a law allowing homebrewing, a law originally based on changing rules around excise taxes. The Brewing-specific aspects were included later due to lobbying from brewing groups.
The words obviously mean different things obviously, but that's just production methodology, not because of an inherent difference between the beginning and end result. At home brewing and winemaking are legal, how is distilling fundamentally different?
This appears to be the government using same reasoning for this spirits ban, as was removed for at home brewing in 1978. So there is precedent to remove the limit if that's the only justification they have. Congress removed the "excise taxes" reason for banning at-home production 50 years ago. Is there an inherent difference between distilling and brewing legally that would justify treating the production methods differently based solely on tax laws since that's what they're citing for the ban?
At home brewing and winemaking are legal, how is distilling fundamentally different?
Brewing and winemaking are simply using natural methods to make a weak alcohol. It’s just yeast, and time. I’ve had mishaps with both: wine grew mold, and beer sprayed everywhere. The worst case is a mess that harms no one
Distilling is an apparatus. There is no equivalent in nature. You’re adding heat to a flammable gas under pressure, relying on chemistry that can create poisons. The worst cases include fire, explosions, poisoning
I don't know anything about how to make alcohol but is the distilling process maybe more dangerous?
Theoretically, yes, distilling is more dangerous than brewing. However, it is not more dangerous than, say, canning, deep frying, welding, operating a weed burner, or any number of other tasks a DIYer might do around the house and garage. If you can operate a pressure cooker, an oil lamp, and plumb a gas water heater, you can probably operate a still.
All things I avoid, due to the risk, and these are well designed to mitigate that risk.
As someone that doesn't brew, distill, etc. at home at all and has only done a little research... It looks like it is, but only in the sense that like a pressure cooker is more dangerous than other cooking methods type of difference.
Brewing can result in exploding bottles if not done correctly due to fermentation. Distilling has steps involving higher pressures as well, they are just higher pressures kind of like a pressure cooker.
Fermentation can create very dangerous microbes/bacteria that are deadly if done incorrectly, but fermenting things at home is legal, both alcoholic and not.
Danger isn't why the DOJ is justifying the ban though either way, they're not saying it's banned because it's more dangerous, they're citing taxes. And the tax reasons were removed for brewing in 1978, with a law that was not originally intended for alcohol at all, just as general excise tax changes. The focus on alcohol was due to advocates lobbying for home brewing.
Not really, a lot of the "you will go blind" stuff is a myth.
What's danger got to do with the argument about taxes?
Nowhere does DOJ present a danger argument. Even then, I'm not sure where they would have an argument.
Home canning is dangerous as fuck, mitigated by regulation to make canners have a fail-safe design.
“Guys, guys! We’ve been getting it wrong since 1868!!”
As a homebrewer this is going to be interesting
Trump judge?
Trump judge.