this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
49 points (100.0% liked)

Law

394 readers
1 users here now

Discussion about legal topics, centered around United States

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Except the danger isn't what's been argued - it's taxation.

load more comments (3 replies)