this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Law
392 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
view the rest of the comments
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?
I don't know anything about how to make alcohol but is the distilling process maybe more dangerous?
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.
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.
All things I avoid, due to the risk, and these are well designed to mitigate that risk.
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