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
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.
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