The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider whether Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a ban on distilling spirits in private homes more than 150 years ago.

Plaintiffs challenging the prohibition on home distilling claim the 1868 law is an antiquated relic of Reconstruction-era politics. They argue that Congress overstepped its taxation powers when it enacted the home distilling ban as part of a tax reform measure designed to curb fraud by commercial distillers.

Government attorneys counter that Congress properly restricted where spirits can be distilled to prevent producers from evading federal excise taxes. They warn that lifting the ban would violate Supreme Court precedent and erode congressional powers.

  • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Hmm.

    Methanol poisoning rates are probably gonna go up. As are house explosions.

    Should be fun!

    • mushroommunk@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      There’s several other countries with a thriving legal home distillation scene, New Zealand being one of the more commonly referenced ones, that disprove the danger.

      Ethanol is actually a treatment option for methanol poisoning, plus the amount of methanol is quite low in fermented grain and fruit alcohols to begin with and, despite what people believe, is not concentrated in the heads so even forgetting to remove the heads doesn’t increase the risk of methanol poisoning.

      The amount of ethanol vapor in air is also quite low. Many hobby distillation sets also use immersed electric heating elements as they’re way more efficient so igniting ethanol vapor is less risk than you might think.

      • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Yeah, you can also distill using pressure swings entirely to be completely safe.

        My neighbor is a licensed gunsmith and gun dealer. He still gets drunk, forgets which guns are loaded, and puts new holes in his walls every few months.

        Something tells me that the people most excited about the prospect might have a “safety third” mindset.

        Overall, I’m not against getting rid of the ban, even a fairly large still explosion probably won’t take out more than the distiller/their family, and I’m smart enough to not buy sketchy Bob’s moonshine. It does mean I get to play a bit more without breaking any laws.

        • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          35 minutes ago

          Safety third doesn’t mean don’t think of safety. As much as I loathe Mike Rowe, it’s a valuable philosophy regarding safety. The idea is that “safety first” is so cliche as to be borderline useless, and at worst leads people to think that so long as they follow procedures and wear PPE, that they can’t be hurt, like some warding spell. Safety third puts personal responsibility and awareness of ones surroundings before safety

    • Fishnoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Was just gonna say, those stories you read every few years about 50+ people dying from improperly distilled alcohol in Kenya are coming to a town near you.