Should we be allowed to distill liquor for personal use? I certainly think we should. So why don’t politicians get their acts together, and pass the necessary laws or repeals?
In case you don’t know, for a while (sorry, I have no cites) it was illegal even to make your own beer and wine. But Pres. Carter put an end to that, and now we can. So why not your own whiskey or rum?
(BTW, I assume most or all of you agree with me. And please chime in if you do. But the thing I would really like to hear, is why someone wouldn’t agree with me.)
You can kill yourself with improper distillation, via methanol poisoning. It’s hard to make beer or wine, and have your products poison the imbiber. (Unless they over drink, but that’s hardly the fault of the home winemaker/brewer.) Moreover, distillation, unlike beer or wine making, involves production of a somewhat flammable substance. I am guessing the fire risk is higher with distillation.
I agree with you, Jim, FWIW; I’m just stating some public safety arguments for why distilling should be restricted.
Sure, legalize it. If there are safety concerns (no clue if there are or not), require some sort of must-issue license along with a basic mandatory course.
What, you want to cripple another segment of the American economy?Home distillation would likely kill or blind thousands every year, with the concomitant medical care and legal hassles. Quality (meaning safe) distilled alcohol is cheap and widely available in this country to anyone over the age of 21. I see absolutely zero benefit accruing to the Public by allowing private distillation.
Safety is certainly an issue, but cripple the economy? Home brew doesn’t seem to have put the beer companies out of business. In fact I’d say it’s created an interest in craft beers and expanded the market.
No. It’s dangerous to yourself and others. Especially because I don’t believe for one moment that you can enforce a law making it “for personal use only”. What, are you going to put a camera in every home so you can make sure the distiller doesn’t hand a bottle to somebody else? And punishing them after they’ve blinded a dozen people at a party is too late to do any good.
The whole claim of blinding people is based on cutting alcohol with other liquids that have a “bite” to fool people into thinking the liquor is stronger than it is or to make one bottle into two.
Distilling your own high proof liquor wouldn’t be unsafe as long as you made your own stock to go into it and you avoided using lead in the manufacture of your still.
Currently homebrew wine and beer is legal for varying amounts of production provided you don’t sell it. Distilling could work similarly.
Actually, home brewing and home wine making is quite simple. Proper cleaning and sanitization of the brewing, storage, and bottling equipments alleviates almost any bacterial nuisances. And, unless someone is deliberately adding something into the liquid (e.g. OTC or prescription pills, street drugs, etc) it is quite safe to consume. Improper procedure, however, allows for multiple variables of off flavors - but none of these would do a great amount of harm.
Like brewing beer or wine, home distillation can be done easily and have a great end product. The distiller just needs to do their research first, and practice basic sanitary and safety habits.
Lastly, to nitpick, people have been able to make wine at home for many decades. Brewing beer at home was different matter.
Wrong. Methyl alcohol is a natural product of distillation, and it can blind in larger amounts. That’s why distillers discard the first percentage of the boil, because methyl boils off at a lower temperature. But how many kitchen distillers are going to remember that and test for it? At least with beer and wine fermentation, you can’t produce anything that will seriously injure you. Hell, homebrew is healthier than a lot of the water in the world.
As for the comparison to homebrew vis a vis craft brews…maybe. You have to take into account that the majority of the homebrew produced in this country (and the UK) is substandard garbage, only fit for pigs and politicians. Only a minority of people produce anything even remotely drinkable. That’s why homebrewers so adore craft brewers. They are envious of their talents.
Can I have a cite for anyone dying or going blind from homemade distilled spirits that doesn’t involve either lead or the product cut with some other substance?
Homebrewing is like cooking in your kitchen. It may not taste as good as a meal made by a trained chef, or it may be fantastic.
Not cites of people dying, but cites that methanol is produced by distillation and is dangerous. I wouldn’t trust 90% of the people in this country with a beer, much less a still.
If silenus’s cites aren’t convincing, have a look at homedistiller.org’s safety section. From those sources, it seems the risks from methanol contamination and poisoning are present, but rare, and non-existent with proper technique in managing both the fermentation of the base material and the distillation of the mash.
We already have legal hobbies where the risk of serious injury to others with inadequate technique exists, e.g: ammunition reloading. I don’t see where a similar magnitude (and probably, frequency) risk merits banning this hobby too. All it means is that, if you’re going to distill, be careful. And if you’re going to consume someone’s home-distilled 'shine, be careful that they know what they’re doing.
When I had several fruit trees, heavy with fruit I couldn’t possibly completely eat or can, I’d have killed for a still and a way to make apricot or plum eau de vie.
Short of taking a sample into work and running an NMR, how would I determine that there was no methanol in my distillate? You don’t get a methanol/water azeotrope and I don’t see a methanol/ethanol azeotrope listed. Nor do I see a ternary azeotrope. So I should be able to get a clean cut of the methanol off before I reach 95% ethanol. Of course, I don’t really want to try to drink 190 proof. I don’t have a copy of the Pilot Plant Real Book on hand, so I’m stuck with what I can get off the internet and I can’t seem to find a labeled ethanol/water phase diagram, but I should be able to get a vapor temperature that tells me that all the methanol is off and I am now at the proof I want. Would I be purely trusting physical chemistry or is there a method to absolutely know the unwanted alcohols are out?
Good points all around, especially the comparison to hand-loading. I wouldn’t touch someone else’s handloads, either, unless I knew they knew what they were doing. And I’ve been in the fruit situation myself. Peach brandy…
Fuck it, let everybody distill whatever they want. The idjits will kill themselves off, as always.
eta: asterion - I think most hobby distillers just discard the first 5% or so of their run-off. That gets rid of most if not all of the methanol. Unless you are running a really small still, this won’t seriously impct your finishing amount.
What’s in it for them? The pro-moonshine lobby doesn’t seem to have much stroke, nor does it appear to be driven by any substantial voting block, thus such bills are likely to be dead on arrival.
That said, I don’t care about the health risks. For that matter, I don’t care if people want to drink battery acid. Consenting adults ought to be able to consume anything they like, so long as they do so in a manner that doesn’t put others in danger.
It should be allowed, it’s really a basic procedure that man has been doing for centuries.
In the reality show The Colony, the people in the experiment make alcohol from sugar fermentation then distill it to be used as a substitute for gasoline in a aircraft engine, while making some fuel they also enjoyed consuming some of it. That brought up some questions. such as how did the show get around regulations against this, and is it possible to make fuel grade alcohol from a simple still? I am sort of the opinion that the producers took their distilled product and substituted the real thing inclusive of taxes discarding the colony made product.
