New Zealand recently legalized home distillation with no great effect.
I have actually received a significant amount of training in distillation as I was interested in starting a distillery a few years ago and I have to say that the stated fears about Methanol are blown out of proportion.
Whiskey for example is brewed in a similar way to beer and also contains a similar amount of methanol to mash.
During the Distillation process it is very obvious when you get out of the “heads” and thus for any quantity of ethanol of a distilled spirit you will actually intake less methanol.
Also remember that distillation does not make any ethanol, that is all made in the fermentation process.
Disregard the risks of methanol poisoning for a minute.
As a hobbyist distiller, my biggest fear, along with a number of my fellow hobbyists, is the risk of a still’s failure. They’re essentially controlled bombs that can go off at any second if a vital part and/or weld fails. High pressure, boiling water, flammable liquids, etc. Not fun. Remember water heaters before pressure safety valves were mandated? It wasn’t uncommon for an exploding water heater to take a home with it.
If it were legalized, **my strong, strong suggestion **would be that only approved and certified containers could be used. I’ve seen too many “home brew” stills that I refused to get anywhere near when distilling.
But it isn’t illegal to have a still, or operate it, or distill things like water, perfumes, herbal essences, etc. Only alcohol. Because alcohol is taxed and regulated by taxes, not public safety concerns.
Any other home distillation comes with the same risks to the extent they exist, and is already legal. Currently-available, perfectly legal,home distillation machines are available for “legal” distillation at home now. The only thing that is illegal is brewing alcohol without due taxation. We don’t mind if someone wants to boil up a giant kettle of anything else in their own kitchen, or use a high pressure cooker or bar b que all which come with their own inherent risks of fire or explosion.
Decriminalizing home distillation of alcohol would only help to ensure that high-quality, safety-tested equipment specifically for that purpose would be widely available. If someone chooses to weld together some automobile radiators and lead pipes to make herbal tea today, it would carry significant health risks too but would be legal. Most people wouldn’t because cheap, safe kettles are available at the corner store.
Some may be, most probably aren’t, but the point is it wouldn’t be a crime in either case. As long as you buy your whiskey and pay taxes on it you are free to ignite it on purpose, in delicious fiery desserts like bananas foster, or just for fun.
Being flammable doesn’t make alcohol any more or less dangerous to work with based on whether taxes were paid or not. We are free to have a bar with 200 gallons of grain alcohols sitting in the living room near a fireplace and electric lamps, long as the taxes are all paid on everything.
The point isn’t that there isn’t some risk, just as there is with using a pressure cooker or working with other flammable liquids in the home, the point is that this particular hobby isn’t criminalized due to any danger, real or imagined, only taxes. They aren’t trying to be coy about it. The laws were written for tax enforcement. They don’t mention public safety or any other rationale.
I remember I went to a restuarnt once in (Turkish Occupied North) Cyprus. The food was incredibly cheap and as a recall all the spirits were free. The reason they could afford to do this is as they distilled all the spirits themselves.
The term ‘cocktail’ predates the US prohibition of alcohol by at least 114 years. This is if you use the strict definition of cocktails as a drink consisting of a spirit, sweetener, water and bitters. If you simply define any concoction or mixed drink involving spirits as a ‘cocktail’, then drinking cocktails goes back as far as there have been spirits. Punch in particular has a very venerable history dating back to the 17th century and was imbibed in vast quantities by men it would be very unwise to call a pussy.
I’ll say it to their faces, then provide a multitude of roundhouse kicks to said faces (just as soon as I can borrow Chuck Norris’ boots)…No one challenges the immortal Train…Bwahahahaha!!!
Seriously, though, I did know about cocktails and mixed drinks pre-dating the 1920’s, I should have clarified that previously it merely wasn’t necessary, pussies lived back then too…(feeling sheepish, crawling in corner…some shaking…) They just got a lot more creative I think, more drinks were probably invented during that time than all throughout history combined (though I don’t have proof of that)
The only mixed drink in my opinion that is not a pussy drink is a Martini (preferably dry). Whoever came up with the idea of mixing two alcohols and calling that a drink is a pure genius, and also has giant cojones! :D:cool:
Here’s a Wiki on cocktails. Note the prohibition period where cocktails were used, it seems to fail to mention how important mixing was however…(that needs to be fixed (says out of corner of mouth)). I especially love the bit about the drunken sod that has a cocktail-good for the head-called the Docts-found Burnham-had another cocktail :D.
The risk of explosion tends to be from the steam heating and not the still.
Only someone with no concept of what they are doing would run a still at anything higher then basically one atmosphere.
The ideal would be to actually distill in a vacuum as ethanol boils at a much lower temperature.
If there wasn’t the complication of collecting the distillate it would be the norm.
If the water is boiling inside your still you are also running it much too hard and will just waste energy and need more runs.
Even pure ethanol if heated at one atmosphere poses little risk of danger as you claim.
It tends to be much too rich to produce an explosion near the liquid it’s self and too lean in the air until the room is too acrid to even be in.
No even semi informed distiller would let that much product go to waste.
You misunderstand me; I’m not suggesting it be made illegal, quite the contrary. I put “public good” in quotes because it’s often nothing but a pretext for tyranny. I don’t read Chinese but I’m sure there is some kind of stock phrase like “public good” the Chinese government uses when it throws dissidents in jail, shoots protestors, censors the Internet, etc.
I worked in Larnaca for a while and my secretary brought me a bottle of this. I left it in my desk, the cleaning lady turned it over, and it dissolved the varnish on the very nice desk. I think she said it was called zefaniya.
If it was legalised tomorrow not a great deal would change IMO. It’s too labour intensive for most people to get involved with, especially when you can get a bottle of drinkable whisky for a tenner anyhow. And the enthusiasts just go ahead and distill in anycase (as said).
The fire risk is probably negligible in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing - different story if you’re talking about some cabbage having a go at moonshining in their city apartment block.
You must have some pretty bad home brewers where you are. Usually bad tasting home brew is a bad recipe or poor sanitation. I’ve never had a home brew from someone who knows how to read that wasn’t at least as good as commercial junk.
Do you think Joe Shady is going to wait until it’s legal to start poisoning people? If there is a profit to be made, Joe Shady is going to do it if it’s legal or not. He’s also going to cut it with whatever is cheapest, whether it’s illegal or not. Joe Shady doesn’t care about the law.
Denying people who want to run their perfectly legal home brewed wine or beer through a still is only going to stop the honest. Making it legal is not going to change the fact that Joe Shady doesn’t want to bother with it. It’s too much work for him.
No one here is asking to have the SALE of home distilled spirits legalized. The sale of it is all that Joe Shady would be interested in, so no matter what, Joe Shady is an irrelevant part of this discussion. He’s going to do it if he feels like it no matter what anyone says. The rest of us are denied it because the majority believes Joe Shady gives a crap about the legality of it.
Making distilling, and the information needed to do it safely easier for the law abiding among to us access is not going to make the poorest of us an worse off than they already are.
