6 ms·

I hope they don't. It's much easier to kill yourself and others by home distilling than by taking shrooms.

ravenstine 9y ago
Why, because fires? But people who are interested in home distilling are already doing it. I don't believe significantly more people would start distilling at home because it's pretty costly and it's much easier just to buy hard liquor. Admittedly, I don't know the numbers on how many fires are started by distilling every year. Regardless, you can legally distill for fuel purposes, which tells me that the government isn't terribly concerned about potential fires. If you mean that people are going to go blind, well that doesn't happen unless you adulterate your own moonshine with industrial methanol, which would be idiotic. People don't get methanol poisoning from homemade alcohol; that's very hard to do when ethanol is a methanol antidote.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- trhway 9y ago
  > I don't believe significantly more people would start distilling at home because it's pretty costly what is costly here - water, sugar or yeast? or 4 typical cooking pots needed to perform actual distillation? (an old USSR way where non-government distillation was illegal, and thus you couldn't have at home any special hardware for distillation :) >and it's much easier just to buy hard liquor. completely agree. Back in the USSR it was done only because where was an issue with getting the liquor - not available and/or government would price it too high. (Because of tight availability and high price the hard liquor - a bottle of vodka - was basically "liquid money/gold" widely used as payment/barter for various services/goods.) >If you mean that people are going to go blind, well that doesn't happen unless you adulterate your own moonshine with industrial methanol, which would be idiotic. unfortunately happened a lot during the USSR "almost Prohibition" in the mid 198x. Methanol, insecticide, whatever other killer chemicals - just to increase the "kick" per given volume - really reminds the today's situation with added fentanyl in heroin in US. That craziness was pretty much gone once the "almost Prohibition" was lifted.
  - ravenstine 9y ago
    Once you've bought all those things – including the sugar, the water, the yeast, sanitation, the parts of the still – you already have spent enough money to buy several bottles of fine liquor from people who know what they're doing. It's not an economical solution if someone really just wants liquor. The same principle applies to beer making, which wasn't always legal without licensing, and most brewers are doing it for the art & science aspects of it. Since legalization of unlicensed brewing, we haven't seen everyone run out to buy tools to make their own beer. Also, I'd never heard of that prohibition. It's pretty crazy how often history repeats itself in various ways.
castis 9y ago
The government shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from themselves.
- criddell 9y ago
  I think it's more about protecting the distiller's neighbors.
- dialtones 9y ago
  Ayn Rand, is that you?
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  Not at all? Never?

Why, because fires? But people who are interested in home distilling are already doing it. I don't believe significantly more people would start distilling at home because it's pretty costly and it's much easier just to buy hard liquor. Admittedly, I don't know the numbers on how many fires are started by distilling every year. Regardless, you can legally distill for fuel purposes, which tells me that the government isn't terribly concerned about potential fires. If you mean that people are going to go blind, well that doesn't happen unless you adulterate your own moonshine with industrial methanol, which would be idiotic. People don't get methanol poisoning from homemade alcohol; that's very hard to do when ethanol is a methanol antidote.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
trhway 9y ago
> I don't believe significantly more people would start distilling at home because it's pretty costly what is costly here - water, sugar or yeast? or 4 typical cooking pots needed to perform actual distillation? (an old USSR way where non-government distillation was illegal, and thus you couldn't have at home any special hardware for distillation :) >and it's much easier just to buy hard liquor. completely agree. Back in the USSR it was done only because where was an issue with getting the liquor - not available and/or government would price it too high. (Because of tight availability and high price the hard liquor - a bottle of vodka - was basically "liquid money/gold" widely used as payment/barter for various services/goods.) >If you mean that people are going to go blind, well that doesn't happen unless you adulterate your own moonshine with industrial methanol, which would be idiotic. unfortunately happened a lot during the USSR "almost Prohibition" in the mid 198x. Methanol, insecticide, whatever other killer chemicals - just to increase the "kick" per given volume - really reminds the today's situation with added fentanyl in heroin in US. That craziness was pretty much gone once the "almost Prohibition" was lifted.
- ravenstine 9y ago
  Once you've bought all those things – including the sugar, the water, the yeast, sanitation, the parts of the still – you already have spent enough money to buy several bottles of fine liquor from people who know what they're doing. It's not an economical solution if someone really just wants liquor. The same principle applies to beer making, which wasn't always legal without licensing, and most brewers are doing it for the art & science aspects of it. Since legalization of unlicensed brewing, we haven't seen everyone run out to buy tools to make their own beer. Also, I'd never heard of that prohibition. It's pretty crazy how often history repeats itself in various ways.

castis 9y ago

The government shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from themselves.

criddell 9y ago
I think it's more about protecting the distiller's neighbors.
dialtones 9y ago
Ayn Rand, is that you?
dwaltrip 9y ago
Not at all? Never?