Legalisation

[violentblue]

Wondering if we shouldn't have a section on the forums dealing with and documenting the legalisation (and legality of) craft distilling for personal consumption.
there are many here who really have no idea if they're breaking laws or not, and which ones. (this includes myself, since finding such information seems difficult)

[Shroud]

I agree. It would also be a helpful way to keep informed of legislation being proposed that is pro or anti distilling. I live in Michigan, yet had no idea Bart Stupak introduced a bill to legalize distilling a few years back.

[Husker]

If there is enough interest for people to actually research and post FACTS about different localities, then they can start to post to this thread, and it can easily be stickied. I am not sure there is need for a specialized forum about this topic, but I certainly could be wrong.

I am interested myself, but doing the REAL research needed is not trivial. You have to research laws, and frequent conflicting laws, and research for multiple levels (township, county/parish, state, fed), and again research all jurisprudence at each of the same levels. And again, where laws/rulings conflict each other, research is required to determine what law (ruling) trumps the other one.

Even in areas which are now changing laws to allow for this hobby to be legal (we have heard possibly in MO and a few other states), you still have this conflicting law issue, and whether states laws trump fed laws. Well, they 'used' to, but more and more that power has been eroded, to where we have a bloated fed that thinks it has all the power, and most states, simply bending to that rule, because they are so addicted to being on the fed dole. So likely, until there is a court action, even places (here in the states), which 'think' they have laws to allow home distillation, we really do not know.

Also, if we DO start to get some posts listing 'FACTS', then those had better be well documented, so that members can cross check for themselves. Remember folks, just because I claim to be blue, hairy, and have a have a 4 foot tail (and claim this on the internet), does not necessarily mean that I actually do look like that. The same thing should be said of research of legality issues. Just because someone posts "My county board passed resolution SA-09-1134 last week, making it legal to distill in your home, up to 20 gallons a year" that it is actually legal to do so in that county. There is still state and federal laws to contend with. However, by posting the information (valid information about this new law/resolution), it does start to build a database of information which COULD start to be used to find out where it is 'legal'.

I do believe here in the states, that there are many states that are about ready to take the nose ring out when it comes to being led around by the fed govt. We may again have states fighting for their right to have their own rights. If the states ever do grow a pair, and stand up for themselves, I do see a day where there will be locations where home distillation is again made legal.

H.

[Shroud]

It has always been true that state law trumps local laws, and federal laws trump state laws. I'm not against that. In fact, I think it's pretty necessary. Otherwise, every little township might have wildly different rules and laws. Could you imagine driving through a county and being fined for not displaying your crucifix, or being arrested for displaying a crucifix? It's a good thing that the feds have the power to unilaterally impose laws or annul them. There are some issues, however, where the federal government could and should remain silent (like marriage, so far) and let people do what they want in their state. Distilling is one of them, I believe.

So it is my understanding that no matter what your state or local law says, it is a federal crime to distill alcohol anywhere in the USA. Of course, getting the law changed in your neck of the woods is still a good idea, because it puts pressure on the feds to conform with the states. Remember, your congressmen are a part of the federal government, after all, and they want to be reelected.

[dixiedrifter]

Here in the U Ass of A, local laws can be more restrictive than federal law or state laws, unless they are preemted by or are in conflict with state or federal laws. One such example is when a statute becomes unconstitutional.

One should always realize that per the federal government distilling is a legal practice in the USA unlike growing marijuana or cooking meth, but one has to follow the rules they set. Think of it like this... one can drive a car, as long as it is registered, has a driver's license, and follows the rules of the road. On the same token distilling without being bonded and crap along with failing to pay taxes on the produced product is what makes moonshine illegal on the federal level... not so much the mere distillation process itself.

Mostly the feds are concerned wtih a lack of tax money flowing into the coffers... generally its not worth their time to go out actively spending time and manpower to bust the little home distillers (but don't think that they won't in a heartbeat if the chance presents itself!). There is a reason why the feds were called Revenoors back in the day and the reason why it will probably never be totally legalized... there is just too much money involved.

As far as state laws go here in TN, getting caught with an illegal moonshine still is a class B misdemeanor, which if I'm correct is punishable by a fine of like $1500 and up to 6 months in the county lockup. Some of the laws conflict, and it would appear that depending on the statute on gets charged with, getting caught with under one gallon of moonshine is a class C misdemeanor, provided my memory serves me correctly. The law is somewhat vauge between one and three gallons, but definately transporting or possessing over 3 gallons of untaxed spirits (including wine purchased from other states) is a class E felony. Furthermore, to add insult to injury any vehicle that is used to transport untaxed spirits in is subject to forfeiture.

Interestingly enough, TN has a so called "crack tax" for unauthorized substances. This is an attempt to gain revenue on meth and pot busts by forcing the ones who got caught in possession of said substances to pay an outrageous sin tax based upon the weight of the illegal substance. Moonshine just so happens to also be included in this so called "crack tax" with like a $12 or some nonsense amount per gallon. But get this... what makes moonshine illegal in TN is that it is quote unquote "untaxed". There *might* be a loophole in the law... if one pays the "crack tax" on moonshine, affixes a tax stamp on the container, then it *might* be contstrued as its possesion being unpunishable, but still being subject to forfeiture, after a lengthy court battle and a lot of attorney fees of course.

The safest way to store homeade spirits in the USA (at least to help avoid potential legal issues) is to get a "bonded" container from the liquor store, replace and refill the contents, then put a new closure with intact seal on the container. There is exactly *one* source of these closures that I know of that just so happens to fit several brands of glass and plastic containers. If the shit ever hit the fan, by saving the purchase receipt in a safe location and having sealed containers (which BTW satisfy both TN and federal law as a replacement for tax stamps to the actual containers) then it would become the burden of the state and feds to prove that the liquor was illegally manufactured. The only thing that sucks is actually having to get one's hands on the bottles to begin with. I suppose one could actually go to a bar and beg, but believe it or not, one cannot give away an empty liquor bottle for the exact reason above.

[Shroud]

dixiedrifter - You are absolutely correct in your intro, of course. I wasn't including legal distilleries when I said distilling was illegal. And yes, local laws can be more restrictive except where unconstitutional, hence dry counties. Thanks for amending my statements.

Does anyone think taxes might not really be the issue? After all, beer and wine became legal to make without too much fanfare. A person could easily go back and decide if any given local actually lost money due to their legalization. I have also heard people argue that in New Zealand sale of distilled alcohol went up after home distilling became legal. Makes sense to me. If I'm going to try making gin, I might want to regularly sample other gins to compare, etc. And my interest in other distilled bevs might go up if I'm regularly trading samples with buddies. "You say yours tastes just like Bowmore scotch? Let's get a bottle and see."

Perhaps it's the ease that you can make, store, and transport a given amount of ethanol. It's legal to brew 100 gallons of beer a year. 200 if your household has more than one adult (at least that's what the law said when I started brewing). However, I've never had anyone come knock on my door and check to see if I'm holding to that limit. I guess I could be making enough to supply a neighborhood with beer, but all the work sanitizing containers and the price of ingredients and the time it takes to ferment and prime, not to mention the fact that I would have to price mine below cheapo mega-mart beer prices, would keep it from being worth my while. Distilling now, is another story. I could easily make cheap ethanol, safe and fairly good quality, and sell it at a profit. Even a small still would be a worthwhile extra income generator...

What I'm getting at is, maybe it's not tax loss from a person making booze for themselves that's the problem, but that it might cause a proliferation of unlicensed, unsupervised, and un-"safety monitored" suppliers out there. Perhaps it's a fear of trying to separate the responsible home distillers from profit seeking people with unsafe distilling practices that keeps it illegal.

[goinbroke2]

that's easy, the law could say;
Legal to distill at home for personal consumption.
Illegal to sell in any form at any time.

If your making/drinking even giving away it would be legal, once a penny crosses the barrel head it's johnny law time.

[snuffy]

In the US, the federal law would have to be amended to change "attached to a dwelling." It is partly for fire safety reasons - warehouse full of spirits, etc. But fire safety is a local, not a federal issue. So that part could be struck. The rest would be the same as legalizing home beer and wine.

There is a strong revenue argument in favor of legalization. Legalizing homebrew and wine sparked an expansion of small wineries and microbrews with increased federal and state revenues as well as increased exports and improved balance of trade.

The neo-prohibitionists (like MADD) don't have the facts on their side, so it's not much different than the history of civil rights legislation. It's going to be a long haul and we'd need the moonshining equivalent of the NAACP.

That's not going to happen unless somebody starts working on it and that hasn't happened yet.

The immediate strategy would be to recruit and expand as an underground social transformation network. The first step would be area/regional face2face meetups. You can't do this sort of organizing on the internet. It has to be done in the big blue room with the really great resolution.

Read Luther Gerlach and Virginia Hine, People, Power, Change for a highly accurate description of the dynamics of social transformation networks. Gerlach is responsible for the verbing of network.

http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl ... sformation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

[Shroud]

goingbroke2 - That's how the beer and wine laws are designed. And you're right, that would be an expected (and probably good, in my opinion) addition to any legalization of home-distilling. What I meant was, it's not tempting to break the beer and wine no-selling rule because I could hardly make it worth my time anyway. It would be much more tempting to sell distilled alcohol, because a person could make it profitable more easily.

snuffy - You might be right about the kind of social movement needed, but maybe not. To get civil rights laws we had to change the way the majority of people thought in society. Many people didn't believed minorities should be equal. With the case of distilling (and mind you I have no studies to back this up, just personal belief) most people are fine with at least some alcohol consumption, and most really wouldn't care if home-distilling were legalized or not. That means one big push, like Stupak's, has at least some chance of success. Only a few groups, like the one you mentioned, would be likely to form any organized resistance to it. Most people would give it a big, "whatever." Of course, starting a movement like the one you suggest certainly couldn't hurt the chances of any big push, and would likely raise it's chances of succeeding.

On a separate note, doesn't it seem silly that we even have to talk about legalizing it? I make beer, I can buy whiskey, but I can't turn my beer into whiskey. It's like being able to grow a pot plant, and buy a joint to smoke, but not being able to smoke your own pot plant!

By the way, that book sounds good. I'll have to add it to my reading list.

[HookLine]

The main thing home distillers have to do is convince the lawmakers that we can do it safely, mostly in regard to fire and explosion hazards. That is the only legit concern they can hold us up with. And the New Zealand experience, plus the thousands of illegal stillers in other countries, has pretty comprehensively established that it can be done safely, without regulations or inspections or licensing.

The 'lost revenue' argument is not a serious hurdle, partly for the reasons snuffy gave, and partly coz just as with home-made beer and wine there will never be enough non-commercial home-made spirits to make a serious dent in commercial sales. (And even if there was, so what? Where is it written that commercial producers have right to preferential status over home producers, just so they can make a profit? They don't for beer or wine or food or clothes or furniture, etc.)

I believe that showing we can do it safely is the key to getting legal.

[stillvodka]

I do know things maybe totally different across the pond where I am, over here the chances of legally doing things regards distilling our own spirits like those in new Zealand, we haven't got a batinhellschance, government here keeps on that were all drinking to much as it is, hiking up tax on alcohol every chance they get and using health issues to justify it

[snuffy]

Opposition would come from the neo-prohibitionists and the liquor trusts/cartels. The neos are mostly shills for the trusts and get a significant portion of their funding from them. The state regulatory agencies are entirely creatures of the trusts and represent, at least in the US, a historically important link between organized crime and government. Fought in the public area with sufficient organization and resource mobilization, they would run the typical smear and disinformation campaigns typical of corrupt enterprises.

The facts are entirely on our side as are the economic arguments. The opposing positions require either deceit or deception to be persuasive and are totally vulnerable to pushback.

It wouldn't be easy and it would take years to accomplish, but it can be done. Done smart, it might not take that many years. In the US, the political cycles are roughly 4-8 years. That's how long it takes all the state and federal elected offices to come up for at least one turn in the barrel.

The networks currently exist, at least sparsely and not well connected. That could be changed in a year or two. Then the situation would be ripe for an above-ground organization. Then it would be education, litigation and legislation, with direct involvement in electoral politics. It's a tried and true formula.

[Mud]

Opposition would come from the neo-prohibitionists and the liquor trusts/cartels. The neos are mostly shills for the trusts and get a significant portion of their funding from them...

Why would liquor trusts fund neo-prohibitionists? I don't get it.

[Ugly]

Distillers do fund them to keep the legislation conservatively balanced in order to lock out small scale competition in any form. There is a fair chunk of change spent. Every dollar that goes towards protecting the large margins is money well spent. Basically smaller distillers have a hard time competing when the entrance fees and management of hard ethanol assets are tilted toward large organizations.

The old Seagrams empire in Canada with Labatts and a few other name brands was a great example of this at work in the 80's.

[snuffy]

The "drink responsibly" programs and the like are one of the ways.

It's a symbiotic relationship. In blunt language, the neos can be bought off.

The neos have not shown much opposition to state legalization of microdistilling. That came almost entirely from the state revenue bureaucrats who were carrying the water for the cartels. In one state, the state lowering of the registration requirements was sabotaged in the legislature by the Alcohol Control Board -- to protect a single wholesaler.

The cartels will be the biggest hurdle. That's business. The rest is politics.

Since the opposition is mostly going to come from a corrupt and incestuous marriage of privileged businesses (long and cozy state-protected unregulated monopolies dating back to Prohibition) and their hired lackeys in state and federal office, the political equation is heavily in our favor. A little political opposition research uncovering the corruption -- and there is virtually nowhere in the US that you can't find corruption between the liquor trusts and revenuers -- would be the first shot in the campaign. The sort of thing that Greg Palast used to do for the labor unions as a financial investigator. Get them in the spotlight. Nothing like a whiff of corruption to get public attention. Then once liquor corruption is making headlines, start the push in the state legislatures for reform of the licensing laws. Simultaneously, start seeking support in Congress. Start on an odd-numbered year so there aren't any elections soon. Then make an enemies list and pick off the most vulnerable legislators at the state level. Next election cycle, do the same for Federal elections.

It won't be as simple as I've outlined here and there are bound to be surprises and pushbacks, but it's a starting place.

Meanwhile, the first step is to network locally, face-to-face. Then regionally, then nationally.

If people commit to it taking 5-10 years, it becomes a possibility.

If not now, when? If not us, who?

and what Ugly said.

[Shroud]

Forgive me if I sound naive, but could spell out what, "network locally, face-to-face. Then regionally, then nationally," means? Are you talking as simple as getting to know who the other home-distillers are in my area and getting them talking about legalizing it?

[goose eye]

snuffy cigaretts then hand guns then likker. in that order they gonna be outlawed.
lawyers an product liability will brings em all down. good faith an due diligence aint gonna hold em off for long.
for all yall thinkin bout the cause .
while on this path you caint be doin anythang ilegal cause they aint gonna play fair. billons of dollers
is at stake.

so im tole

[Shroud]

That's a pretty pessimistic view considering the US seems to be "liberalizing" for the meantime. Gay marriage, pot, etc. The pendulum seems to be swinging back in my direction.

Okay, I just reread that. Sounds misleading. I'm not gay, and I don't care for recreation other than alcohol from now on. I am in favor of letting other people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect me, however. So if you want to light up a joint at your next gay wedding reception... go for it! I just want the courtesy returned. If I want to distill alcohol, as long as I do it safely and don't do something stupid like share it with your kids, why shouldn't I?

[snuffy]

I'm talking what's called "netwar" - on the bright side. The dark side is crime and terrorism. The bright side is social progress. liberalization and reform. The use of "war" in the phrase is somewhat misleading. Not all conflicts are equivalent to war. Commercial competition for example.

Sources:
Tribes, Institutions, Markets, Networks: A Framework About Societal Evolution
http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7967/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

The Advent of Netwar
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_repo ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

The Zapatista "Social Netwar" in Mexico (a counter-example to Goose eye's statement)
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR994/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

Here's David's complete list of publications
http://www.rand.org/pubs/authors/r/ronfeldt_david.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

and one for fun
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bi ... e/view/727" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

[eternalfrost]

i relaly think the huge majority of average folks just are misinformed about it. still think it will make you go blind etc and not something that is possible to do except for a massive commercial scale.

liquor just isnt something people think of as able to be 'home-made'. think about it. its just about the one thing thats readily available anywhere and consumed all the time but you cant make yourself (for the average person).

i dont tell anyone i do it, but every time i even mention it to anyone they think im crazy. like making meth in your basement or something

im sure theres lots of stuff at work with the powers that be and 'conspiracies' etc. but bottom line, right now the populace just wouldnt go for it so no politician would pass it

[goose eye]

snuffy why you think they come up with the term - sin tax-

[HookLine]

Goose, I rarely disagree with you. But I think you are wrong on this one. I think it is pretty well inevitable that home distilling will become legal in most countries, the only real question is when.

The New Zealand experience has clearly proved that legalised home distilling can be done without causing any problems, and without destroying the commercial stilling industry. The precedent has been set, and it is a powerful one.

[Ugly]

Canuckistan is fairly similar to NZ in in legal structure. Makes me think for sure.

[goose eye]

how that rider look on your homeowner insurance policy if you makein likker.

hope im wrong but aint i read where it ilegal to grow tobacca over yonder

[Shroud]

Sorry, this one's a little off-topic.

goose eye - I don't know how accurate this is, but I found it on a website encouraging farmers to grow tobacco for biomass production in the FAQ section.

Isn't it illegal to grow tobacco without a permit?

Only if you are concerned about holding a quota for smoking tobacco production, otherwise there are no restrictions on growing tobacco anywhere in the US or, to the best of my knowledge, in the rest of the world. The Quota and related regulations apply only if you are growing tobacco for sale into the regulated market AND if you want a subsidy.

Since nobody has ever anticipated anyone growing tobacco who didn't want that subsidy, and the guaranteed market, the regulators may be in a tizzy at first about biomass tobacco grown for on-farm animal feed and bioenergy production.

[snuffy]

Goose Eye, you are raising good points and ones that will definitely be part of the public debate.

The case of home beer and winemaking has demonstrated that reform will expand revenue and economic activity. The liberalization of fuel ethanol taxation is equally on our side.

The sin taxes are an easy way for politicians and revenuers to raise state and local excise taxes because they can hypocritically drape themselves in false virtue while not facing organized political resistance. There is no constituency supporting these taxes - only a vacuum opposing them. I'm talking about changing that.

The sin taxes are a state and local issue, not a federal one. Any state or locality that wants to hamstring their economy by regressive taxation is perfectly free to drive business, employment and revenue to greener pastures. The sin taxes would become a reverse stupidity tax. Sort of the opposite of state lotteries -- which if you scratch below the surface, you will find the liquor cartels involved in through their captive advertising firms. In many states, the rakeoff to advertising lotteries is the largest single expense and in some cases exceeds the state revenue from the lotteries. Take a good hard look at Seagrams through state licensing agencies and you'll find they have a finger in a lot of lotteries through the advertising. There have already been Congressional hearings on this very aspect when the states began running lotteries.

As far as insurance goes, you can get anything insured if it's legal. There are already firms offering specialized insurance for microdistilleries. The fire danger is simply an added risk level and the market will end up pricing the premiums for this. It's no different than any other insurance situation. The market will eliminate any blockages.

[goose eye]

snuffy cant see how likker lobbyist will not be against it bein legal an lobbyist run this nation.
you get campain reform an you got a chance cause we a republic an aint no democracy but this is all me just readin my tea leafs

[goose eye]

shroud ole boys growed up on burley then bright leaf. was talkin bout new zeland where
likker makein is legal but bacca aint.

[snuffy]

Opposition, particularly from a source as odious as cartel lobbyists, is a major source of energy and motivation to movements.

See pg. 299 http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_repo ... 82.ch9.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

In the recent actions to reform state laws to enable microdistilleries, the cartels were not to be seen. They sent their lackeys, the revenuers, to carry their water for them.

Open opposition, either from the neos or the cartels, would be a very valuable asset to a legalization movement.

But that's getting way ahead of where we are at right now. The place to start is with people we already know and trust. Very much like the Committees of Correspondence. And look where that led.

[trthskr4]

It's strange when you think about it, but we are a very paranoid bunch of folks compared to others. We're talking about making a push for legalizing our hobby while we are in the act of breaking the law. That'll draw unwanted attention to us. How many shine dealers you see on street corners selling their products? Now, how many drug dealers you see peddling in the open? That's funny and sad at he same time that drugs are so open and well networked and we're so closed and reclusive. Politicians are only worried about one thing...their power and how they wield it on those who pay their salaries. There needs to be a serious reformation of the political system in the US especially cause it's totally f'ing backwards.

Soapbox
Goose is being more realistic and anything else here I see as being hopeful and optimistic (maybe overly optimistic). I can however understand how some things will be legalized in exchange for other freedoms being revoked. Such as, ok, pot is legal now but you're gonna have to give up your firearms or just handguns. Or, if you want free universal healthcare then we need to make cigarettes illegal altogether cause they just run up medical bills. What ever happened to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which limited what the Government can do? We and our forefathers have sat around and traded them for trinkets and beads just as my ancestors did with their rights and land (though at gunpoint mostly).

Anyone who would trade freedom for security, deserves neither. (can't remember the author).