Home Distiller

Bayou-Ruler wrote:

milehidistilling wrote:I just took down the notice that I had posted earlier regarding the impact that the HBO show Moonshiners has had on the volume of our sales. In response to those of you who feel that my comment will attract the attention of ATFB I would like to say that I’m sure the federal government has better things to do with their time than arresting hobbyists who have distillers in their own homes for their own personal use. Those of you who are talking about hiding your stills obviously have something more to hide than just a still – it’s not against the law to have a distiller on your property. This television show has cast a negative light on what the hobby distiller is all about. We’re not a bunch of toothless rednecks in overalls hiding out in the woods and breaking the law.

According to the below referenced, it IS Illegal to have a unregistered still.

TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle E--Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes

Even for an alcohol fuel permit you need the still first before applying.

From a TTB Newsletter 2009

Under Federal rules administered by TTB, it depends on how you use the still. You may not produce alcohol with these stills unless you qualify as a distilled spirits plant. However, owning a small still and using it for other purposes is allowed. You should also check with your State and local authorities - their rules may differ.

A still is defined as apparatus capable of being used to separate ethyl alcohol from a mixture that contains alcohol. Small stills (with a cubic distilling capacity of a gallon or less) that are used for laboratory purposes or for distilling water or other non-alcoholic materials are exempt from our rules. If you buy a small still and use it to distill water or extract essential oils by steam or water extraction methods, you are not subject to TTB requirements. If you produce essential oils by a solvent method and you get alcohol as a by-product of your process, we consider that distilling. Even though you are using and recovering purchased alcohol, you are separating the alcohol from a mixture -distilling.

From a TTB Newsletter 2009

Under Federal rules administered by TTB, it depends on how you use the still. You may not produce alcohol with these stills unless you qualify as a distilled spirits plant. However, owning a small still and using it for other purposes is allowed.

Great, all of us that are just here to make distilled water or get essential oils are good to go. That should cover 99% of the members here. No hooch here!

i first heard of this show about a week or so ago,,,, no interest in watching it as i already assumed it would be crap,,,i also dont have cable tv......just do what you do,,, dont tell, dont sell and most importantly,,, dont get all wrapped up in a crappy tv show,,, most of us will never meet each other and theirs no need to,,, K.I.S.S. keep it simple stupid,,,,theirs a lot of good people on this site and people like myself need your help.. keep the site alive,,, keep up on your own projects and at the end of each day sit back n enjoy a glass of your labor...thats the best advice i got....now if i can only reclaim the 20 minutes i just lost reading this entire post..lol............... time for a drink...

Braz wrote:The bill is already written. It was introduced by a congressman (from Wisconsin, I think) a few years ago but never got out of committee so never went to the floor for a vote. The language of his bill is out there on the interweb somewhere.

I am reluctant to say this because I have always had a modicum of faith in the system of representative government, but it seems to me that unless you have a pretty big bag of money to contribute you won't get the attention of any elected representative.

The homebrew law got in somehow, and not until 1979. I'm sure the people who wanted it didn't have deep pockets. It could be worth the effort to find out how and who got it into law. Mostly it was because when they passed the law after prohibition, home made wine was in the bill but the word beer was never put in the bill. Once we know how it went down it will give us some insight on how to proceed. We will need think of any questions that will be put to us and have dam good answers for any naysayers. I'll do some research to find that bill and see if it exists any more.

I found this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c ... 7:H.R.3249" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

and this http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/a ... t-709.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

and this http://www.gin-vodka.com/legal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

If I remember right Bart Stupak ( Michigan) tried to get it in on the floor some years back,and was voted down.

bentstick wrote:If I remember right Bart Stupak ( Michigan) tried to get it in on the floor some years back,and was voted down.

It looks like he only wanted to change the language. I didn't find much more, maybe we could contact him and see what happened.

'Moonshiners' Producer Stands By Show's Accuracy in Face of State's Claim Show Is a Hoax

Yeah, right, video tape won't hold up in a court of law will it?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... z1iWB5QpIl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

They are just a bunch of money grubbing jackasses. Who have a bad case of the look at me's. If you ask me. Anything for a buck and 15 min of fame. Then try to stretch out that 15 mins for the rest of their life.

Prairiepiss wrote:They are just a bunch of money grubbing jackasses. Who have a bad case of the look at me's. If you ask me. Anything for a buck and 15 min of fame. Then try to stretch out that 15 mins for the rest of their life.

You are right, and I can't wait til tonight to watch the season finally!

Maybe the show is not a hoax in the sense that your 6 o-clock news is fact based. Also I feel the editing is a huge factor.

Anyways, for those of you who think legalizing this hobby is a worthy goal, I am curious how you look at a few things.
1. If successful, how long before it would become necessary to make hobby distillation illegal again for practical reasons, e.g. longer hospital due to poison being passed around. People would put too much trust in it based on legality. Also, people would sell it still and compete with innocent liquor stores.

2. How would the government react to losing one of their greatest tax sources? Perhaps tobacco would become more heavily taxed, or taxes in general would increase. I really think things are best the way they are. Stupid people get hurt and get caught; sensible ones get drunk and live life. Don't sell it or give it away too freely and people will mind their own business.

On top of these two possible effects of legalizing hobby distillation, I would feel less special if everyone did it.

Keeping it illegal preserves the due diligence factor ... Interesting idea.

1 That would still be illiagle so it would be punishable under the law. You can't make wine or beer at home and sell it. And if you poison someone its just like poisoning someone now.

2 Not as many people would do it as you think. And it wouldn't hurt them as much as you make it out. Home beer and wine making doesn't so why would this.

2 Not as many people would do it as you think. And it wouldn't hurt them as much as you make it out. Home beer and wine making doesn't so why would this.

Must admit I never bought as much wine as I did after I started making my own. Got my interest and curiosity up. Plus, I never liked alot of my wine, but sometimes it was real good. The grapes they sell the home vinter are not the the same grapes they use to make exceptional wines. We have access to much better raw materials in this hobby than the home vinters do in theirs. Just rambling out loud

But very true BD.

Prairiepiss wrote:1 That would still be illiagle so it would be punishable under the law. You can't make wine or beer at home and sell it. And if you poison someone its just like poisoning someone now.

2 Not as many people would do it as you think. And it wouldn't hurt them as much as you make it out. Home beer and wine making doesn't so why would this.

Good points.

I think a lot of people would be interested to learn how to do it if they weren't concerned about the legalities. Who can say though.

It is a lot harder to poison someone with beer or wine than with liquor. I mean, its easy to make bad liquor hence the topic we are reading. I share my beer and wine with my friends and family. If people don't need to keep distilling on the hush hush they can share their inferior products. The poison aspect isn't the only potential problem of safety.

I believe a better alternative to advocating legalizing hobby distilling is to advocate hobby distillation licensing. I mean, do you want people driving without learning how to do it properly first? Same can be said about shooting guns and other potentially hazardous activities. I wouldn't get the license personally but many would try and either give up before making shit liquor or learn the craft well.

EscarpmentDew wrote:

Prairiepiss wrote:1 That would still be illiagle so it would be punishable under the law. You can't make wine or beer at home and sell it. And if you poison someone its just like poisoning someone now.

2 Not as many people would do it as you think. And it wouldn't hurt them as much as you make it out. Home beer and wine making doesn't so why would this.

Good points.

I think a lot of people would be interested to learn how to do it if they weren't concerned about the legalities. Who can say though.

It is a lot harder to poison someone with beer or wine than with liquor. I mean, its easy to make bad liquor hence the topic we are reading. I share my beer and wine with my friends and family. If people don't need to keep distilling on the hush hush they can share their inferior products. The poison aspect isn't the only potential problem of safety.

I believe a better alternative to advocating legalizing hobby distilling is to advocate hobby distillation licensing. I mean, do you want people driving without learning how to do it properly first? Same can be said about shooting guns and other potentially hazardous activities. I wouldn't get the license personally but many would try and either give up before making shit liquor or learn the craft well.

They wouldn't lose much in taxes, probably just the opposite, they might more more. The beer example in right on. People are buying more craft beer than ever, and homebrewing is legal. If anything I think the quality would go up, because anyone can make bad likker. My argument would be if people were more educated about alcohol in general there would be less problems. You would need to get a permit or license by passing a test and being of age and sound mind. We don't need idiots getting hurt or hurting others. The test should be all encompassing of the making and consuming alcohol. Still make it illegal to sell just like homemade beer or wine. If you want to sell then go legal.

There is gonna be an isolated incident here and there. But lets face it,,,,,,, Mac Donalds and automobile accidents gonna kill more folks than makin ever will.

EscarpmentDew wrote:2. How would the government react to losing one of their greatest tax sources? Perhaps tobacco would become more heavily taxed, or taxes in general would increase. I really think things are best the way they are. Stupid people get hurt and get caught; sensible ones get drunk and live life. Don't sell it or give it away too freely and people will mind their own business.

This is one of the fallacies (as was your 'first' point), that are propagated by the idiot gooberment scare mongers.

It HAS BEEN SHOWN, in places like NZ, that tax revenue actually increase after decriminalization. Many micro distilleries spring up, and people actually want to seek out better quality, but are too lazy to do it themselves.

However, the pollies have ONLY heard the lie, never something backed up by actual real world experience. They have also only heard that it is dangerous, that people will blow themselves up, go blind, and poison each other, due to all of the disinformation which the gooberment itself has perpetuated.

There were all of these claims in NZ (or was it AU???) where the poison, safety etc were roadblocks. Well, there were actual testing done on some home distilled spirits, vs commercial, and it was shown that the commercial stuff was MUCH more poisonous, up to 10x more. The 'poison' was volatiles other than ethanol (which itself is poison). The interesting part to 'those' claims, were the dead silence after the tests came back. The pollies had to protect their lie, so the information simply 'stopped', and nothing was ever said about that again.

H.

EscarpmentDew wrote:It is a lot harder to poison someone with beer or wine than with liquor. I mean, its easy to make bad liquor hence the topic we are reading.

I am sorry, but Again, I have to call you out on this, as doing NOTHING more than perpetuating the gooberments lie/smear campaign.

Distillation DOES NOT produce poison. Actually, it reduces the amount of poisonous material. NOTE, again, you have to ignore the fact that ethanol is poisonous. What a still does is to separate out the different parts, concentrating what you want, and removing what you do not want.

So, drinking properly distilled spirits, vs drinking the same amount of ethanol from the original beer, or wine, will inject less of the BAD stuff into your system.

It is time that we stop 'believing' in these gooberment sponsored lies.

H.

There ya go H.

And never mind about the cell phone safety issues that the gooberment just lets slide for the sake of revenue.............Whole shootin match is a joke really

blind drunk wrote:

2 Not as many people would do it as you think. And it wouldn't hurt them as much as you make it out. Home beer and wine making doesn't so why would this.

Must admit I never bought as much wine as I did after I started making my own. Got my interest and curiosity up. Plus, I never liked alot of my wine, but sometimes it was real good. The grapes they sell the home vinter are not the the same grapes they use to make exceptional wines. We have access to much better raw materials in this hobby than the home vinters do in theirs. Just rambling out loud

I agree with you on this BD. I never really drank whiskey before I started this hobby. I maybe bought a handle of Jack Daniels once. Now, I'm buying bottles of Glenfiddich, Makers Mark, Basil Hayden, etc... I like to taste test and have something to compare mine to. I have also given away some bottles I purchased from a new micro distillery that just opened up in Boston (Bully Boy Distillery)---fantastic spirits, btw.

Similarly,,,,,I ain't buyin more as such. But I do spread it around more so that I may gage my own efforts........

LWTCS wrote:Similarly,,,,,I ain't buyin more as such. But I do spread it around more so that I may gage my own efforts........

Do you need my shipping address?

LWTCS wrote:Similarly,,,,,I ain't buyin more as such.

Shhhh. They're watching We're all buying more ...

Husker wrote:I am sorry, but Again, I have to call you out on this, as doing NOTHING more than perpetuating the gooberments lie/smear campaign.

Distillation DOES NOT produce poison. . . reduces the amount of poisonous material . . . ethanol is poisonous . . . concentrating what you want . . . removing what you do not want.

So, drinking properly distilled spirits, vs drinking the same amount of ethanol from the original beer, or wine, will inject less of the BAD stuff into your system.

It is time that we stop 'believing' in these gooberment sponsored lies.

I'm just showing my point of view, I'm not saying the government is bang on. We are concentrating liquids which are already poisonous in the first place, and some are more poisonous than others. I don't have to make cuts when making beer, and I'll be long dead of alcohol poisoning before I can drink enough beer to fall symptom to a specific alcohol's effects. If I don't know what I'm doing when distilling I could end up with concentrated fores and that is not comparable with a home brew. If that isn't true then the parent site needs some serious editing.

I don't know how things progressed in New Zealand after distilling was legalized, so your experiences and point of view is new to me. That would actually be a great new topic if it isn't one already.

50% of what I've learned is from the parent site, the material it recommends and this forum, so if I am perpetrating the gooberments sponsored lies its unintentional and derived from the sources mentioned. I'm not trying to offend either by posting these views, but it is an open forum so I figured what the hell. Thanks for the comments.

Very true, but... A beer or wine is ready for consumption after fermentation. If the wort was infected, one could get seriously I'll. If our wash gets infected, it gets distilled anyways... worst case, we get a nasty tasting end product. Distilling is more dangerous in ethanol production, not consumption....we do have high concentrations of ethanol often over open flames fueled by highly combustible gasses. Just sayin'....

EscarpmentDew wrote: I don't have to make cuts when making beer,

Nope, you drink ALL of what was in there. The good AND the bad.

EscarpmentDew wrote:and I'll be long dead of alcohol poisoning before

I fit that situation also

But again, it needs to be strongly stressed. Distillation produces no new product. It simply allows a person to take just the part of the wash that they want.

If you simply distill a 10% wash, and keep 1/4 of the starting product as what you started with, you will have 40% that has 'exactly' the same amount of 'poison' in it as the starting mash/beer. If you drink it, it will no more poison you than drinking the 4x volume of the starting wash. It will affect your body just about the same, and you will get exactly the same hang over from both. Thus they are just as 'dangerous' poison wise.

Now, if you follow 'better' instructions, and remove some early drippings (fores), and stop early, then the end product you can produce is significantly reduced in the 'poison' parts. But even someone that does not know squat, will produce something no worse than the starting mash. Someone that has been taught, can produce something that is MUCH better.

I have not been able to drink commercial stuff much, for many years now. I get a headache after just 2 or 3. But I can drink my carefully home distilled product and never (well almost never), get a hang over. Mine is simply is MUCH cleaner.

H.

I was at a distillery near me and the MD brought out some
white dog from Heaven Hill barrel strenght and let us taste it.
No wonder it takes 4-6 years to age, it was awfull. At least I can
drink mine white if I want to.

Burbankbrewer wrote:white dog from Heaven Hill barrel strenght and let us taste it.

I also tried that when I did the bourbon tour. I didn't think much of it really, but it was also stronger than I'm used to drinking. I think my tastes have changed since then as I'm now understanding finally how much difference personal endeavour can make when compared with the commercially produced stuff. I can't tell if I prefer my oaked stuff to what I used to consider a high-light of my night.