Home Distiller

I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS INTRIGUING.

PRODUCING A FORM OF A LEGALIZED PRODUCT, FROM LEGAL PRODUCTS, FOR PERSONAL CONSUMPTION. WHY IS IT THE ONLY LEGAL PRODUCT, REGULATED OR UNREGULATED, THAT IS PURCHASED AND CONSUMED BY HUMANS, THAT CAN BE CREATED FROM UNREGULATED OVER THE COUNTER MATERIAL, THAT IS ILLEGAL TO PRODUCE OWN OR CONSUME? WHAT SINGLES OUT DISTILLED SPIRITS FROM ALL OTHER PRODUCTS AVAILABLE IN THE MARKETPLACE TODAY?

IS IT BECAUSE IT IS REGULATED? NO. BEER, WINE, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS ARE REGULATED AND CAN BE PRODUCED BY THE CONSUMER.

IS IT BECAUSE IT IS DISTILLED? NO. ETHANOL FUEL, PERFUMES, AND WATER ARE DISTILLED AND CAN BE PRODUCED BY THE CONSUMER.

IS IT BECAUSE IT IS TAXED? NO. EVERY PRODUCT MENTIONED ABOVE IS TAXED, AND CAN BE PRODUCED BY THE CONSUMER.

IS IT BECAUSE BIG BROTHER ATTEMPTED TO ABOLISH IT FROM EXISTENCE IN AMERICA AND FAILED ????????????????????????

GREED.

MuleKicker wrote:GREED.

Exactly.

Insanity and control lust.

Yes, It is intriguing, isn't it?

Sorry, I can't answer any of your questions, but they already seem to be well covered.

blanik

Yes, I see little left that could keep this thing from looking like a pissing contest. Every reform, however necessary, will by weak minds be carried to an excess, that itself will need reforming.

Because at 10 dollars a proof gallon JUST TO MAKE IT, its one hell of a money maker!
Then the states get their cut and the GOV gets some again...all taxed and regulated legal like...

Its just a legal form of a drug ring..

Now the real reason...
They have conditioned the alcohol industry to accept these taxes. Somebody got the great idea that once prohibition was over, that they could tax the crap out of it and nobody would complain. Nobody dared to complain because it was legal again. When you are starving and someone gives you food, your rarely question it.

I believe it has something to do with supply and demand. Supply is endless, and demand is high. Alcohol is one of those items that people will continue to buy no matter how high the price gets. They may cut back a bit, but all and all people love there alcohol. So theyre gonna buy it no matter what. just like cigarettes. You gotta have an escape, right? If pot ever gets legalized, expect that tax to be worse than alcohol and cigarettes combined. If the government decided to say, tax the hell out of pickles. Its simple, every one would just quit buying them. alcohol will not work that way. its kinda like a govenment cheap shot. Gotcha where we want ya. This is where we come in.

Well, the tax at least has a reasonable explanation - or maybe it should be called justification. It's often called a 'sin tax', and is placed on goods (booze, tobacco...) that is deemed to be harmful to society as well as individuals, i.e. has a social cost. By placing a tax on the purchase of said good, the government raises the price and (in theory) discourages consumption. Does it work? Not so much, mainly because the taxed products are either awesome or addictive, depending on how you squint your eyes. They can try to justify the ban as keeping the disincentive tax from having workarounds. But, I would have thought that one of the bigger reasons in the US at least would have been the massive power of your lobby groups?

Kiwi, I thought that raising the price (with tobacco, at least), is the most significant factor in discouraging its use.

correct you are, but in NZ it isn't working on booze. But we're a nation of alcoholics really, so I guess I shouldn't generalise.

It's not greed. It's not stupidity. It's not evil. It's inertia.

It's none of the simplistic, bullet point, talking point, two-word answers we've had so far. "The evil gubmint just wants to bleed me dry" is a tired old lie that has no connection to the reality. When homebrewing became legal the tax framework got set up very quickly. For the most part as long as you're not selling the Treasury government doesn't care. They don't break into people's homes to check their carboys unless someone is selling the brew.

Part of it is fire safety. The potential for really bad fires and explosions is high. Mind you, some of this is a hangover *ba-dump bum rimshot* from the era when garages had to be made of concrete because people were afraid of gas tanks exploding.

Part of it is food safety. The legislation is still stuck in the days of poisoned liquor, "Smoke joints" which served pure methanol, denatured alcohol and so on. Yes, you can make a batch of nasty beer or wine, but you'll generally have to work harder to hurt yourself. The last "real Southern Moonshine" I came anywhere near had a bluish green color. The guy with the jar bragged about how he'd actually seen the still and watched the booze come out of the old radiator condenser. I called him a suicidal frickin' idiot and got him to pour it down the toilet.

The tobacco analogy doesn't quite work. To grow small amounts you don't need any kind of permit or need to pay any kind of tax. I grew some as a companion crop to discourage bugs and had a talk with the local BATF agent first. To sell it you need an allotment. They are hard to get.

The guns one doesn't work well, either. If you start making guns - black powder weapons aren't firearms - you start getting into serious regulatory territory. Yes, you can technically make non-NFA weapons if you don't sell them. Practically I've seen a fair number of cases where people didn't dot every i and cross every t and got busted.

The main reason is that there's no compelling reason for Washington to go to the trouble of changing the laws.

Wine had the Catholic Church and Judaism making waves in favor. The Volstead Act permitted wine for sacramental purposes. Home winemaking survived.

Beer had a champion in the White House. Jimmy Carter signed the legislation that permitted home brewing. But that wasn't until the late 70s.

Until we have something like that nothing will happen.

Home distilling doesn't have a President, Congressmen or Senators who are willing to push for legalization. And the Big Boys, the distributors and the large commercial distillers, grease the right palms to make sure their comfortable monopoly stays intact. 35 years ago people were enraged when there were 400 lobbyists. Last year there were 14,000. In 1998 they spread around $1.44 billion. In 2009 it was $3.49 billion.

Until we can get a few Senators and Congressmen on our side nothing is going to happen. And that will only happen if we organize. I was part of the Blue Steel Democrats a while back - an official group inside the Oregon Democratic Party which successfully fought against anti-gun legislation in the Party. One of the opportunities that came out of that is training in setting up a PAC. If anyone is interested in helping I'd be more than willing to do the grunt work in setting up SixPAC, a pro-home distilling pressure group. It's not much of a start, but it's something.

You can buy say mouthwash, 14% alcohol, 28 proof, with no insane taxes. It goes in your mouth, but you dont swallow it..... Atleast yer not supposed to
I am distilling mouthwash officer... Nothing more.

Mule ,,wrong that is also covered,as is distilling/extracting oils using alcohol(even if you buy the alcohol).tho you do not have to have the bond etc. your still are supposed to have a permit. witch whould be a good excuse if you could git away with it, " I was just making peppermint extract" I thank they have every excuse covered.

I know, i didnt figure it would be that easy......just sounded more innocent.

HookLine wrote:Kiwi, I thought that raising the price (with tobacco, at least), is the most significant factor in discouraging its use.

In my instance it was social stigma that finally - after sixty, yup sixty years of smoking. We'd go to a dance or our club and I was the only smoker. I had no idea how vile I smelt until I quit.

As I type this I seem to recall doing it before, so if you have read it before don't bother this time.

EIGHT WEEKS YESTERDAY!!!

Fresh smelling blanik

wonder if your cuts will get tighter

A very good point, kiwi. I should be able to tell from some eau de vie that I have under the house. I imagine it would make a difference cos I definately do smell and taste things differently now, especially smell.

blanik

blanikdog wrote:

HookLine wrote:Kiwi, I thought that raising the price (with tobacco, at least), is the most significant factor in discouraging its use.

In my instance it was social stigma that finally - after sixty, yup sixty years of smoking. We'd go to a dance or our club and I was the only smoker. I had no idea how vile I smelt until I quit.

As I type this I seem to recall doing it before, so if you have read it before don't bother this time.

EIGHT WEEKS YESTERDAY!!!

Fresh smelling blanik

Well done, Blanik!

Eight weeks! Hurray!

Not an easy habit to quit, but it looks like you have wrestled it the ground. Now just choke the living hell out of it and walk away free.
Sounds easy enough, but I know that this habit will grow new heads, resurrect itself on desire and is VERY difficult to put down.

Good luck on the rest of the battle.

SB

A junkie has better odds of quittin' heroin than a smoker does of quittin' tobacco.

My hat's off to you Blanik. You ROCK!!!

Bravo!

MuleKicker wrote:I know, i didnt figure it would be that easy......just sounded more innocent.

MuleKicker, You know if you answering questions,........ and they asking (thats them, that ain't us), it's most likely going to be a bad day. Sounding innocent would be highly recommended in my opinion. However fruitless it may be, it leaves doors open that you may find useful. Just never let the facts cloud up the issues, and know the truth will set you free everywhere but inside the court of law. Thats the place sounding innocent is, in most instances, far more beneficial toward your best interest than the truth its self. Myself, I have never had a problem with drinking, or drugs for that matter. I've had a problem with the police. Out of every time I have been in trouble in my life, there is one common denominator that was present, that if taken out of the scenario, would have greatly, I mean enormously, reduced the trouble and burden on myself, and thats been the police. Go figure........

theholymackerel wrote:A junkie has better odds of quittin' heroin than a smoker does of quittin' tobacco.

My hat's off to you Blanik. You ROCK!!!

Bravo!

Talking about them dang Marlboro's. Thats a bull I gotta get off of. Going to do it soon, just gott'a get my mind right. Now these guys got me thinking it will tighten up my cuts, I got one more reason.

You know what CC, i saw a lecture on youtube given by a law professor. he said "under no circumstances should you talk to the police" no matter how innocent you are. he said " you know, when they read you your rights? it says: what ever you say can and will be used AGAINST you in the court or law" Not for you, against you. he made alot of sense, and had alot of good points.

MuleKicker wrote:You know what CC, i saw a lecture on youtube given by a law professor. he said "under no circumstances should you talk to the police" no matter how innocent you are. he said " you know, when they read you your rights? it says: what ever you say can and will be used AGAINST you in the court or law" Not for you, against you. he made alot of sense, and had alot of good points.

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID " PEOPLE ARE LIKE FISH, IF THEY KEEP THEIR MOUTH SHUT THEY WOULD NOT GET COUGHT".

MuleKicker wrote:i saw a lecture on youtube given by a law professor. he said "under no circumstances should you talk to the police" no matter how innocent you are

I remember that one. It was given by a law professor and a career cop. They agreed completely.
1) Identify yourself when asked.
2) Tell them you won't say anything until you have an attorney.
3)Then keep your darned mouth shut until your lawyer tells you to open it.

The latest Court ruling is that unless you tell them you're going to keep quiet you don't really have the right to do so. So be sure to include step #2

That utube address is in the forum somewhere. Hook posted it I think.

blanik

MuleKicker wrote:GREED.

I would add to that ignorance, intellectual malaise and general political disinterest in it on the part of our law-makers. Even home brewing of beer wasn't legal until the late '70s until Carter permitted it by executive order. Right now, there is the erroneous belief that home distilling will lead to blindness or that distillation apparatus are dangerous and prone to explosion or fire. We here all know that is not the case but that is what the general populous believes due to the pervasiveness of unsubstantiated myths and old-wives' tales. Also, law-makers here in the U.S. are currently occupied with the crises of our pathetic economy and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the potential threats of North Korea and Iran while trying to repair our national image in the eyes of the rest of the world and reestablish us as THE global political and economic standard. To put it short, home distillation is pretty low on the radar and not likely to get much attention at the moment as far as legalization efforts go. That doesn't mean we can't try, though. Keep writing your Governors, Senators and Representatives (both state and federal) as well as the White House. Keep the pressure on and eventually they will take notice and things will change.

jimmy carter is awesome... heres what we need to do... send a little homemade whiskey of the best quality and jack daniels in 2 seperate bottles marked A and B. put in a note sealed saying not to open till after tasting. get it to barak obama and stephen harper and other high end politicians around the world. let them decide what is better and lets convert the most powerful people to our side.



......i know wishful thinking(or is it)

Hey there demonrichie , How bout you try that and then tell us how that works out for ya