However, this ruling is not about alcohol, it is about dissolving Federal authority exercised via the trade and commerce clause of the Constitution.
As long as the product is not sold outside but for personal consumption, it must be legal to make without any certifications.
Its a chicken and egg problem as well, the way we regulate and manage health care and health insurance (at least in the US) allows for costs to pretty easily bleed out to the rest of society. That implies that we must then be collectivist in other policies, though that is counter to many of the original goals of our country and the question is whether we changed those goals or inadvertantly built a system that requires changing gials after the fact.
We have a similar problem with immigration laws. Our immigration laws today are completely counter to what they once were, and counter to what is still written on the Statue of Liberty. We have immigration laws now that are necessary because of the welfare programs we implemented, even if we wanted to live up to the older ideals we couldn't without abandoning those welfare programs entirely.
But isn't the point of non-socialized healthcare, like in the US, that you pay for care out of pocket? Or maybe via your insurance, which will probably increase your premium if you repeatedly engage in stupid actions that need expensive fixing?
The most important justification for seat belt laws is ensuring that drivers can maintain control when things get spicy and keep a minor event from escalating into a collision that will harm bystanders. And other innocent people in the same car who will be injured by the unbelted person being thrown around.
How about just don't pay for it? Why is everyone in such a hurry to take people's freedom based on a spreadsheet no less.
Fyi, the reference to Asia is not about people killing themselves, it's about passing off inadvertantly lethal moonshine as mass-produced drinkable alcohol resulting in the deaths of other people, not yourself.
Distilling on the other hand can easily harm, or even kill, friends, relatives, and casual acquaintances.
Brewing is very unlikely to do anyone any harm other than by overconsumption of alcohol.
It's very lucrative to tax brewing and even more distilling.
All that is to say, the government is not harvesting tax from homebrew.
That said, don't break the law, folks. It's not worth going to prison for tax evasion over a jug of shine. You can get just as tipsy off a couple glasses of fermented supermarket apple juice, and it's legal and cheaper to boot.
In practice the distillate actually has less undesirable crap in it than the source wine, since one typically only keeps a part of the run from the still ("hearts") and disposes of the rest.
W/e, I'm not your dad.
Little doubt you're correct on both counts: risk of methanol ingestion isn't high and likely government worries about a likely shortfall in its coffers. But as I inferred in my comment that risk is minimal in countries with good food/health regulations. HN is read everywhere so that's not always going to be case.
You're absolutely correct about the distillation process and that small amounts of methanol exist in wine, also one's body produces small amount of both MeOH and EtOH that aren't harmful except in very rare individuals who overproduce amounts.
The problem comes when MeOH is deliberately substituted for EtOH. In such circumstances the consumer can receive hundreds of times as much MeOH as the body is used to dealing with. The liver can normally eliminate the small amounts of naturally-produced formaldehyde and formic acid metabolites produced by alcohol dehydrogenase before any damage is done but not so when large amounts are ingested. In fact, the 100 ml figure I quoted for MeOH is at the extreme end of survivability, much lower amounts often kill.
As I said, I'm not against homebrew spirits but it's easy to envisage a situation that without proper controls and a good understanding of the dangers of MeOH substitution by the lay public (together with easy ways of testing for MeOH) that unscrupulous carpetbaggers will somehow find ways of adding MeOH—unfortunately the profit motive often nukes scruples.
The intent is not to poison people, since the alcohol is not intended for consumption.
Morally and ethically such action results in a much worse outcome for society for many reasons. Unfortunately, that's not the view of many or those laws would not have been enacted. Even in our more enlightened times many still hold such punitive beliefs as witnessed by some posts here on HN. It seems to me opinion on whether or not alcoholic beverages ought to be permitted in society has been around so long and yet still remains so divided that the chasm will likely never close.
Fortunately, where I live (Australia) the toxic denaturants in ethanol (methanol (~15℅) and pyridine (~3%)) were removed quite some decades ago and replaced with a nontoxic denaturant—the bitterant denatonium.
We nevertheless still have a lingering reminder of the past: the once non-potable ethanol was called "Methylated Spirits" and its replacement still is! Nowadays, the methanol and pyridine are gone and what's always been colloquially nicknamed "Metho" is still labeled "Methylated Spirits" but now only consists of 95% ethanol and 5% water—the trace amount of denatonium denaturant isn't even mentioned on the label but it's definitely there.
An interesting observation: the old toxic methylated ethanol was emblazoned with the word "POISON" whereas our new Metho sans MeOH is only labeled "CAUTION".
BTW, above I mentioned the chasm never closing, whilst writing this my earlier post has oscillated wildly around a net 0, I now have the same number of votes that I started with before posting. Seems opinions are even more divided on this subject than I'd ever imagined (damn shame HN only tallies totals and not both up and down votes).
Note that we are talking about industrial alcohol, which was not made for human consumption but could be distilled to make it palatable (before the toxic additives were added).
It's so rare this thread is literally the first time I've heard about possibility of methanol poisoning from homebrewing.
Methanol poisonings happen from bootlegging, where someone in the chain of supply sells industrial methanol as an ethanol, because the first one is cheaper, easier to obtain and untaxed.
Unfortunately, that has happened enough times with people dying for it to be a problem. Seems some societies are more susceptible to these extremely dangerous ripoffs than others.
There's no way to produce a dangerous amount of methanol at homebrew scales unless you are trying to do so.
Methanol does not all come out in the heads. It is present across the whole distillation run. There's just not enough of it to be dangerous.
This was literally the basis of one of the first conflicts of the early federal government.
If you find yourself drinking something untrustworthy you can at least cure yourself with a chaser of an equivalent amount of everclear.
If you ever find out you have been drinking methanol by all means do drink safe spirits if you have immediate access to them (after throwing up what you can if you're still in time), but get medical help now. Ethanol will not cure you from methanol poisoning, it will only help reduce and delay the damage somewhat while you're waiting for an ambulance or making your way to a hospital to get proper treatment.
Any amount of methanol you're getting from home distilling is going to be easily and safely canceled with alcohol.
https://youtube.com/shorts/opyKKx4rRUs?si=BE_yb1_V0SEkccbq
My family has been home brewing for decades. There's never been an issue.
I echoed the dangers of MeOH poisoning (in drink substitution, etc.) in my two posts and I've been downvoted several times without reason given.
Such misunderstandings are why I'm an advocate for strong regulations that ensure commonly-available MeOH is always denatured.
First, if they are not using anything with pectin in it, there isn't a significant amount of methanol at all worth measuring.
Second, if they did use fruit skins in the fermentation stage, there still isn't enough methanol to compete with the ethanol, (which is the cure to methanol poisoning) with out intentionally poisoning the batch.
You shouldn't push such FUD.
For example, when I worked for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, I was surprised to discover that the percentage of imported food/beverage actually tested for safety is very low. Like comically, microscopically, unbelievably low.
In the United States, I suspect concerns over reputation and civil litigation do more to keep our food safe than government testing.
I think that incidents elsewhere have often been caused by substituting expensive taxed industrial ethanol for cheap industrial methanol. Which is an insane thing to do but money is money.
Until another mass poisoning occurs we will continue trusting paperwork.
One shouldn't have to restate these well-known facts but they have to be repeated at every opportunity because in many ways methanol too closely resembles ethanol/EtOH, it tastes the same and induces drunkenness, and consumers may not become aware they have consumed it until its toxic effects manifest. By then, it's often too late.
Methanol's similarly to ethanol and that it's a very important industrial chemical made and used in huge qualities that makes it doubly dangerous. Many ways exist for methanol to enter the food chain both accidentally and through deliberate substitution for ethanol so it's especially important that strict regulations exist covering its handling and use.
Outside of lab grade reagents, methanol should always be denatured in ways that make its consumption both obvious and intolerable, that's best achieved by adding the denaturant denatonium (benzoate or saccharinate) in trace amounts that have little or no effect on methanol's final use.
Denatonium (aka, Bitrix, Bitrex and others), a quaternary ammonium compound, is a bitterant and likely the bitterest substance known and can be tasted by humans in parts per billion. Not only is it extremely bitter but unlike lemons it's a nasty bitterness that lingers and will immediately alert anyone who tastes it (I know, having deliberately tasted it).
HN is read internationally, so in places with good methanol handling regulations there's little doubt I'm sounding like an annoying schoolteacher overstating the obvious but from my experience many people do not know how dangerous methanol really is. As mentioned, one reads of travelers in foreign countries poisoned with drinks laced with methanol without giving a thought where their drinks originate (moreover the most vulnerable are those who come from places with good food regulations as they automatically assume what they're served is suitable for consumption).
My rave isn't to put the kibosh on homebrew spirits as I'm essentially in favor of this decision—government already dictates too many things we citizens cannot do. That said, there has to be strict regulations concerning distillation methods and commercial sales should definitely be unlawful with tough penalties.
Finally, whether this decision hold up under appeal or not, we need readily-available methanol detectors that are both cheap and portable and that anyone can easily use.
In real homebrew, you are not at risk of methanol poisoning. If you brew some beer (step 1 to making yourself whiskey), the alcohol makeup ends up being in a 1:1000 ratio of methanol to ethanol. Distilling does not create any more methanol, it merely concentrates it. Let's play out the worst possible scenario here, where you're targeting azeotropic ethanol, and specifically targeting methanol with your cuts. In order to end up with a 100ml of methanol, you would need to be running a batch of targeting 100L (26 gallons) of ethanol, which means starting with 2,000L (530 gallons) of beer. That is wildly outside the range of casual home distilling.
And keep in mind in order to hit that worst case scenario, the distiller needs to know enough to be making cuts, but not know to discard the first cut, which is done normally even without methanol concerns simply because it contains a bunch of really disgusting aromatics.
I did not say that. I'm sick of being misquoted (at least twice to this story).
I well know that methanol only appears in trace amounts in drinking spirits (also naturally in trace amounts in one's gut/body sans drinking—it's even in fruit juice). That is not what I was talking about. What I said was:
"Many ways exist for methanol to enter the food chain both accidentally and through deliberate substitution for ethanol…"
In that paragraph I made no mention of homebrew spirits and it's clear I was referring to methanol manufactured in industry on an industrial scale. Industrially-manufactured methanol has found its way into the food chain and has killed people.
You should read my reply to reisse where I make it clear how methanol could enter the food chain (right, I also mentioned it earlier).
It's pretty obvious to me that if a large cultural rush/sudden fad to homebrew spirits were to happen (assuming the decision is upheld) then things will in all probability go wrong unless there's a broad reeducation about the potential for methanol substitution coupled with regulations covering sales especially through third parties.
I'm specifically referring to the US here, the entrepreneurial nature of business being what it is this decision will be seen by some (and a few is too many) to run amok and start trading HB spirits in ways traditional homebrewers would never (or very rarely) do
It's also worth reading the link on methanol poisoning in my reply to pessimizer.
Another way to increase safety is to reduce the availability of illegal stills without quality control by enforcing the ban.
(Anyone who thinks otherwise presumably also thinks all hard drugs should be legalized since this presumably wouldn't lead to an increase in consumption.)
I can see you're lacking some knowledge on what makes up a still, as well as it's completely legal use for distillation of water.
A still is just a bucket with a heat source and some vapor collector and condenser. It's easy to build from a couple of pickle jars and hot glue if you're determined.
Why should the government be in the business of reducing consumption? Do you believe alcohol to be immoral, and the government's role to be enforcing morality?
The Commerce Clause issue is raised in our other case[1] that's now pending before the Sixth Circuit.
(I argued both cases.)
[0] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-10760-CV0.pd...
[1] https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/issues/detail/ream-v-us-dep...
[0] https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/library/docLib/2025-06-24-T...
Here are the official docs for the case
McNutt v. US Department of Justice
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.220...
If the original 1868 law stated $10,000, that’s insane (equivalent of millions, these days). If not, then that might mean this law has been regularly reviewed and updated, so it’s not just something that was lost in the back of the cabinet.
And at that point it wouldn't be a stretch for most people to make the connection that some people are more privileged than others and fines should be relative to personal wealth and income.
Imagine if laws were written by people who know what a function is...
https://www.afsa.gov.au/professionals/resource-hub/penalty-u...
If laws were written by engineers, money would hold its value, and the laws wouldn't require constant adjustment.
Imagine the alternative that once in a while the government says it needs more money and just subtracts it from your bank account. There'd be riots.
It's not just about fines, many countries have support for families with children. I don't think the rich should get more money per child. For fines, it absolutely makes sense.
A harsher alternative is to stop using fines altogether and instead give "prison micro-sentences" - a few hours or days in prison. It makes perfect sense - when you pay a fine, you lost a bit of your life by working and not having anything to show for it at the end. So why not make it direct and just take a bit of time directly from the person. It nicely sidesteps various tricks how the rich hide their assets, too.
Of course, the administrative overhead would be much larger, but then the offenders could take some part in maintaining the prison. Nothing would be more humbling to a privileged person than cleaning the prison toilet.
> A Norwegian billionaire that recorded a BAC level three times higher than the legal limit has been banned from driving and handed a 250,000 krone fine (EUR 25,000). But the fine could have been much higher as, under Norwegian law, fines are linked to monthly income and in some cases overall wealth.
> Finland has a ‘day fine’ system, with penalties linked to an offender’s wages.
Every travel guide tells you to not accept home-distilled drinks, since they can be poisonous.
It's almost impossible to avoid ingesting some alcohol during the course of a natural diet, and that includes if you avoid fermented food such as bread, let alone beverages deliberately brewed to be alcoholic.
Gemini says this:
"Ethanol is the type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, spirits) meant for consumption. While ethanol is safe for moderate consumption, methanol is extremely toxic and can cause poisoning, blindness, or death, even in small amounts."
Edit: only one way round! This is not medical advice. I am not a doctor. I am not your doctor or drinking doula.
I've been doing it for about 20 years, no poisoning cases yet. Home distillation has been legal in NZ since 1996.
Methanol is really only present in significant amounts in fruit mashes because it comes from fermentation of pectin. Grain or sugar-derived alcohol barely has any at all.
The foreshots you throw out do have things that taste bad and which you would not want to drink much of, but even if you mixed it all back in and got drunk, it would be the same amount of all of those chemicals you’d get if you just drank the mash, which is itself basically just beer or wine.
We distillers are a lot more likely to burn our house down than any other form of injury.
Please do find those papers! They may be describing a radical new chemistry that I'm not familiar with.
To be clear - methanol boils at 64C and ethanol boils at 78C. Are you suggesting that in standard distillation, there is still some non-trace methanol coming over at 78C? If I personally observed that in a laboratory setting, I'd quickly assume measurement error or external contamination.
You shouldn't buy those, terribly expensive. Oh I don't really drin... Used to be a chap in here all the time, made his own, beautiful stuff. Ok well like I say I'm not rea... I can sell you everything you need, you should make your own gin, much cheaper. Oh, so did you drink his stuff too? Nah I'd never touch it. What but you said it was beau... Yeah he drank it and died.
Definitely up on the list of bizarre interactions I've had here.
TBH, your assertion reads like chemistry word salad. It doesn’t parse.
As distillation continues the concentration of methanol drops.
The highest concentration is at the start. This is also generally full of undesirable flavours.
People also forget that ethanol competitively inhibits metabolism of methanol in a way that protects healthy adults from toxicity.
A safe alcoholic drink can have methanol in it, iirc it's about 80:1 ethanol:methanol by EU rules. And generally considered tolerable [0].
What is actually toxic is much higher ratios of methanol than that.
Unless you have severely f'd up your fermentables you shouldn't even have that much methanol in the starter!
This is why everyone is disagreeing with the safety in this thread.
It's also why people wonder why so many tourist destinations have been mixing methanol into alcoholic drinks. They probably could serve drunk people high concentrations relying on ethanol already in their blood and follow up drinks to stop noticeable harm.
Probably most adults could drink 5-10% methanol (if ethanol is about 50%) and never notice the toxicity.
do you mean distills? decanting is just pouring carefully
And I'll let you know that my shortest days are 4.5 hours long (with weak sunlight!). Oslo has slighly longer days still.
For booze above 22% ABV the tax is currently 9.23 NOK. So a 0.7 liter bottle of 40% ABV Whiskey or similar would get 258 NOK or $27 / €23 in tax.
And on top of that comes the usual 25% VAT, and high wages to our bartenders etc.
In many European countries you will be offered home-distilled drinks, you would be very unlucky to get anything else than hangover.
The problem is overblown.
The court says that you can't use a tax to ban something outright, which is what the post-1986 machine gun ban is: refusing to collect a tax on post-1986 machine guns, effectively banning them.
That leaves the commerce clause as the remaining defense for all taxes-as-bans or general outright bans. And that suggests future cases where Wickard will be under scrutiny.
---
I am not a lawyer, but I think this ruling is far more interesting than it appears.
It is aiming a crosshair at Wickard v. Filburn, which ruled that a farmer that produced wheat on his farm to exclusively to feed livestock on that same farm was affecting interstate commerce, and could be penalized for overproduction to support price controls. Keep in mind, that this definition of "interstate commerce" is so broad that it essentially reduces the category of "intra-state commerce" to nothing, which seems dubious.
That ruling is the basis of a huge portion of the federal government's powers under the commerce clause of the constitution.
The supreme court will likely have to rule on this eventually, and how it threads the needle will be very important.
If Wickard were simply struck down, the U.S. would be reformed into a weak federation, akin perhaps to pre-EU Europe, where laws vary wildly between states, and the federal government has little power. No EPA, no federal minimum wage, no forced integration, reduced civil rights, only direct interstate commerce being regulated.
That's unlikely to happen, but the court would either have to reaffirm Wickard, or would have to come up with a new standard to keep, say, the $200 tax on pre-1986 machine guns effective (preventing a garage machine gun), but allow some notion of non-economic activity like home distilling to continue.
The OBBB reduced the tax on suppressors to $0, which strongly undermines the idea that home production of suppressors can be regulated by Wickard, since there is no tax interest to protect.
How it might affect the controlled substances act is more complicated, since there is no tax on illegal drugs, and the government has decided to entirely ban non-pharmaceutical street drugs, hence even "hobby" production clearly undermines that policy.
It's an area with lots of apparent but longstanding contradictions and questionable standards, but it would upend much of the New Deal to reverse it.
Though I would gladly see Wickard v Filburn overturned. Commercial regulations already vary by state, and the US would still be more cohesive than the EU is today, but the amount of water that flows through my showerhead doesn’t have to be a concern of the federal government. In fact, we don’t even need Wickard v Filburn to be a more cohesive federation than Canada, which doesn’t even have free trade between provinces.
States can still do civil rights etc.
How so? For medical reasons? For the facilitation of the Saudi Aramco oil production which funds the life and habitation of humans in Dhahran?
I suspect something was lost in translation.
Distillation doesn’t create alcohols, it only concentrates them. The ratio of ethanol to methanol in a distilled spirit will be approximately the same as in the wash it was distilled from. Drinking brandy you’ll get about the same ratio as if you drank the wine it was made from.
You need the same amount of ethanol to get drunk regardless of how you drink it, all distilling does is get rid of that pesky water that’s in beer and wine. (That makes some other fun things like barrel aging possible.) So you’ll also get the same amount of methanol.
Also fun fact: if you got methanol poisoning and went to the hospital the treatment is ethanol, because it blocks the metabolism of methanol. Methanol metabolizes into formic acid which damages the optic nerve.
And contrary to lore, mass spectrometry shows that the idea that methanol comes off the still first (meaning that if you collected the early results, called heads, and drank them, you might get too much) is false or at least drastically oversimplified.
You’d have to try hard to seriously injure yourself drinking home distilled spirits. (I’ve been doing it for 15 years.) Unless you count just drinking too much, but you’d have that problem with the professional stuff too.
This is wrong. The boiling point of methanol is 65C vs ethanol at 78C. Methanol will come out first from distillation.
And, later on in distillation, when you’re much closer to the boiling point of water than ethanol, there will still be some ethanol coming out.
I get why you think that, I did too before diving deeper, but I assure you, your mental model of how distillation works is incorrect.
Oversimplified might be a better description but there needs to be a rule even dumb people can use
So the rule is: discard whatever comes first
If you expect every home distiller to understand the nuances of this you're going to end up with a lot of "accidents"
how did that work? did the Feds pose as some false flag bootleggers? do you have some sources I could read up on?
thing is, russia has a large tradition of home distillation (samogonka), and they too have tropes of people going blind. there have been a lot of cases of people dying because of bad alcohol, here's somewhat recent case: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/contaminated-cider-deaths-russi...
It’s quite common for people to add methanol to illegal liquor because it can be made cheaply from natural gas and is sold industrially everywhere. You are much more likely to be injured buying bootleg alcohol than making it.
And even if you just distilled until it was basically water coming out, then re-blended everything, you have not significantly worsened the ratio of the two
North Americans probably have some cultural hangover from Prohibition about the dangers of small-scale distillation. Methanol in particular is probably overstated as a danger. Methanol poisoning seems to mostly happen from adulteration, often with what is mistakenly thought to be industrial ethanol. It is produced at very low levels by fermentation (less than 0.1%) and so at the home distillation scale there's not enough in one batch to be a significant concern. Fire, however, is a genuine risk.
I find it interesting that you have this notion. I was born in 1984. The history books in school were still implying that home distillation was dangerous. "Rot gut whiskey" "bath tub gin" are phrases that continue to come to mind when I think of the prohibition days.
No one I have ever met in all of the different levels of society here have had any strong disdain or distrust of home brewing or distillation. By the time of my upbringing, at least, the general population in the US was content with the alcohol laws. They are not aware of how easy home brewing, wine-making, and distilling are. They are not aware of the post prohibition three tier system. They are consumers of alcohol not producers. That is what prohibition in the US did. "House wine" in the US is the wine a restaurant picks for cheap profits. "House wine" in the old days or in europe is wine you make at home. We, in general, lost that piece of culture with prohibition. It never disappeared in some parts of the country though. Appalachia moonshiners kept the tradition going in mind and spirit for the whole country.
If your statement was about other drugs, you would be spot on. Prohibition regarding alcohol was not accepted by almost every demographic strata. Prohibition of other drugs is a different story for cultural reasons.
They're not technically complex, but you need space and time for them, and producing a beer you would actually want to drink and bottling it isn't trivial.
I know one guy who moonshines for family-and-friends consumption, not sale, and I'll pass. It's not that much cheaper than just buying it (note: my state alcohol taxes are not that high) and it's a lot more work. I might make a batch of wine -> brandy from fruits that grew on a tree in my back yard if I had plums, just to say I did, but I'm not interested in making a big batch of corn liquor.
It's very difficult to ban something when even the police do it. I'm guessing that the number of cops who like a drink is somewhere around "most".
Anyway, my point is that the people most at risk of poisoning themselves are those unfamiliar with the process. I'm pretty sure a ton of people were doing this anyway for non-commercial purposes without realizing an unenforced federal law even existed.
Having said that, fake booze in Thailand has killed and blinded people so it’s not risk free
The much bigger danger for home distilling is fire, as you have open flames and combustible vapor. The fire codes for a distillery are very strict.
This would suggest that using induction heating would be significantly safer and have the possibility of precise temperature control. Is there any reason why home distilling does/does not do this?
A colleague from the region explained to me that if the booze is cheap, you just make sure you drink plenty of good booze too. Blocks the metabolic pathway.
The only exception was a methanol affair 15 years ago, but that had nothing to do with home distillation. In that particular case, two bozos inspired by a badly understood Wikipedia article bought and mixed enormous amounts of industrial methanol with ethanol and sold the resulting mixture on the black market, killing dozens of people and triggering a temporary prohibition as the authorities scrambled to find all the poisoned booze.
They are now both serving life.
So, just like you won't go blind from a bottle of brandy, you won't go blind from distilled wine. However, you're likely to have a serious headache the morning after.
normal hooch is dangerous, too.
I don't quite follow - would you be able to explain the argument behind this for me?
Pretty sure they were pointing out the absurdity of Gonzales v. Raich (545 U.S. 1)... But that really is the holding of the US Supreme Court in that case.
Possessing schedule I controlled substances is illegal. If you grow the substance, you also possess it. Therefore it’s not legal.
Do be careful. Depending on the state mushrooms become illegal at different stages of production.
