Michigan Votes Forum

 why do democrats fear the consumption of alcohol?

crazycajun:

 why do democrats fear the consumption of alcohol?

Obviously, from the record of this bill, the Republicans appear to have a greater fear of alcohol consumption than the Democrats do.

Here’s what the bill (now a law signed by our Democrat governor in August 2008) says.  From the legislative analysis:

“The bills would amend the Michigan Liquor Control Code to allow the issuance of a license for a beer festival, and allow a brewpub to sell beer to the holder of such a license. "Beer festival" would mean an event at which the various types and kinds of beer and the production of that beer are showcased to the general public and at which the general public can purchase and sample the beer being showcased for consumption on the licensed premises.”

Senate voted 21-17 to pass this legislation, with a vote split showing 94% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans in the chamber supporting.  Two Republican Senators voted against the bill (the only two votes against it in the entire Legislature) and one Democrat did not participate in the vote.

The House vote was 102-0, with 94% of Democrats compared to just 90% of Republicans voting to support the bill.  Eight Representatives did not vote, 5 of them Republicans and 3 Democrats.

Really, now, examples other than this are going to have to be found to make the stupid argument that Democrats in our Legislature fear the consumption of alcohol.  Why would anyone even draw or try to base such an argumentative conclusion on facts that clearly don’t support it and in truth make the opposite case?  That is bizarre.

 the question was posted NOT to argue that THIS law was showing fear by the democrats over consumption of alcohol, but to show that the law that it CHANGES shows fear by the democrats over consumption of alcohol.

this bill is a step in the right direction concerning the rights of the people to choose for themselves about alcohol, and to give the state another opportunity to raise tax revenue on a LEGAL ACTIVITY.

i've never seen a state that so tightly regulated a legal activity as if it were afraid of alcohol consumption. if you look, bills like this one were forwarded SEVERAL TIMES, a redundant activity, and totally unnecessary in a free state.

what is truly bizarre is that such draconian controls existed in the first place. prohibition has been proven to be wrong AND unconstitutional, so why do democrats insist on trying to implement it?

oh, by the way, it's truly bizarre you haven't read some of the arguementative post made by your alter-ego, TRUE/FALSE.

. 

crazycajun:

 the question was posted NOT to argue that THIS law was showing fear by the democrats over consumption of alcohol, but to show that the law that it CHANGES shows fear by the democrats over consumption of alcohol.

Caught in an outright distortion of the factual record on this legislation, which you clearly asserted shows that Democrats – and Democrats alone – “fear” alcohol consumption, you now weasel around by trying to change the subject.

And you still bark up the wrong tree by trying to make this a Democrat vs Republican issue.  The voting record really shows that Michigan Democrats and Republicans generally share very similar views when it comes to alcohol bills like this one. 

”this bill is a step in the right direction concerning the rights of the people to choose for themselves about alcohol, and to give the state another opportunity to raise tax revenue on a LEGAL ACTIVITY.”

I can agree with that, because it accurately describes what this amendment to the state’s alcohol control laws will do. 

The question is, why did you choose to use this legislation to launch an anti-Democrat rant, when the voting record on it actually could be said to imply that the Michigan Legislature’s Republican contingent is more anti-alcohol than the Democrats?

That is just bizarre.

Actually, it is ridiculous to depict this as Democrat vs Republican when the two parties’ voting records on alcohol bills like this in the Michigan Legislature actually are very similar.  There appears to be little if any difference in party posture on these things. 

”i've never seen a state that so tightly regulated a legal activity as if it were afraid of alcohol consumption. …”

 Then you haven’t been around much. 

Take a look at states like Oklahoma and Kansas, for examples, which have some of the most restrictive liquor laws in the nation.  Visit Kentucky’s or Alabama’s dry counties.  Alaska doesn’t allow beer or wine to be sold in grocery stores.  Colorado did not lift its ban on Sunday alcohol sales for take-out until 2008.  Etc., etc.

The fact is, Michigan appears to be pretty much in the mainstream among the states when it comes to restrictions on alcohol sales to the public – certainly less liberal than some, but also considerably more liberal than others at the extremes. 

Perhaps the greatest problem with Michigan liquor control laws is that they restrict competition in the trafficking of alcohol to favor the entrenched distribution system and distributors.  The result is fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. 

”what is truly bizarre is that such draconian controls existed in the first place. prohibition has been proven to be wrong AND unconstitutional, so why do democrats insist on trying to implement it?

National alcohol prohibition is, indeed, unconstitutional.  However, the 26^th amendment, which repealed Prohibition in 1933, clearly put control of alcohol traffic back into the hands of the individual states.  Thus, any state could, if it chose, impose its own Prohibition. 

Again, to argue that Democrats alone have been trying to implement a new Prohibition in Michigan is a ridiculous and bizarre distortion of facts and history.  This bill – which actually eases restrictions on alcohol sales -- is a case in point.

 no, dipweed.

i weazel around nothing.

i simply asked why do democrats fear the consumption of alcohol.

why don't you try answering the quesion, not analyzing it.

you might just see for yourself that they do.

but, instead, you see REPUBLICAN BOGEYMEN around every question.

this bill has several SISTER BILLS that essentially say the same thing, i wonder why that is?

 by the way, sane...

if prohibition is PROHIBITED by the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, it is STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR ANY STATE TO RE-IMPOSE PROHIBITION. they may make DRY COUNTIES THAT SEVERELY LIMIT ALCOHOL SALES, BUT MAY NOT BRING ABOUT AN OUTRIGHT BAN. in every dry county in the nation, there is SOME way that alcohol may be legally sold.

bitten by your own statement.

how very like TRUE/FALSE you are.

 one more little fact that USUALLY keeps liberals from banning alcohol at the local level. 

you can't tax what is illegal to consume.

just a thought... i'll give you a few hours to stew on it, then come up with more.

the state of mississippi misses out on two point three billion dollars per year in alcohol taxes alone. that's about what they take in in the HALF of the counties that are NOT dry. by the way, liquor and beer is sold TAX FREE in the dry counties. to do otherwise would violate the constitution. most dry counties have 'RELIGIOUS EXCEPTIONS'.

crazycajun:

 no, dipweed.

i weazel around nothing.

That’s far from the truth.  You weasel around nearly everything.  That’s your way.

But delude yourself about being straightforward all you want.  Enjoy your pathology.

”i simply asked why do democrats fear the consumption of alcohol.”

And the simple answer, as evidenced by the voting on this bill, is that they do not.  Why won’t you accept that?  Are you so thoroughly blinded by stupid partisanship that you cannot see and recognize the truth before your very eyes?

”why don't you try answering the quesion, not analyzing it.

 

you might just see for yourself that they do.’

I answered your question.  You evidently cannot read.

In order to answer a question like yours, one must analyze both what is being asked and the facts of the case in point.

The facts here – the votes on this bill -- do not support your stupid and dishonest contention that Democrats “fear” alcohol.  In truth, the facts suggest that Democrats actually may embrace and encourage alcohol consumption.  

”but, instead, you see REPUBLICAN BOGEYMEN around every question.”

More weaseling and trying to change the subject, we see.  The fact is, you presented the question in partisan terms, and with a distortion of the truth as shown by the facts regarding votes on this bill. 

I merely pointed out that those facts make a better argument that Republicans “fear” alcohol.  That is not finding bogeymen.  It is pointing out facts and truth, which evidently gives you the screamie-meemies.

”this bill has several SISTER BILLS that essentially say the same thing, i wonder why that is?”

I don’t know what Humpty Dumpty definition you will apply to the term “sister bills” here.  Answer your own question, since you commonly present yourself as all-knowing, and able to plumb others’ motivations and private thoughts.

”if prohibition is PROHIBITED by the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, it is STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR ANY STATE TO RE-IMPOSE PROHIBITION. they may make DRY COUNTIES THAT SEVERELY LIMIT ALCOHOL SALES, BUT MAY NOT BRING ABOUT AN OUTRIGHT BAN. in every dry county in the nation, there is SOME way that alcohol may be legally sold.”

Dream on. 

US Constitution, Amendment XXI (1933) – Repealing Prohibition – says:

Section 2.  The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

The language is clear as to meaning.  And your “shouting” won’t change that meaning.

By the way, do us a favor and refrain from citing Granholm v Heald (2005) in another distorted effort to make your argument.  (Not that you ever actually cite sources for anything.)  That US Supreme Court decision basically says a state cannot allow in-state wineries to direct ship to consumers unless it also allows out-of-state wineries to do so.  Michigan’s response to that decision has been to ban all direct shipments to consumers.  See HB 6644, and pay special attention to the voting history: It shows that Republicans and Democrats pretty much saw eye-to-eye on the issue.  (HB 6644 is fundamentally anti-consumer legislation.)

As for “dry counties,” consider this definition - explanation from a Wikipedia article:

A dry county is a county in the United States whose government forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages. Some prohibit off-premises sale, some prohibit on-premises sale, and some prohibit both. Hundreds of dry counties exist across the United States, although most commonly in the South. A number of smaller jurisdictions also exist, such as cities, towns and townships, which prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. These are known as dry towns, dry cities or dry townships.

Within the context of this discussion, it is interesting to see that dry counties and other jurisdictions evidently are concentrated in the southern part of the USA, where there also happens to be a concentration of Republican dominated “Red” states.  Coincidence?    

Note, for example, that Alabama has 67 counties, 14 of which are completely dry and 12 of which are partially dry.  Kentucky has 120 counties, of which 53 are completely dry and 37 are rated as partially dry.  Texas has 46 completely dry counties and 169 partially dry. 

Draw from that whatever meaning you will. 

”bitten by your own statement.”

Wrong again.  Once more it is you who have been “bitten” – unmasked – by your own weaseling, lies and distortions. 

 first, alabama has half of it's counties "dry", and of those all have "exceptions" that allow alcohol sales.

texas allows alcohol sales in all counties, there is no such critter as a COMPLETELY dry county. to do so would be to violate the constitution several ways. freedom of religion first and foremost.

now, in your zeal to believe that the govenment knows better than you, i ask you, why is the government afraid of alcohol consumption?

mississippi also has over half of it's counties "dry". but each dry county must touch a 'wet' county, so that those in the dry county can have unrestricted access to alcohol within a reasonable distance. each must also have at least two TWENTY FOUR HOUR alcohol distributors in the county. those laws were thanks not to the "bible thumpers" on the right, but from the "evil heathan communists" on the left.

by the way, you should have seen how the mississippi legislature howled when the hurricane tore up it's BIGGEST SOURCE OF REVENUE, alcohol sales at casinos.

twenty one counties in texas are currently opting out of being 'dry', by petitioning the state legislature.

now, you've danced around this issue long enough. just answer the question.

why are the democrats afraid of alcohol consumption?

next, i'll ask why are democrats afraid of an armed populace.

 yes, sane.. the question was partisan.

so what?

your side gets to be partisan all it wants. read the rantings of your alter-ego TRUE/FALSE if you want proof of that.

even louisiana, famed for it's month long parties, mardi gras, and a general laid back attitude, has dry parishes. but even there, none are COMPLETELY DRY. all MUST allow some sort of alcohol sales.

now, even salt lake city utah, mormon capital of the world, allows alcohol sales, because alcohol is not, per se, an illegal product.

it is TAXED at the local, state, and federal level. it is also REGULATED at all three levels.

now, as for NOT ALLOWING HOME SHIPMENTS OF WINE... that only shows that republicans and democrats here are different in NAME ONLY.

i see very few REAL REPUBLICANS in our legislature, unlike our local governments. it seems that once a rep gets to lansing, it's all over but the crying, they will be a card carrying leftist before they are sworn in.

now, i didn't ask the question to refer directly to this bill, i asked it to get leftists opinions as to why they fear alcohol consumption among FREE PEOPLE?

of course, the leftists don't consider that there ARE any FREE PEOPLE.

analyze that... dipweed. 

crazycajun:

 first, alabama has half of it's counties "dry", and of those all have "exceptions" that allow alcohol sales.

texas allows alcohol sales in all counties, there is no such critter as a COMPLETELY dry county. to do so would be to violate the constitution several ways. freedom of religion first and foremost.

Just for starters, the State of Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board shows 14 counties in the state as being completely dry:  Franklin, Lawrence, Marian, Winston, Cullman, Blount, Lamar, Fayette, Pickens, Bibb, Clay, Randolph, Washington and Geneva.

I count at least 37 Texas counties posted as completely dry (no sales permitted) by the Texas Almanac 2008-2009.

Both sources strike me as being far more credible than an internet gasbag that repeatedly has been shown to make patently false assertions under a screen name.

Churches may serve, but do not sell alcohol as part of their religious ritualizing, last I looked.  Besides, we are discussing the actual verbiage of the 21st amendment to the US Constitution, which specifically and clearly gives states the right to control the trafficking of alcohol within their borders.   

 so, who sells it to the churches?

you speak of TRAFFICING as if alcohol is an illicit and illegal substance.

if it IS an illicit and illegal substance, then, by my reading of the constitution, the govenrment of any sort, local, county, state, or federal, should NOT be able to tax it.

and IF it is TAXED, it cannot be illicit or illegal.

you can't have it both ways.

it CAN be controlled, but not absolutely forbidden.

 by the way, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to brew up to 100 gallons of beer per person in his household.

it is also PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to distill up to 400 gallons of 'distilled spirits' per person in his household.

state and local governments cannot tax this, they cannot control this, they cannot limit this, and they cannot prosecute any citizen for doing this.

if a citizen is fermenting wine for sacrificial purposes, no matter what affilliation (or lack thereof) they may have, their limitations on the amounts and type of wine disappear. in other words, if you are making wine for a church to use, you may make as much as the church can consume.

and in case you are wondering, brewers, distillers, and vintners may GIVE AWAY as much of their craft as they choose to. they MAY NOT sell it, but giving it away is perfectly okey-dokey.

even in dry counties.

ESPECIALLY in dry counties.

in fact, the jack daniels distillery sits smack dab in the middle of a DRY COUNTY.

 You stated:  "by the way, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to brew up to 100 gallons of beer per person in his household.

it is also PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to distill up to 400 gallons of 'distilled spirits' per person in his household.

state and local governments cannot tax this, they cannot control this, they cannot limit this, and they cannot prosecute any citizen for doing this."

So does this mean I can distill my own alcohol in my backyard or garage legally in the state of Michigan?  I just bought a still and wanted to make my own vodka.

Thanks, Erika

I would not look to that source for legal advice.

 you pretending to be a lawyer now, sane?

crazycajun:

 you pretending to be a lawyer now, sane?

Nope.   

But you sure seem to.

 let me know if you 'hang out your shingle'. i know some 'soon-to-be-ex-government employees' who are going to need legal help soon.

So now you are solicitng business as a lawyer?  

With your degree from Lala Land College of Law, we suppose.

You are an amazing person, crazy.  A hoot a minute around here.

 no, i'm soliciting business FROM a lawyer. unless you don't want the work...

i suppose you don't want to jeopardize your cushy union government job.. by the way... does your boss know you're playin' on his computers on his time?

Crazy, on Sunday, January 11, 2009, at 5:39 pm, you posted the following statement on this forum:

by the way, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to brew up to 100 gallons of beer per person in his household.

 

it is also PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to distill up to 400 gallons of 'distilled spirits' per person in his household.

 

state and local governments cannot tax this, they cannot control this, they cannot limit this, and they cannot prosecute any citizen for doing this.

On Saturday, February 21, 2009, at 12:57 pm, a poster using the name, “Erika” wrote:

So does this mean I can distill my own alcohol in my backyard or garage legally in the state of Michigan?  I just bought a still and wanted to make my own vodka.

Thanks, Erika

I certainly do not recommend that “Erika” or anyone else rely on your advice in legal matters (or anything else, actually).  In fact, I vigorously caution against doing so.

Nonetheless, it would be courteous of you to answer the question from “Erika.” 

Just answer the question.  It can’t be that difficult for you, can it?

 because you didn't read the part about 'PERFECTLY LEGAL'. you missed the answer.

just remember, distillation is a tricky thing. one false move, one dirty component, one step omitted, and your vodka turns into lighter fluid.

i reccomend brewing beer myself. even with the high price of hops, the results are far more predictable.

seeing as since erica has already bought the still, (supposedly) she already knows the legality.

even if you distill ethanol for fuel, you get to keep 100 gallons un-de-natured FOR PERSONAL USE as well as for testing.

 by the way, sane...

why don't you support issuing beer festival licenses?

they raise taxes. they provide a valuable community service, bringing the community together for positive, often charitable causes.

is it because you can only see the negative?

Bump:

Crazy, on Sunday, January 11, 2009, at 5:39 pm, you posted the following statement on this forum:

by the way, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to brew up to 100 gallons of beer per person in his household.

 

it is also PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to distill up to 400 gallons of 'distilled spirits' per person in his household.

 

state and local governments cannot tax this, they cannot control this, they cannot limit this, and they cannot prosecute any citizen for doing this.

On Saturday, February 21, 2009, at 12:57 pm, a poster using the name, “Erika” wrote:

So does this mean I can distill my own alcohol in my backyard or garage legally in the state of Michigan?  I just bought a still and wanted to make my own vodka.

 

Thanks, Erika

I certainly do not recommend that “Erika” or anyone else rely on your advice in legal matters (or anything else, actually).  In fact, I vigorously caution against doing so.

Nonetheless, it would be courteous of you to answer the question from “Erika.”

Just answer the question.  It can’t be that difficult for you, can it?

 why do you care about courtesy? you never show any.

it's very hipocritcal to ask others to perform functions you refuse to perform.

answering questions must be VERY difficult. you never do it.

just a thought.

 are you implying that your 'inquisitor' purchased an ILLEGAL still?

are you implying that your 'inquisitor' is planning on committing a CRIME?

are you implying that some businessman KNOWINGLY sold her an ILLEGAL implement to commit an ILLEGAL ACT with an ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE?

that would be a crime in and of itself. PER SE so to speak.

if you believe it illegal, please feel free to report her to the proper authorities.

the B.A.T.F.E. is a good place to start. i'm sure they'll tell you what the law is about brewing and distilling alcohol in michigan and the united states.

they'll also give you some good pointers to make sure that your still is safe.

Crazy, you make it evident that you are terrified by straightforward questions.  Why is that?

Nonetheless, we ask, again ...

Bump:

Crazy, on Sunday, January 11, 2009, at 5:39 pm, you posted the following statement on this forum:

by the way, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to brew up to 100 gallons of beer per person in his household.

 

it is also PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to distill up to 400 gallons of 'distilled spirits' per person in his household.

 

state and local governments cannot tax this, they cannot control this, they cannot limit this, and they cannot prosecute any citizen for doing this.

On Saturday, February 21, 2009, at 12:57 pm, a poster using the name, “Erika” wrote:

So does this mean I can distill my own alcohol in my backyard or garage legally in the state of Michigan?  I just bought a still and wanted to make my own vodka.

 

Thanks, Erika

I certainly do not recommend that “Erika” or anyone else rely on your advice in legal matters (or anything else, actually).  In fact, I vigorously caution against doing so.

Nonetheless, it would be courteous of you to answer the question from “Erika.”

Just answer the question.  It can’t be that difficult for you, can it?

 certainly no more terrified than you.

there are DOZENS of questions YOU haven't answered.

i'll be happy to answer yours AFTER you answer all of mine.

till then, any idiot that can read can find the answer IN YOUR POST. pity you can't.

 dear erika.

why did you buy a still?

more importantly, why did you buy a still without knowing the legality of your purchase?

were you planning on distilling alcohol whether or not it was legal?

a little WHITE LIGHTENING?

by the way, i'd suggest you use the kitchen, it's much cleaner than the garage or the barn.

i think you'll also find that commercial vodka is cheaper, unless you like grey goose. but then again, you'll be a couple of years coming up with anything CLOSE to grey goose.

like i said to your friend sanemichigander, i much prefer to brew beer.

 and by the way, sane... what is your interest in "Erika"?

she an ALTER-EGO of yours?

you seem to have an almost UNNATURAL interest in her and her prediliction for distilling. why?

you plan on trying to lobby congress to make alcohol illegal again?

you plan on turning her in to the local authorities?

or are you just posting under another name again?

by the way, you haven't posted ON TOPIC in quite a while, even after being asked your opinion.

it seems that being OFF TOPIC is quite a habit for you. you NEVER seem to be ON TOPIC.

so, what do you have against beer festival licenses?

No, Cajun.  This is not your time to ask a bunch of rhetorical questions and try to change the subject.  This is time for you to be a standup guy for a change, overcome your terror of answering simple, straightforward questions, and deliver.

What’s the problem here?  Just answer the question “Erika” directed at you, without the BS.  No more weaseling.

Bump:

Crazy, on Sunday, January 11, 2009, at 5:39 pm, you posted the following statement on this forum:

by the way, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to brew up to 100 gallons of beer per person in his household.

 

it is also PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to distill up to 400 gallons of 'distilled spirits' per person in his household.

 

state and local governments cannot tax this, they cannot control this, they cannot limit this, and they cannot prosecute any citizen for doing this.

On Saturday, February 21, 2009, at 12:57 pm, a poster using the name, “Erika” wrote:

So does this mean I can distill my own alcohol in my backyard or garage legally in the state of Michigan?  I just bought a still and wanted to make my own vodka.

 

Thanks, Erika

I certainly do not recommend that “Erika” or anyone else rely on your advice in legal matters (or anything else, actually).  In fact, I vigorously caution against doing so.

Nonetheless, it would be courteous of you to answer the question from “Erika.”

Just answer the question.  It can’t be that difficult for you, can it?

 I have not done anything illegal, was just asking a simple question which clearly no one was able to answer.  I will instead go back to the michigan.gov site which explains the options and rules of what I was querying about.

 In the United States, you will need a Federal Alcohol Fuel Producer Permit. These can be obtained from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (a division of the Treasury Department). In the US, it is not illegal to own this equipment without a license... but it is illegal to use it without one. This may not be the case in other countries.

As far as United States licensing goes, there are three categories of permits for the fuel producer; small, medium, and large. The small producer permit is the simplest to obtain, and will allow you to make up to 10,000 gallons per calendar year. This permit does not cost any money to obtain. Simply fill out the form, mail it to the address specified in the included instructions, and your permit will arrive in about 30 days. The application (form 5110-74) for the permit can be obtained here.

Aside from the Federal permit, your state and local governments may also require licenses. This varies from state-to-state.

ehardt:

 

 I have not done anything illegal, was just asking a simple question which clearly no one was able to answer.  I will instead go back to the michigan.gov site which explains the options and rules of what I was querying about.

 

I think looking for an authentic source of information on this matter is a good idea on your part.  You will not find it here.

Crazy will not answer your question because, to put it bluntly, he was not telling the truth when he said, "it is also PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANY CITIZEN in ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION to distill up to 400 gallons of 'distilled spirits' per person in his household."

In fact, from what I have been able to ascertain it is legal to own a still, but it is not perfectly legal to use the apparatus to distill alcohol unless you have a federal license to do so.  But please, do not take my word for it.  Check it out for yourself.

There is an interesting article by Lessley Anderson discussing the matter at this link:

http://www.chow.com/stories/10475

A key paragraph in the article says:

”Making wine and beer at home became legal after Prohibition ended (wine immediately, beer in 1978), but making spirits without a commercial license remains a federal crime. Getting a commercial license is an expensive and rigorous process.”

 

Source:  “White Collar Moonshine,” by Lessley Anderson

Here is what the U.S. Department of Treasury says:

You cannot produce spirits for beverage purposes without paying taxes and without prior approval of paperwork to operate a distilled spirits plant.  [See 26 U.S.C. 5601 & 5602 for some of the criminal penalties.]  There are numerous requirements that must be met that make it impractical to produce spirits for personal or beverage use.  Some of these requirements are paying excise tax, filing an extensive application, filing a bond, providing adequate equipment to measure spirits, providing suitable tanks and pipelines, providing a separate building (other than a dwelling) and maintaining detailed records, and filing reports.  All of these requirements are listed in 27 CFR Part 19.

 

Spirits may be produced for non-beverage purposes for fuel use only without payment of tax, but you also must file an application, receive TTB's approval, and follow requirements, such as construction, use, records and reports.

 

Source: http://www.ttb.gov/faqs/genalcohol.shtml#g1

I understand there has been some effort to change the federal law in this respect, but it has not happened yet, to my knowledge.

As I said above, do your own checking on this.  I sure would not rely on any advice you get here as to legality of owning and using a still to guide your decision making.

 so, i say again...

what part of PERFECTLY LEGAL did you not understand?

nuff said.

pffft.

ehardt:

 In the United States, you will need a Federal Alcohol Fuel Producer Permit. These can be obtained from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (a division of the Treasury Department). In the US, it is not illegal to own this equipment without a license... but it is illegal to use it without one. This may not be the case in other countries.

As far as United States licensing goes, there are three categories of permits for the fuel producer; small, medium, and large. The small producer permit is the simplest to obtain, and will allow you to make up to 10,000 gallons per calendar year. This permit does not cost any money to obtain. Simply fill out the form, mail it to the address specified in the included instructions, and your permit will arrive in about 30 days. The application (form 5110-74) for the permit can be obtained here.

Aside from the Federal permit, your state and local governments may also require licenses. This varies from state-to-state.

 you DO NOT need a fuel producer permit if you are not producing fuel. but you are limited to less than 100 gallons a year. a high price to pay to buy a still to get 100 gallons of vodka. you do not need a state license or permit if you do not sell your vodka, or produce fuel.

even if you ARE producing fuel, you may keep 100 gallons UN-DE-NATURED for your personal use. read your fuel producer paperwork.

now, if you bought the still to make FUEL, not vodka, you have done nothing illegal, but you HAVE misrepresented yourself, and gotten our friend sane all riled up. but that's okay, he's like that all the time. by the way, he seems to like you. i'd be worried.

now sane. our friend here seems to know the legality of her alcohol production, as i said she did. you, on the other hand remain blissfully ignorant, and just looking for a fight.

by the way, erika. what kind of still did you get? 

 now, sane.. what is your opinion of issuing beer festival licenses?

you MUST have one. you keep posting (off topic) on this thread.

come on, sane... it's a simple, direct question.. it CAN'T BE THAT HARD.

ANSWER THE QUESTION SANE... COME ON SANE... ANY TIME NOW SANE....

crazycajun:

now sane. our friend here seems to know the legality of her alcohol production, as i said she did. you, on the other hand remain blissfully ignorant, and just looking for a fight.

by the way, erika. what kind of still did you get? 

I think I prefer the US Department of Treasury's word as to legal still operations, rather than rely on a crackpot who posts under a pseudonym on on the internet and commonly has trouble telling the truth about anything.  That pretty well describes our own crazycajun.

So, Erika, if you still are tuned in here, I'd suggest taking your questions to the real source on this. Here's a link for you:

http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/index.shtml

 so, your REAL name is sanemichigander???

i didn't think so...

so, she shouldn't listen to YOUR advice either.

she should do exactly what she did, and seek expert help. by the way, sane...

it's been a VERY LONG TIME since you posted ON TOPIC. how about giving THAT a chance?

naw... you COULDN'T POSSIBLY POST ON TOPIC. YOU KNOW NOTHING.