Thanks Admin,
I'm for the same rules, regulations, and costs as the home beer or wine maker. When these two were allowed entire industries were created to support these hobbies. Also several dozens of great craft beers and wines were created. The supplies purchased from these new industries and sales of these new craft beers and wines I would imagine have generated generous tax revenues for our country and states. This I believe is our carrot to offer. TTB fines would pay once or maybe even twice while driving some out of the hobby and other further underground and ending any possible revenue stream. Taxes on sales of supplies for our hobby alone will be a constant source revenue in the form of taxes. While not crazy about option 2, if it will get the rules changed I would buy a yearly license for around 50 bottles. Lets keep the discussion going. Some sort of legalization is the smart way to go and it is people like those on this and other forums dealing with our hobby who need to get it started.
Maddawgs

if you guys can keep up with my ramblin around (I ant good at getin my point across very good)antyhow,in my part of the world a few yearsago,the National Park Service tryed to out law traping on the rivers,well that stured up a stink and several starded fightin it and were not doin very good,so after some thinkin and comein wp wth the right corse it was beat! So back on track,the fight that was used was that it was heiritage and had ben done for generations and if outlawed the skill would be lost ! Just a though,I will help in the battle all I can and thanks again Rick

Just a few comments/thoughts:

If we were to succeed at only one thing, I would like it to be decriminalization.

I've seen some comments suggesting that we need to sell the idea to the TTB. I totally disagree with this. They do not make laws nor policy, they simply adminster them. Congress drafts bills and the POTUS signs them into law. If you read the thread on H.R. 3949 you would see that the bill did not actually legalize anything, it simply eliminated language that made it illegal to distill in a dwelling. It did not make it legal to own an unregistered still, or add any tax exemptions for home distilling. If H.R. 3949 were to suddenly pass, our hobby would still be illegal (unless you had a fuel license). So even something as simple as H.R. 3949 dies in committee. The obvious question is, "Why?" If we can't answer that question, we don't stand a chance. There's another thread that discusses contacting your representative. That's a good idea. We don't need our reps to sponsor any particular bill right now, we need to understand what would prevent the bills from passing in the first place.

I oppose any licensing for the sole purpose of taxation. If taxation was such a big deal, then home brewing/winemaking would be taxed. At a 200 gallons/year limit, the maximum loss of revenue (per household) for home brewing is approximately $116 (based on a tax of $18 per 31 gallon or less) and approximately $214 (based on still wine
14% abv or less). The current starting point for spirits is $13.50 per proof gallon. If you could argue that home distilling requires certification for safety purposes, well then you might have an argument for licensing. But now you'll need adminster the training requirements, testing, etc. etc. In any case, unless you can show me how my license (read: hobby tax) dollars are being used to benefit the hobbyists, then forget it. And don't say adminstration. I'm not interested in subsidizing a bureaucracy whose sole purpose is collecting more tax revenue ... especially when beer and wine gets a free ride.

I read some posts on other forums that suggest the equipment manufacturers should be spearheading this effort since they have the greatest pecuniary interests. I happen to agree with this. If you're a home distiller, you are a potential customer. And if the manufacturers dried up an blew away, I would build whatever I needed if I had the will to do so. Sorry Rick and Mike, nothing personal, that's just how I see it. That said, I want your businesses to succeed as you provide valuable goods and services for which we exchange the fruits of our labor.

I'm not a big fan of petitions -- I'll tell you why. First, I've been on the receiving end of various "petitions" throughout my career. If things are simple or "no big deal," and make sense, then you get my support. If they're complicated, then I always ask, "Ok. Who is going to do the work?" Then would come the silence. And that's where lots of petitions die. I've been researching many of the laws related to our hobby. Let me tell you, there are a lot of laws and regulations ... and they're spread out all over the CFR. Simply decriminalizing the hobby is a big task. So let's not bite off more than we can chew because in order to change laws, you have to find somebody who is willing to do the work ... and they'll only do the work if it makes sense. What I'm say is: break the problem up in to small digestible pieces and remove one impediment at a time. Here's an example, if I waived my magic wand and hobby distilling was legal, you would still be breaking the law if you distilled in your garage. Why? Because you're doing it in a dwelling. And that could carry a stiff fine and/or potential imprisonment.

That's why I would be in favor of focusing on decriminalization. I think it would give us the best bang for the buck to get things started. After that, perhaps work on allowing personal ownership of non-registered distilling equipment, then get the boiler size bumped up from one gallon to say, 15 gallons, etc. etc. Get my drift?

So my approach would be: let's talk to our representatives and understand where they stand and why, along with what they perceive to be the reasons a bill would die, and perhaps what it would take for a particular bill to succeed. Then prioritize based on the laws that actually prevent legal hobby distilling ... and start whittling away, one small piece at a time.

Best Regards,
--JB

"JB, your thoughts make a great deal of sense and I think we all agree with the ""why beer and wine and not moonshine"" reasoning. My guess is the laws go back to the days of Eliot Ness when there were hundreds if not thousands of illegal whiskey stills in the hills/mountains from Maine to Florida and were designed to prosecute the guys making thousands of gallons of moonshine a year. Hobby distilling has always been here since the Irish brought their stills to America to get away from the taxes in Ireland, however the internet has exploded the interest in this activity a hundredfold. As noted there are three primary interested parties; the sellers/manufacturers of distilling equipment, the buyers of said equipment and the folks who build their own equipment. I am also in favor of decriminalization as the first step.

How do we do that? I am willing to talk to my representative in Congress but I want to know what I am talking about. The world of hobby distillers is a very disorganized bunch. Those of us willing to work on this problem need to be talking the same ""talking points"" I would think . I am not an attorney and as noted in your post there are lots of laws that need to be changed, not only on the federal level, but also on the state level. Should we start at the state level like the marijuana lobby did? Maybe the manufacturers take on the feds and the end users work in their individual states. In my state, it is against the law to own a still, whether you use it or not. This could also turn into a religious issue for some critics of such a change.

Having said all of that, how do we all get on the same page??

Alli"

"Hi Alli,

""No person, who distills spirits solely for personal and family use, should be subject to imprisonment, forfeiture of property, or excessive fines.""

For now, that's my ""starting point."" And just to be clear:


So I've been scouring the laws trying to determine where these draconian penalties lie within the federal laws. Unfortunately, the industry is so very heavily regulated, and laws so old and established, that it forms a legal rat's nest. There are circular references, similar language in multiple chapters, etc. etc. Regardless, the first thing to do is to clearly identify which laws impose the penalties. Then determine which laws refer to those penalties. And finally, try to figure out a way to differentiate between the Tim and Tickles of the world and the folks who are just making a few quarts of vodka to drink in their own homes. If there's a simple way to limit penalties for hobbyists, then it's time to talk to some politicians.

I do very much like the idea of ""talking points."" And I like the KISS mentality (Keep It Simple Stupid!). So if you're willing to do some digging, I'd suggest that you start here:

http://www.law.cornell.e...7/chapter-I/subchapter-A

and if you're really motivated, you can venture off into 26 USC Chapter 51:

http://www.law.cornell.e...26/subtitle-E/chapter-51

Regards,
--JB"

Where is your "starting point" located in that mess?

OK, it has been my understanding (and I could be wrong) that until the home production of beer and wine for personal use was legalized they were controlled by the same laws controlling distilled alcohols, At some point in the recent past it was discovered that a high government official enjoyed making thier own beer and rather than prosecute and cause public embarssment the powers that be simply dropped these from the laws. Now I could have all of that wrong but I'm pretty sure that I have read that somewhere in the past. I'm also pretty sure that even though making beer and wine at home enjoy great growth and use in a legal sense they are still relatively new. When I speak of legalization for home use I mean just that. I'm thinking 30 to 50 750ml bottles a year. I'm for full legalization and not decriminalzation and would like to see it treat just like beer and wine. Like JB, I am not a fan of petitions but they are a good start. Petitions on thepetitionsite do sometimes work and if they get enough signatures they will generally as a next step look for supporters in congress and get a bill generated. If you sign the petition and use your real name a letter will be sent to your local state representative. If enough people in your area sign then your local rep gets a lot of letters. If enough local reps get a lot of letters they start talking to each other and they start to know what the people want. Despite all the crap the government is pulling lately this is still a people run government and if enough people want something changed the government has to act. JB is also correct in that when it comes time for the people to do some work we ususlly drop the ball (half the people don't even vote). I strongly believe
that full legalization is our only hope and we should all work to make that happen. I would happily support a well crafted bill and will join in to work at it. I am no lawyer but I will do what I can. I think getting this done is a lot easier than we think it is, we just have to get the process started. Sorry for the rant.
Maddawgs

"Hi Md,


I'm also for full legalization, but I consider decriminalization as a step along the way. As far as I can tell, most hobbyists don't give a damned about being legal, otherwise they wouldn't have started in the first place. What they do care about is the severity of the punishment. Imprisonment, forfeiture of personal property, and $10,000 fines are draconian -- that's punishment appropriate for the guys making thousands of gallons of hooch and selling it for a profit -- not for a personal use hobbyist. If it was a simple $100 fine for getting ""caught in the act"" I think most hobbyists would be willing to manage that risk, while working on the legalization effort.

I also think the average Joe-on-the-street (and typical politician) wouldn't have a problem with decriminalization. And I honestly believe that the average ATF/TTB officer couldn't be bothered with some guy running a 10 gallon still who occasionally makes a few liters of vodka in his garage. It's like busting folks in NYC with a few grams of weed in their pockets -- it's just not worth it -- and it won't make a difference. They would probably be glad if they weren't burdened with policing hobbyists.

Regards,
--JB"

I meant no offense when i said this. JB posted "No person, who distills spirits solely for personal and family use, should be subject to imprisonment, forfeiture of property, or excessive fines." and called this his "starting point". I looked through the chapters that he suggested and did not see it so i was simply asking where it was located so that i could read it. I apologize if anyone took it the wrong way. i will watch my wording next time.

I think all of ALLI's information is good.