Home distilling
Jethro
distilling. Two home brew suppliers near me sell stills and essences for
flavouring distilled alcohol. Both point to the fact that it is "illegal"
to distill spirits in the UK without a license.
The exact statutes appear to be "Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979"
coupled with HMRC Reference:Notice 39 (April 2010)
here's section 12 of the 1979 act:
"No person shall manufacture spirits, whether by distillation of a
fermented liquor or by any other process, unless he holds an excise
licence for that purpose under this section (referred to in this Act as a
“distiller’s licence”)."
and it seems section 25 lists the penalties which are a level 5 fine
(whatever that is) plus forfeiture of equipment.
Given that the law is so clear, and yet these shops aren't being
harassed, or prosecuted, then what is the situation ? I visited a
demonstration at one of my local shops back in 2007, and the salesman
(from Still Spirits) claimed to have met with HMRC who had told him they
rather took their eye of the ball, and never realised home distilling
would catch on. Now it has they are rather at a loss how to deal with it.
Given the fact that the prohibition on distilling exists purely as a
revenue device, then is there anything of interest for the police ? Would
the police even *know* about the 1979 act, let alone be prepared to
enforce it ?
Please note, I am talking about distilling for oneself NOT for sale. I am
aware that once trade is involved (as we hear with arrests for fake vodka
and smuggled spirits) then HMRC have very big feet.
So to the untrained eye, it appears that there is - for whatever reason -
a "blind eye" being turned to this cottage industry. Would this period
(say 2007 when I attended the demonstration, although the salesman said
they started selling stills in the UK in 2004) have any standing, if one
day HMRC decided not to turn a blind eye, and undertake to prosecute
a) suppliers
b) home distillers ?
Reading the online literature for the stills it seems they are capable of
purifying water, and preparing essential oils from herbs. Is the fact
that they have other - completely legal - uses, a reason for the seeming
inaction ?
Can posters see the UK government slapping a tax on the equipment and
essences, as a trade for removing the prohibition ?
Finally, is the contravention of the 1979 act "unlawful" or "illegal" ?
A.Lee
> Being a keen homebrewer, I have noticed a growing trend in home
> distilling. Two home brew suppliers near me sell stills and essences for
> flavouring distilled alcohol. Both point to the fact that it is "illegal"
> to distill spirits in the UK without a license.
It isnt illegal to sell the equipment, it is the use of the equipment
that is illegal, without having the necessary Licence/Authority. (as an
aside, I didnt know you applied before distilling, I always thought it
was OK, so long as you declared the finished spirit)
It is like selling cannabis seeds and the equipment to grow it, which
are both legal to sell - it is the cultivation of them that is illegal.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Percy Picacity
news:qVs7q.151319$T85.1...@newsfe19.ams2:
There are sound public health reasons for forbidding distilling, as
it is easy to produce toxic concentrations of impurities such as
methanol. So I don't think the rules are likely to be changed in
the ways you envisage.
--
Percy Picacity
martin
> Please note, I am talking about distilling for oneself NOT for sale. I am
> aware that once trade is involved (as we hear with arrests for fake vodka
> and smuggled spirits) then HMRC have very big feet.
>
> So to the untrained eye, it appears that there is - for whatever reason -
> a "blind eye" being turned to this cottage industry. Would this period
> (say 2007 when I attended the demonstration, although the salesman said
> they started selling stills in the UK in 2004) have any standing, if one
> day HMRC decided not to turn a blind eye, and undertake to prosecute
>
> a) suppliers
> b) home distillers ?
Firstly they would have to find you. Pay cash at your home-brew shop.
They are not great for producing neutral spirits, they are pot stills,
for neutral spirits you need a reflux still (so I understand).
I think they have missed the boat on this one, small stills have been
legalized in Oz and I don't think the UK government has much choice to
either do the same or ignore the issue and hope it doesn't catch on.
> Can posters see the UK government slapping a tax on the equipment and
> essences, as a trade for removing the prohibition ?
Not really, apparently once you have a bit of practice you don't need
the essences and things.
martin
> There are sound public health reasons for forbidding distilling, as
> it is easy to produce toxic concentrations of impurities such as
> methanol. So I don't think the rules are likely to be changed in
> the ways you envisage.
Just to correct this, there is zero risk with artisan distilling,
methanol will only get into the mix if there is pectin present, that is
very unlikely in a home-brew situation, unless it's done deliberately
(trying to make calvados say). Splitting off the heads is trivial (as I
understand it)
Hugh - Was Invisible
There are some things it is illegal to sell
There are many items sold that can be used for legal or illegal purposes.
There are some things that are illegal to possess
There are some things it is illegal to do
The law is not very joined up in some areas.
I used to produce a fair amount of home brewed beers and ferment wines.
Without expert knowledge I would not distil alcohol. At a lecture I had
a taste of 140 proof malt but was only allowed to smell 180 proof grain.
Very dangerous stuff from for both poisoning and explosion risks.
ISTR they fixed devices to prevent blowback in Bacardi 151 bottles
because of the number of incidents.
Adam Funk
> Jethro <krazy...@googlemail.com> wrote in
> news:qVs7q.151319$T85.1...@newsfe19.ams2:
>> Given the fact that the prohibition on distilling exists purely as
>> a revenue device, then is there anything of interest for the
>> police ? Would the police even *know* about the 1979 act, let
>> alone be prepared to enforce it ?
New Zealand legalized home distillation (I can't remember exactly
when, but I think it was a few decades ago) because the customs
officers advised the government that enforcing the prohibition was
wasting their time.
> There are sound public health reasons for forbidding distilling, as
> it is easy to produce toxic concentrations of impurities such as
> methanol. So I don't think the rules are likely to be changed in
> the ways you envisage.
It's dangerous primarily because it's illegal so people have trouble
getting good quality equipment (I guess that's no longer the case with
the "water purifiers") and instructions; producing safe potable
alcohol (as opposed to fine whisky) probably isn't difficult if you
can get good equipment and follow the instructions.
Adam Funk
The still I've seen in a homebrew shop was sold as a "water purifier".
Analogously, I guess, there's a shop in town that has some curious
bits of plumbing in the window with a sign to the effect that "these
products are sold for tobacco use only". ;-)
Ophelia
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Jethro <krazy...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>news:qVs7q.151319$T85.1...@newsfe19.ams2:
>>
>> Given the fact that the prohibition on distilling exists purely as
>> a revenue device, then is there anything of interest for the
>> police ? Would the police even *know* about the 1979 act, let
>> alone be prepared to enforce it ?
>
>There are sound public health reasons for forbidding distilling, as
>it is easy to produce toxic concentrations of impurities such as
>methanol.
Or other, equally undesirable outcomes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/14/boston-industrial-estate-explosion-alcohol
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Owain
> It isnt illegal to sell the equipment, it is the use of the equipment
> that is illegal, without having the necessary Licence/Authority. (as an
> aside, I didnt know you applied before distilling, I always thought it
> was OK, so long as you declared the finished spirit)
IIRC, school chemistry lab had a distillation licence, and I'm fairly
sure the chem teacher wasn't producing "The Recipe" in the equipment
room.
Owain
Alex Heney
wrote:
>Being a keen homebrewer, I have noticed a growing trend in home
>distilling. Two home brew suppliers near me sell stills and essences for
>flavouring distilled alcohol. Both point to the fact that it is "illegal"
>to distill spirits in the UK without a license.
>
>The exact statutes appear to be "Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979"
>coupled with HMRC Reference:Notice 39 (April 2010)
>
>here's section 12 of the 1979 act:
>
>"No person shall manufacture spirits, whether by distillation of a
>fermented liquor or by any other process, unless he holds an excise
>licence for that purpose under this section (referred to in this Act as a
>“distiller’s licence”)."
>
>and it seems section 25 lists the penalties which are a level 5 fine
>(whatever that is) plus forfeiture of equipment.
>
>Given that the law is so clear, and yet these shops aren't being
>harassed, or prosecuted, then what is the situation ? I visited a
>demonstration at one of my local shops back in 2007, and the salesman
>(from Still Spirits) claimed to have met with HMRC who had told him they
>rather took their eye of the ball, and never realised home distilling
>would catch on. Now it has they are rather at a loss how to deal with it.
>
>Given the fact that the prohibition on distilling exists purely as a
>revenue device, then is there anything of interest for the police ? Would
>the police even *know* about the 1979 act, let alone be prepared to
>enforce it ?
The police don't need to.
HMRC have full enforcement powers, and rather more so than the police.
>
>Please note, I am talking about distilling for oneself NOT for sale. I am
>aware that once trade is involved (as we hear with arrests for fake vodka
>and smuggled spirits) then HMRC have very big feet.
>
>So to the untrained eye, it appears that there is - for whatever reason -
>a "blind eye" being turned to this cottage industry. Would this period
>(say 2007 when I attended the demonstration, although the salesman said
>they started selling stills in the UK in 2004) have any standing, if one
>day HMRC decided not to turn a blind eye, and undertake to prosecute
>
>a) suppliers
>b) home distillers ?
No. The law is the law, and it doesn't matter how long it has been
unenforced for, that would not affect prosecutions.
Although it might affect the sentence.
>
>Reading the online literature for the stills it seems they are capable of
>purifying water, and preparing essential oils from herbs. Is the fact
>that they have other - completely legal - uses, a reason for the seeming
>inaction ?
>
>Can posters see the UK government slapping a tax on the equipment and
>essences, as a trade for removing the prohibition ?
>
That is certainly possible. It has happened in other countries.
Or rather than a tax on the equipment, just make "domestic" licences
available at a bearable cost.
>Finally, is the contravention of the 1979 act "unlawful" or "illegal" ?
Yes. :)
Technically, they mean the same, but if you are using them in the
"semi-lay" sense of criminal being illegal and civil being unlawful,
then it is illegal.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Hackers have kernel knowledge.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Roger Dewhurst
wrote:
Common sense only is required. Just take off the first 200 mls and
use it for rubbing alcohol.
Attempting to drink the stuff straight at much over 70% proof will
teach you the stupidity of trying to. I have seen someone try to
drink stuff that was close to 200% proof. He swallowed one small
mouthful and could not utter a word for about 10 minutes! I had made
the stuff by soaking orange peel in laboratory alcohol (SVR). There
is no particular risk of explosion. Near 100% ethanol (SVR) is or was
widely available in university laboratories. Some of us used to drink
it with no ill affects.
Tired
> On Aug 31, 7:30 pm, (A.Lee) wrote:
>> It isnt illegal to sell the equipment, it is the use of the equipment
>> that is illegal, without having the necessary Licence/Authority. (as
>> an aside, I didnt know you applied before distilling, I always
>> thought it was OK, so long as you declared the finished spirit)
>
> Owain
ahhh, the Baldwin Sisters....
sid
> On 31/08/2011 17:05, Jethro wrote:
>
>> Please note, I am talking about distilling for oneself NOT for sale. I am
>> aware that once trade is involved (as we hear with arrests for fake vodka
>> and smuggled spirits) then HMRC have very big feet.
>>
>> So to the untrained eye, it appears that there is - for whatever reason -
>> a "blind eye" being turned to this cottage industry. Would this period
>> (say 2007 when I attended the demonstration, although the salesman said
>> they started selling stills in the UK in 2004) have any standing, if one
>> day HMRC decided not to turn a blind eye, and undertake to prosecute
>>
>> a) suppliers
>> b) home distillers ?
>
> Firstly they would have to find you. Pay cash at your home-brew shop.
>
> They are not great for producing neutral spirits, they are pot stills,
> for neutral spirits you need a reflux still (so I understand).
Pot stills produce the best whiskey IMO..
Hard to beat Green Spot, I had a bit of one of the limited production
runs blended from 3 casks. The best I have ever tasted, but the normal
Green Spot is still wonderful. They do one entirely from one cask as
well, only about 100 bottles though, and it's €850 per bottle. I have
yet to enjoy that one...
therustyone
the Omrud
"Fractional Crystallisation", as practised in Canada. You take your
alcoholic cider and bury it in the ground before the winter freeze. The
water content is gradually frozen out, leaving a spirit known as
"Applejack" in the centre. I think this is also banned by the UK law
which says something like "or by other means".
--
David
Roger Dewhurst
wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:02 +0100, Percy Picacity put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >news:qVs7q.151319$T85.1...@newsfe19.ams2:
>
> >> Given the fact that the prohibition on distilling exists purely as
> >> a revenue device, then is there anything of interest for the
> >> police ? Would the police even *know* about the 1979 act, let
> >> alone be prepared to enforce it ?
>
> >There are sound public health reasons for forbidding distilling, as
> >it is easy to produce toxic concentrations of impurities such as
> >methanol.
Nonsense. You always get traces of propyl and butyl alcohol,
previously known as fusel oil, which give you one hell of a hangover.
That is why you run the first 100 mls or so to waste or to use as
rubbing alcohol.
>
> Or other, equally undesirable outcomes:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/14/boston-industrial-estate-exp...
gareth erskine-jones
>Jethro <krazy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Being a keen homebrewer, I have noticed a growing trend in home
>> distilling. Two home brew suppliers near me sell stills and essences for
>> flavouring distilled alcohol. Both point to the fact that it is "illegal"
>> to distill spirits in the UK without a license.
>
>It isnt illegal to sell the equipment, it is the use of the equipment
>that is illegal, without having the necessary Licence/Authority. (as an
>aside, I didnt know you applied before distilling, I always thought it
>was OK, so long as you declared the finished spirit)
No, you have to have a license, and they won't give you one (unless
your still is at least 20,000 litres).
gsej
gareth erskine-jones
wrote:
I do recall having this discussion before with someone (perhaps you)
who mentioned a school lab having a license for distilling equipment.
I'd still be very interested to learn precisely what the license was.
I've never seen any evidence that any particular piece of distilling
equipment needed licensing (e.g. a liebig condensor, which is a fairly
standard piece of lab equipment). A distiller's license for producing
alcohol doesn't license equipment, but permits the production of
alcohol, and it isn't just a matter of having the license itself -
there's a whole set of record keeping rules which go with it.
gsej
gareth erskine-jones
Absolutely - distilling is the separation of the components you want
from those which you don't. Methanol is produced during fermentation
(in varying quantities depending on what's being fermented), and the
vast majority is removed by rejecting the heads. The resulting spirit
contains *less* methanol than fermented drinks sold without
distillation (wine or beer for example). If anyone was foolish enough
to drink the heads, the quantity of ethanol in them would probably
reduce any damage caused by the methanol (although I wouldn't
recommend testing this).
Most reports of people being poisoned by illegal alcohol are nothing
to do with distilling, but are from "drinks" being made by mixing
industrial chemicals.
gsej
Jethro
> They are not great for producing neutral spirits, they are pot stills,
> for neutral spirits you need a reflux still (so I understand).
You can buy reflux stills from homebrew shows that will take 27L in one
go.
Jethro
But ACPO have a publicly stated policy of civil harassment of shops
selling cannabis seeds and hydroponic equipment. Why not the same for
brew shops ?
Jethro
There is no mention anywhere in the legislation about it being for public
health. And you would only get methanol out, if you put it in. Fermenting
purely sucrose will give purely ethanol.
Jethro
Any danger would come from using a naked flame (i.e. fire) in a situation
where alcohol vapour can build up. All the home stills are completely
electric. But again, the legislation has nothing to do with public
safety. It's a finance act.
Adam Funk
I'd expect that to be safer to carry out (because it doesn't involve
hot alcohol vapour) but more dangerous in the results --- how do you
remove the fusel oil?
Adam Funk
But isn't that caused by the *incompetence* rather than the illegality
of the operation?
(Of course, incompetence on a large scale results in a bigger fire.)
Adam Funk
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:30:02 +0100, A.Lee wrote:
>> It is like selling cannabis seeds and the equipment to grow it, which
>> are both legal to sell - it is the cultivation of them that is illegal.
> But ACPO have a publicly stated policy of civil harassment of shops
> selling cannabis seeds and hydroponic equipment. Why not the same for
> brew shops ?
Because too many respectable people ;-) frequent homebrew shops?
Just out of curiosity, what's the nature of the civil harassment?
Steve Firth
The laboratory where I worked in the late 70s had an auto-still to produce
distilled water, mostly for glassware washing. It was licensed by Customs
and was subject to annual inspection when it would have a signed Customs
label attached with the date of the next
inspection. We also had many condensers and retorts and a rotary evaporator
(ie still) unit. None of these were ever inspected and when I mentioned
them to the inspector he was profoundly uninterested.
martin
> On Sep 1, 6:05 am, Hugh - Was Invisible<invisi...@invalid.invalid>
>> I used to produce a fair amount of home brewed beers and ferment wines.
>> Without expert knowledge I would not distil alcohol. At a lecture I had
>> a taste of 140 proof malt but was only allowed to smell 180 proof grain.
>> Very dangerous stuff from for both poisoning and explosion risks.
>> ISTR they fixed devices to prevent blowback in Bacardi 151 bottles
>> because of the number of incidents.
>
> Common sense only is required. Just take off the first 200 mls and
> use it for rubbing alcohol.
>
> Attempting to drink the stuff straight at much over 70% proof will
> teach you the stupidity of trying to. I have seen someone try to
> drink stuff that was close to 200% proof. He swallowed one small
> mouthful and could not utter a word for about 10 minutes!
The first time anyone visits Hyder in Alaska (on the BC Canadian border)
there's a tradition that you get "Hyderized". The first bar you goto you
get a shot of Everclear which is produced at the azeotropic limit for
distillation 95% ABV ish and everyone in the bar looks at you when you
drink it. Then you get a certificate.
It's overrated. I did bring a bottle back with me, it's good for punches
and stuff.
Adam Funk
I haven't looked at the "water purifiers", but I'd expect them to be
designed with safety in mind since the suppliers want to avoid
controversy. But if people build their own equipment incorrectly,
there can be a serious fire hazard (as in the article Mark Goodge
mentioned).
Another problem is contamination from unsafe equipment (I've heard of
lead solder joints and car radiators in rural USA, although there
might be some exaggerated scaremongering to put moonshiners' customers
off).
Unless the electric stills are fairly automated, the user still has to
know how much to discard for the heads (& maybe the tails, I'm not
sure) to get a safe product.
> But again, the legislation has nothing to do with public
> safety. It's a finance act.
True --- but looking at the example from New Zealand, is it still
worth it? The NZ customs officials advised the government that it was
a waste of their time and money to try to enforce it.
the Omrud
Apparently, you can't with this method. It's not something I've ever
tried, you understand. It was described to me in Canada some decades ago.
--
David
Jethro
I refer you to http://www.npia.police.uk/en/docs/
Cannabis_Cultivation_R.pdf
In particular section 3.3
"Where it is not possible to close down a head shop, officers should
consider how they can
encourage a more responsible and low profile approach, for example, by
taking steps to
prevent them displaying items used for drug taking in the window.
Usually the most effective methods of disrupting head shops is through
the powers of
agencies other than the police. A partnership working approach should be
adopted, and all
relevant powers of partner agencies explored. The following examples may
be used by the
police in partnership with other agencies."
There then follows a list of avenues that can be used ... ASBOs etc
Quite interesting, since the document starts by stating that there is
nothing at all *illegal* in running a "headshop". Another example of the
UKs slide into extra-parliamentary laws being created.
Roger Dewhurst
No. Methanol is not the problem but the two and three carbon alcohols
are.
Roger Dewhurst
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:02 +0100, Percy Picacity wrote:
Why would anybody bother with fermenting anything else? Glucose
ferments the fastest because the sucrose molecule has to be split by
an enzyme before the yeast will work on it. Starch has be converted
to maltose before it will ferment. There are many different sugars
which will ferment to produce ethanol but some are better than
others. I am pretty certain that none ferment with any species of
Saccharomyces to produce methanol. However there are other species of
Saccharomyces or varieties of S. cerevisiae which produce a higher
proportion of two and three carbon alcohols.
Roger Dewhurst
Distillate purity is always directly related to the contents of the
mash. A chemical analysis of the typical distillate (excluding water
and ethyl alcohol) that is produced when a batch of molasses based
beer breaks down as follows:
Organic acids 0.152 %
Esters 0.071
Aldehydes 0.015
Furfurol 0.00019
Higher Alcohols 0.412
Nitrogenous Substances 0.0006
Owain
> >IIRC, school chemistry lab had a distillation licence, and I'm fairly
> >sure the chem teacher wasn't producing "The Recipe" in the equipment
> >room.
> I do recall having this discussion before with someone (perhaps you)
> who mentioned a school lab having a license for distilling equipment.
> I'd still be very interested to learn precisely what the license was.
it was a long time ago, and the chem teacher may have been talking
bollocks
Owain
Caecilius
<dewhurs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Methanol is not the problem but the two and three carbon alcohols are.
Two carbon alcohol is not a problem - that's ethanol.
Three carbon alcohol is propanol. isopropanol is moderately toxic, but
not too bad - certainly not as toxic as methanol. Maybe other isomers
are worse though.
Adam Funk
> The first time anyone visits Hyder in Alaska (on the BC Canadian border)
> there's a tradition that you get "Hyderized". The first bar you goto you
> get a shot of Everclear which is produced at the azeotropic limit for
> distillation 95% ABV ish and everyone in the bar looks at you when you
> drink it. Then you get a certificate.
>
> It's overrated. I did bring a bottle back with me, it's good for punches
> and stuff.
see also "Sourtoe Cocktail"
http://atlasobscura.com/place/sourtoe-cocktail
A number of US states have discontinued the sale of Everclear,
although I've seen something similar in Italy.
Adam Funk
Yes, very dodgy.
Adam Funk
> gareth erskine-jones <gs...@uberdog.net> wrote:
>> I do recall having this discussion before with someone (perhaps you)
>> who mentioned a school lab having a license for distilling equipment.
>> I'd still be very interested to learn precisely what the license was.
>> I've never seen any evidence that any particular piece of distilling
>> equipment needed licensing (e.g. a liebig condensor, which is a fairly
>> standard piece of lab equipment). A distiller's license for producing
>> alcohol doesn't license equipment, but permits the production of
>> alcohol, and it isn't just a matter of having the license itself -
>> there's a whole set of record keeping rules which go with it.
>
> The laboratory where I worked in the late 70s had an auto-still to produce
> distilled water, mostly for glassware washing. It was licensed by Customs
> and was subject to annual inspection when it would have a signed Customs
> label attached with the date of the next
> inspection. We also had many condensers and retorts and a rotary evaporator
> (ie still) unit. None of these were ever inspected and when I mentioned
> them to the inspector he was profoundly uninterested.
What did the inspection consist of --- sniffing it to make sure it
smelled of nothing (rather than whisky)? ;-)
Bernard Peek
>> Most reports of people being poisoned by illegal alcohol are nothing
>> to do with distilling, but are from "drinks" being made by mixing
>> industrial chemicals.
>>
>> gsej
>
> No. Methanol is not the problem but the two and three carbon alcohols
> are.
Methanol is the killer. Two carbon alcohol is ethanol. Three carbon
alcohol, is dangerous because it's metabolised to methanol. For the
longer chains it gets complicated because you can get branched chains.
But for the n-isomers (with straight chains) the even numbers are OK
while the odd ones aren't because they metabolise to methanol.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Sara
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
I understood almost none of that!
--
Sara
It's summer, but I"m now at the back of the office and nowhere near a window :(
ferretygubbins
"Sara" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:saramerriman-5CC8...@news.individual.net...
Think of the alcohol as being made of a chain of carbon atoms.
Methanol with a single carbon (C-OH) is toxic (*).
Ethanol with two carbons (C-C-OH) is what you want to drink.
For staright chains ( eg C-C-C-C-C-OH) an alcohol with an even number of
carbons can be broken down into a carbon chain leaving ethanol whereas an
odd number chain will break down to methanol.
If the chain has sticky out bits rather than being straight then this can
have more complicated breakdown products.
(*) Methanol is not that toxic in itself (on it's own it has effects much
the same as ethanol). However it is metabolised in the body to form formic
acid. The enzyme that performs this reaction is Alcohol Dehyrdogenase which
also metabolise ethanol. This is used as a treatment for methanol posioning
as the enzyme can be swamped by the presence of large amounts of ethanol -
this allows the methanol to be excreted before it is metabolised and thus
avoid toxicity.
S
> On 2011-08-31, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:02 +0100, Percy Picacity put finger to keyboard
> > and typed:
>
> >>news:qVs7q.151319$T85.1...@newsfe19.ams2:
>
> >>> Given the fact that the prohibition on distilling exists purely as
> >>> a revenue device, then is there anything of interest for the
> >>> police ? Would the police even *know* about the 1979 act, let
> >>> alone be prepared to enforce it ?
>
> >>There are sound public health reasons for forbidding distilling, as
> >>it is easy to produce toxic concentrations of impurities such as
> >>methanol.
>
> > Or other, equally undesirable outcomes:
>
>
> But isn't that caused by the *incompetence* rather than the illegality
> of the operation?
Illegality makes it more likely that people will ignore safety
precautions.
Adam Funk
Yes indeed.
S
> Jethro <krazyka...@googlemail.com> wrote innews:qVs7q.151319$T85.1...@newsfe19.ams2:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Being a keen homebrewer, I have noticed a growing trend in home
> > distilling. Two home brew suppliers near me sell stills and
> > essences for flavouring distilled alcohol. Both point to the fact
> > that it is "illegal" to distill spirits in the UK without a
> > license.
>
> > The exact statutes appear to be "Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979"
> > coupled with HMRC Reference:Notice 39 (April 2010)
>
> > here's section 12 of the 1979 act:
>
> > "No person shall manufacture spirits, whether by distillation of a
> > fermented liquor or by any other process, unless he holds an
> > excise licence for that purpose under this section (referred to in
> > this Act as a “distiller’s licence”)."
>
> > and it seems section 25 lists the penalties which are a level 5
> > fine (whatever that is) plus forfeiture of equipment.
>
> > Given that the law is so clear, and yet these shops aren't being
> > harassed, or prosecuted, then what is the situation ? I visited a
> > demonstration at one of my local shops back in 2007, and the
> > salesman (from Still Spirits) claimed to have met with HMRC who
> > had told him they rather took their eye of the ball, and never
> > realised home distilling would catch on. Now it has they are
> > rather at a loss how to deal with it.
>
> > a revenue device, then is there anything of interest for the
> > police ? Would the police even *know* about the 1979 act, let
> > alone be prepared to enforce it ?
>
> There are sound public health reasons for forbidding distilling, as
> it is easy to produce toxic concentrations of impurities such as
> the ways you envisage.
>
I knew chemistry students who produced their own moonshine on lab
equipment. Fortunately, they were the good one who knew how to work
safely and to discard the methanol.
martin
It's really trivial, you just throw away the first few ml and be careful
how you recycle the wash. With the little electric ones it's trivial
because no methanol is produced in the first place. By the time you get
to where it could be produced you know enough to learn how to cut.
martin
> Illegality makes it more likely that people will ignore safety
> precautions.
Not really, any more than artisan calvados distillers ignore safety in
Normandy, and they make the best stuff, you just have to know who to get
the unregulated stuff from, just like poitin or absinthe.
Steve Firth
Mostly yes, visual inspection to make sure there were no traces of mash
in the boiling vessel, a sniff and the removal of samples of the water.
It always seemed bloody stupid to me, this was an auto-still, the type
that is connected to a laboratory tap and the water from the condenser
is used to continuously top up the boiler. Hardly ideal for distillation
of alcohol and we had many other stills that were better for that
purpose.
The licence used to live in a desk drawer. Fairly nondescript looking
like any old bog-standard government form on slightly off-white paper.
Sara
"ferretygubbins" <ferrety...@gmail.com> wrote:
OIC. Thanks... I think!
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-09-01, Steve Firth wrote:
>> > The laboratory where I worked in the late 70s had an auto-still to produce
>> > distilled water, mostly for glassware washing. It was licensed by Customs
>> > and was subject to annual inspection when it would have a signed Customs
>> > label attached with the date of the next
>> > inspection. We also had many condensers and retorts and a rotary evaporator
>> > (ie still) unit. None of these were ever inspected and when I mentioned
>> > them to the inspector he was profoundly uninterested.
>>
>> What did the inspection consist of --- sniffing it to make sure it
>> smelled of nothing (rather than whisky)? ;-)
(I was being facetious, but I don't know what else they could do.)
> Mostly yes, visual inspection to make sure there were no traces of mash
> in the boiling vessel, a sniff and the removal of samples of the water.
> It always seemed bloody stupid to me, this was an auto-still, the type
> that is connected to a laboratory tap and the water from the condenser
> is used to continuously top up the boiler. Hardly ideal for distillation
> of alcohol and we had many other stills that were better for that
> purpose.
Sounds like a case of "we have to inspect it, so we'll do something"
to me.
John Briggs
You were lucky (or have been so far!) The slightly lesser strength (90%
or whatever) is OK because the impurity is water. For anything over
about 95%, the impurity is benzene - used to remove the water. You
really don't want to drink benzene. You should always enquire what the
impurity is.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
>
> Finally, is the contravention of the 1979 act "unlawful" or "illegal" ?
My school chemistry textbook (admittedly long before the 1979 Act) gave
this as an example of the "de minimis" rule. (This was in the days when
textbooks were supposed to be educational - or perhaps they were aimed
at Public Schools...)
--
John Briggs