I have learned entirely too much chemistry as an undergraduate and, sadly, most of it has been unused. When I combined this with my perpetual lack of money I could draw only one conclusion-it was time to brew my own alcohol.
So my roommates and I bought the requisite bucket and an assortment of hops, malt and yeast. Though we started out brewing pale ale, we ended up with a stunningly smooth dark lager, which was hailed as strikingly similar to Berghoff. My hard-earned education had not failed me. Furthermore, just $20 of ingredients provided us with five gallons of pure enjoyment.
Armed with this success, we next started a batch of hard cider that is currently in its final fermentation steps. However, I started thinking that my newfound hobby should encompass more of the skills I have learned, namely distillation. At least then organic chemistry lab wouldn't have been a complete waste. Moreover, one of my friends is currently training to become a scientific glass blower and could create the necessary distilling apparatus. All the pieces were falling into place and I could imagine tasting sweet apple liquor.
Alas, my plans were dashed when a quick search on the Internet revealed that home distillation of alcohol is illegal. The federal government has decided that under no circumstances can alcohol be distilled for personal consumption. The law is kind enough to allow the distillation of water, but really, what fun is that?
What authority does the government have to forbid me from building and using my own still? Normally, Congress justifies laws regulating goods, such as alcohol, by appealing to the powers granted by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution: \The Congress shall have the Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."" I can find no reason why this clause applies to a homemade distillery since it would not involve anything even remotely similar to interstate commerce.
Admittedly I would have to purchase supplies in order to construct a distillery, but those supplies would bear no resemblance to the final product. If the Commerce Clause had originally meant that Congress had the power to regulate anything that at one time was traded or bought then Congress would effectively have the right to control everything.
Indeed, the courts in the past had effectively granted the federal government just such a blank check to regulate based on the Commerce Clause. However, this trend has been recently reversed. The most remarkable example of this change involves the case U.S. v Stewart, which last week was decided in favor of the defendant. Robert Stewart had a hobby of building his own machine guns and for this was arrested and convicted for illegally possessing machine guns. I thought distillation was a unique hobby.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California did not overturn the conviction based on any supposed right to own guns, but instead stated that ""We cannot agree that simple possession of machine guns-particularly possession of homemade machine guns-has a substantial effect on interstate commerce."" For that reason, they decided that Congress has no right to regulate homemade machine guns. Finally, the courts are holding Congress to the limitations created by the Commerce Clause.
Why should you care about distillation or homemade machine guns? First, our federal government must be constrained by various checks and balances in order to prevent abuses of power. One of the most powerful checks comes from the separation of powers granted to the state and the federal government. The federal government has tried to ignore this constraint by over-applying the Commerce Clause. This over-application contradicts the intent of the Constitution and must be reversed.
Second, if more power is left to the states then each state can act as a laboratory to test various laws and regulations. Remember, even if the federal government cannot regulate homemade machine guns, the states certainly can. Instead of one uniform law dictated for the whole country, multiple different laws could be tested to determine empirically which laws work best. This would be especially useful for testing the merit of more flexible drug laws. A case is currently working its way through the 9th Circuit Court that argues that federal laws banning homegrown medical marijuana is unconstitutional for the same reason as laws banning homemade machine guns.
So maybe I should build that distillery. If arrested I could make a heroic stand in the name of limited government. Hmm... I think I will just have another beer-delicious home-brewed beer.
