In studying the current liquor laws, it is apparent that many of the provisions date back to the Prohibition years (1919–1933) or even earlier. Some of them make no sense today, given that it is legal to make beer and wine at home without restriction. For example, Washington law prohibits the possession of “any mash capable of being distilled into spiritous liquor.” Clearly, anyone who makes beer or wine at home is in violation of this part of the law. I suspect that some of the laws are in place now because: a) they are obscure provisions that are rarely, if ever, referred to; and b) it has simply not occurred to anyone to change them.
Let me be clear: I do not believe that completely unrestricted production of alcohol is the answer. I know, from talking to many people as I have traveled in several states speaking on this subject, that there is a widespread belief that it is fine to distill liquor at home as long as it is for private consumption. In addition, I find that once people are made aware of the facts about the current law, the majority of them are eager to comply with the law and want to know how to do so. Unfortunately, the licensing process is unfairly onerous for these people, since it is designed for commercial distillers.
As I said, hardly anyone cares about learning from history these days, but if you’ve read this far, you’ll have to agree that the commercial distilling industry began in the home, as a craft. We’re way too inclined in this country to discount the importance of anything we can’t easily define as a business.
“Home” or “hobby” distillation has been a very popular subject of late. A number of self-published books have appeared in the past several years, more or less subtly encouraging hobbyists to ignore the law and not only to make liquor illegally, but to do so in their homes, a potentially very dangerous thing to do. However, when I applied for a license, I was told that I could not obtain a state distilling license unless I was going to sell the liquor. In other words, I could not get a license to distill liquor as a hobbyist.
It is simply wrong to require all distilling operations to be licensed this way. I believe that if it were easier to obtain the necessary permits, then more people will be inclined to do so. Apparently I am the first person in Washington State to apply for a distillery license while not wishing to pursue distilling commercially, but I am quite positive that I will not be the only one, if a non-commercial permit is made available. This is a perfect time to revisit these laws, revise them where possible and create new ones where necessary.
Chapter 23 gave a brief overview of fuel ethanol production. It wasn’t all that many years ago when most Americans either lived on a farm or within a couple of miles of one. And many (if not most) of those farms had some kind of distilling operation. And when cars began to be more widely available, a source of fuel wasn’t necessarily handy or cheap. So it made sense that people would be making their own fuel for their cars.
However, then, as in the late 1970s, once gasoline became available in quantity and therefore more cheaply than ethanol, many people quit making fuel ethanol, simply because of the time involved in the process. So much easier to just buy gasoline.
Similarly, for many would-be distillers of potable spirits, it is often cheaper (and, of course, easier) to go out and buy their liquor ready-to-drink. Ours is a capitalistic culture, and capitalism always values quantity over quality. Thus the fuel-ethanol naysayers cannot grasp the concept that small-scale ethanol production might, in fact, be even more efficient than large-scale production.
A bushel of corn can yield 2½ gallons of ethanol, along with (I know, I harp on this too) about 18 pounds of high-protein feed. If you live in corn country, numbers like these are encouraging. And the fact that the government has seen fit to allow ethanol distillation for fuel without requiring permit or bond fees is a good sign too. What doesn’t make sense to me is why, if we can make ethanol destined for a fuel tank, we’re still not allowed to make exactly the same ethanol if we admit it’s destined to be served up in a martini glass?
As I expected, regarding home distillation of liquor, the government’s stated concerns (read: justification) fall into two categories: Safety issues and tax revenue issues.
Oh, goody. Here we go.
Having made a lot of beer and wine over the years myself, I do get that there are safety issues with distilling that do not apply to wine or beer. Think about it: If you screw up something when you make beer or wine, what’s the worst that can happen? You have bad-tasting beer or wine. I guess if you really screw up and bottle something before it’s fermented, you can be faced with a room full of exploding bottles.
Distilling is different. Did you know that the first distillate to come out of your still will be around 95% alcohol? That’s nearly as volatile as gasoline. If you’re not careful, or you’re in a hurry and overheat your still, the alcoholic vapor escaping from the condenser presents a real danger of explosion. When you’re doing spirit runs, handling low wines of 30% alcohol or more, you must be very careful not to let any of those low wines (or the distillate coming from the still) get anywhere near your heat source, for fear of fire or explosion.
In addition, safe distillation depends on the distiller’s skill in making the cuts, that is, separating the poisonous and bad-tasting stuff from the potable ethanol. There is a lot of science that, when mastered, helps in this process, but there remains a subjective element to distilling as well, which comes down to choices made at critical junctures by the thoughtful distiller.
I’d love to debate this point with anyone at all. I promise, the numbers are on my side here. As stated below, the critical point of my proposal is to limit the size of still that a hobby distiller may use; everything else falls into place once this limit is defined. Believe me, limiting the size of the still automatically limits the amount of distilled liquor you can make. You can’t just turn the heat up and have everything run faster; there are safety concerns with doing that (see chapter 10), and in my experience, that’s counter-productive; alcohol yields actually drop, due to some of the alcohol escaping from the condenser as vapor.
As an example, the boiling pot on my still holds a maximum of 28 liters or about 7 gallons. The most I ever put in the still, though, is about 15 liters, which is less than two-thirds of the pot capacity. This is a safety measure to minimize the risk of boilovers. I’m not kidding, I could run this still 24/7, at a safe rate, and I wouldn’t come close to making even 100 gallons of liquor in a year. And obviously no one is going to be running their stills that much. We’re talking hobbyists here, who will most likely be using their stills in their spare time, say half a day every weekend, or less.
Apparently the government assumes that if we are allowed to make even a tiny amount of our own booze, we’ll stop buying liquor altogether. That’s just not the case. (See chapter 7 for more on this topic.) Frankly, if hobby distillers are able to make enough liquor, in their spare time, to meet all their needs for potent potables, then it stands to reason they weren’t buying that much from the liquor stores in the first place. You tell me: How much tax revenue did the state lose when those few consumers stopped spending money at the liquor store?
Let me put things in more concrete terms. Say I buy 6 bottles of spirits every month, at an average (pre-tax) price of $22. That’s $132 per month. I live in Washington State, so add $44.04 in taxes to that number, every month. That’s a total of $528.48 just in taxes every year! (Remember that the state is also collecting fees at the distributor and retailer level on the same liquor.)
I swear, even with all the distilling I have been doing in the course of the very enjoyable research for this book, I’m not making anywhere near 6 bottles of ready-to-drink spirits every month. (I refer you again to the discussion in chapter 7.) And I don’t have a full-time job! I can’t imagine most hobbyists having the time to make more than a few bottles a month, and that’s after they have some experience and their yields improve. No, the argument that hobby distilling will take significant amounts of tax dollars out of the hands of the government just doesn’t make any sense.
From my experience in attempting to license a tiny distilling facility on our farm, it is obvious that the current licensing system is unfair to people like me, who want to distill small amounts of liquor legally, but not commercially. My proposal addresses the stated needs of the government, while allowing non-commercial distillers like myself to pursue our interest in production of high-quality craft spirits while complying with the law.
Major points of this permit would be:
• A limit on the size of still allowed, perhaps a boiling-pot capacity of 30 liters
• Limit annual production of distilled spirits to, say, 75 proof gallons
• Require attendance at a class to show understanding of safety issues, facility requirements, etc.
• Require registration of the still and a floor plan of the distilling facility
• Require a 1-page application and a reasonable annual fee, say $45
• Sales of liquor not allowed
• Safety rules for distilleries must be followed (fire extinguishers, etc.)
• Distillers should be encouraged to use ingredients sourced in Washington, as required for other Washington State distillery licenses
My idea for dealing with distilling permits at the federal level is quite simple. It amounts to an exemption: Anyone making no more than, say, 100 gallons of distilled liquor annually (or the maximum allowed under the distiller’s state law, whichever is smaller) would not need a Federal Basic Permit.
This exemption would have only one caveat: the assumption that the individual is in compliance with his or her state’s laws. For example, if I obtain a non-commercial distilling permit in Washington State, presumably I would need to show a copy of this permit to the federal inspector. I would not have that permit unless I complied with the limit on the size of still, and the other provisions outlined above, so there would be no need to go through all that again.
Now really, was that so difficult? Someone told me recently that it’s often easier to introduce a new law than it is to amend an existing one. Maybe that’s true, or more true now than it used to be. Somehow this was managed back in 1978, when the law was changed to allow home beer- and wine-making. The Washington State Liquor Control Board managed to introduce a new lower-cost Craft Distillery license in 2008, and look what that’s done for the Washington economy!
This year and in 2016, I will be traveling in several states to speak on this subject at events such as the Mother Earth News Fair (motherearthnewsfair.com). I am going to continue my efforts to change the laws. Once Washington State finds the will to make the necessary changes to the laws, I confidently expect other states to follow suit. Ditto for Canada. I’m ready to present my case to anyone, at any time. I’m not afraid of the government, or intimidated by the majesty of the law, because I know the facts are on my side.
This is a perfect time to revisit these laws, revise them where possible and create new ones where necessary. I didn’t set out to be a trailblazer, but here I am. Someone has to take the initiative when the laws are so demonstrably unfair, outdated and just plain silly. If I can be that person in this case, then damn the paperwork, full speed ahead!