Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

43455Re: Any Canadian Busted?

Expand Messages
  • bbornais
    Sep 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      The exception is for research institutions that are regognized
      holders of Canadian funding for applied research (example: NSERC).

      So the answer is no. Unless you have a regonized research facility
      operating out of your home!

      --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "Zapata Vive" <zapatavive@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Did I read that wrong, or is it perfectly legal to make and
      analyze absolute ethanol? That's what it looks like it says. If I
      wanted to analyze my wine to see if and how much absolute ethanol
      was in it, then I'd be perfectly ok to do so. Or am I confused?
      What's the deal with that exception? Reflux stills are ok, but
      whiskey stills aren't? Doesn't seem so clear to me...
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: bbornais
      > To: Distillers@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:11 AM
      > Subject: [Distillers] Re: Any Canadian Busted?
      >
      >
      > Actually the law in Canada is Very clear. If you had read the
      Excise
      > Act like you said you did, then you would have found this:
      >
      > Ref: Excise Act, 2001 ( 2002, c. 22 )
      >
      > Prohibition - production and packaging of spirits
      >
      > 60. (1) No person shall, except in accordance with a spirits
      licence
      > issued to the person, produce or package spirits.
      >
      > Exception
      >
      > (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
      > (a) the packaging of spirits from a marked special container by
      a
      > purchaser at a bottle-your-own premises; or
      >
      > (b) the production of spirits for the purpose or as a
      consequence of
      > the analysis of the composition of a substance containing
      absolute
      > ethyl alcohol.
      >
      > 2002, c. 22, s. 60; 2007, c. 18, s. 89.
      >
      > Prohibition - possession of still
      >
      > 61. No person shall possess a still or other equipment suitable
      for
      > the production of spirits with the intent of producing spirits
      unless
      > the person
      >
      > (a) is a spirits licensee;
      >
      > (b) has a pending application for a spirits licence; or
      >
      > (c) possesses the still or equipment solely for the purpose of
      > producing spirits for the purpose or as a consequence of the
      analysis
      > of the composition of a substance containing absolute ethyl
      alcohol.
      >
      > 2002, c. 22, s. 61; 2007, c. 18, s. 90.
      >
      > And the PUNISHMENTS:
      >
      > PART 6
      > ENFORCEMENT
      > Offences and Punishment
      > Unlawful production, sale, etc., of tobacco or alcohol
      >
      > 214. Every person who contravenes section 25, 27 or 29,
      subsection
      > 32.1(1) or section 60 or 62 is guilty of an offence and liable
      >
      > (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not less than
      $50,000
      > and not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of
      not
      > more than five years, or to both; or
      >
      > (b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not less than $10,000
      and not
      > more than $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more
      than 18
      > months, or to both.
      >
      > 2002, c. 22, s. 214; 2008, c. 28, s. 60.
      >
      > Seems pretty clear to me,
      >
      > Bryan.
      >
      > --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, Eric Yendall <eric_yendall@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Actually the law in Canada is NOT so clear. I have read the
      Excise
      > Act which is written from the standpoint of collecting taxes
      from
      > commercial operations, not forbidding the private production of
      > alcohol for personal consumption or the private possession of a
      > still. Of course this is only an interpretation but that is why
      we
      > have courts. I have yet to find an example of anyone being
      charged
      > and subsequently convicted for operating a personal still. Apart
      from
      > the police authorities having bigger fish to fry, they would
      first
      > have to find you; then get a warrant to search; they would have
      to
      > prove that you were producing alcohol and not distilled water;
      and
      > then they would have to win the case in court. I have searched
      the
      > internet for case law and come up empty and would be very
      interested
      > in an answer to the original poster's question.
      > >
      > > In politics and government, never attribute to conspiracy what
      can
      > be adequately explained by stupidity.
      > >
      >
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic