43455Re: Any Canadian Busted?
- Sep 3, 2008The 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@...>
>analyze absolute ethanol? That's what it looks like it says. If I
> Did I read that wrong, or is it perfectly legal to make and
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
> Act like you said you did, then you would have found this:licence
> Ref: Excise Act, 2001 ( 2002, c. 22 )
> Prohibition - production and packaging of spirits
> 60. (1) No person shall, except in accordance with a spirits
> issued to the person, produce or package spirits.a
> (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
> (a) the packaging of spirits from a marked special container by
> purchaser at a bottle-your-own premises; orconsequence of
> (b) the production of spirits for the purpose or as a
> the analysis of the composition of a substance containingabsolute
> ethyl alcohol.for
> 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
> the production of spirits with the intent of producing spiritsunless
> the personanalysis
> (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
> of the composition of a substance containing absolute ethylalcohol.
> 2002, c. 22, s. 61; 2007, c. 18, s. 90.
> And the PUNISHMENTS:
> PART 6
> Offences and Punishment
> Unlawful production, sale, etc., of tobacco or alcohol
> 214. Every person who contravenes section 25, 27 or 29,
> 32.1(1) or section 60 or 62 is guilty of an offence and liable$50,000
> (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not less than
> and not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term ofnot
> more than five years, or to both; orand not
> (b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not less than $10,000
> more than $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not morethan 18
> months, or to both.Excise
> 2002, c. 22, s. 214; 2008, c. 28, s. 60.
> Seems pretty clear to me,
> --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, Eric Yendall <eric_yendall@>
> > Actually the law in Canada is NOT so clear. I have read the
> Act which is written from the standpoint of collecting taxesfrom
> commercial operations, not forbidding the private production ofwe
> alcohol for personal consumption or the private possession of a
> still. Of course this is only an interpretation but that is why
> have courts. I have yet to find an example of anyone beingcharged
> and subsequently convicted for operating a personal still. Apartfrom
> the police authorities having bigger fish to fry, they wouldfirst
> have to find you; then get a warrant to search; they would haveto
> prove that you were producing alcohol and not distilled water;and
> then they would have to win the case in court. I have searchedthe
> internet for case law and come up empty and would be veryinterested
> in an answer to the original poster's question.can
> > In politics and government, never attribute to conspiracy what
> be adequately explained by stupidity.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>