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

Re: Any Canadian Busted?

Expand Messages
  • anthony547357
    ... speak up? My local supplier says much the same thing, but it s difficult getting knowledge as people are either few and far between - or genuinely
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, Derek Hamlet <derekhamlet@...>
      wrote:
      >Since this subject is of interest in the UK, would anyone care to
      speak up? My local supplier says much the same thing, but it's
      difficult getting knowledge as people are either few and far between -
      or genuinely secretive.

      Tony
      > At 10:17 AM 9/2/2008, you wrote:
      >
      > >--- In
      > ><mailto:Distillers%40yahoogroups.com>Distillers@yahoogroups.com,
      > >"mstehelin" <mstehelin@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Howdy all,
      > > > I'm just wondering if any one has any 1st hand Knowledge of Any
      one in
      > > > Canada Getting Busted for distilling. My understanding of it
      all is
      > > > that personal distilling is a gray area, and that as long as
      you are
      > > > not selling the stuff you are ok. Any Thoughts?
      > > > Cheers
      > > > M
      >
      > My friend, the law in Canada is very clear. Distilling alcohol for
      > consumption is illegal. It is not a gray area at all at all.
      > Having said that, we do not have an arm of the law that is
      dedicated
      > to the task of "taking down stills".
      > If you are a Canuck then you know that policing is either carried
      out
      > by local police forces, the RCMP, OPP in Ontario and the Quebec
      counterpart.
      > These are very busy people. They are not going after the little
      guy
      > pulling off some vodka or corn whiskey for their own consumption.
      > Boast about it all over the bar or at work or at the church social
      > and perhaps someone will submit a complaint and then "they" might
      be
      > forced to investigate.
      > It's a little like the folks who keep a little baggie of smoke or
      > perhaps grow six plants a year. The police and the courts know the
      > public sentiment and do not want to get involved in something that
      > takes up their time, clogs the courts and takes their time away
      from
      > serious policing matters.
      > Enjoy your hobby and be circumspect.
      >
      >
      >
      > Derek
      > "What are all those black and whites doing in my driveway"
      >
    • rpk@gvtc.com
      I asked a similar question over a year ago now and he didnt seem all that concerned about the Canadian situation. Apparently he is not even required to
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I <> asked <> a similar question over a year ago now and he didnt seem all that
        concerned about the Canadian situation. Apparently he is not even
        required to keep records of his Still sales. Those guys here in the
        US do which is one of the reasons I decided to build in the beginning.

        Right and wrong are most often governmed by local custom. One regulator may have a blind eye and another a telescope. If you want to have a commercial manufacturing enterprise which advertises and plays by the rules then you can sleep better at night. I understand that the fee to register a manufacturing site for distilleries is about $3500 in Canada, but don't quote me.

        P.
      • Rob Macrobert
        My partner and I were going to be down $7500 in APPLICATION fees, and the requirements before applying make sure you can not legally apply. Example: You must
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          My partner and I were going to be down $7500 in APPLICATION fees, and the requirements before applying make sure you can not legally apply.
          Example:
          You must have a facility, fully set up and ready to run, for inspection of equipment and process before a license is granted.
          You can not legally set up that facility without having the license that legally allows you to own "...a device, or mechanism, for the purpose of distillation of alcohol by application of  heat, cold, vacuum, or any other method....".
          That last part I'm paraphrasing from memory.

          Every other requirement is equally contradictory.

          New Zealand, here I come..

          Cheers,



          ----- Original Message -----
          From: rpk@...
          To: Distillers@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [Distillers] Any Canadian Busted?
          Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:26:41 -0700


          I <> asked <> a similar question over a year ago now and he didnt seem all that
          concerned about the Canadian situation. Apparently he is not even
          required to keep records of his Still sales. Those guys here in the
          US do which is one of the reasons I decided to build in the beginning.

          Right and wrong are most often governmed by local custom. One regulator may have a blind eye and another a telescope. If you want to have a commercial manufacturing enterprise which advertises and plays by the rules then you can sleep better at night. I understand that the fee to register a manufacturing site for distilleries is about $3500 in Canada, but don't quote me.

          P.

          __


          --
          Be Yourself @ mail.com!
          Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
          Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!
        • KM Services
          No hassles here in New Zealand as long as you don t sell the stuff and if you are a smoker you can also legally grow your own tobacco if you want with the same
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment

            No hassles here in New Zealand as long as you don’t sell the stuff and if you are a smoker you can also legally grow your own tobacco if you want with the same restriction.

            Hopefully your governments will wake up one day? And let the police concentrate on more important activities. Here we do not have “moonshiners” as such, I am sure there are some who sell to mates?

            There is no demand for “Shine” here as you can buy stills and supplies openly and make your own with all the help you want, plus an industry has grown which allows for off the shelf purchase products of the highest standard for us to use which generates taxes for the state plus employment. Sensible really as our government was persuaded by many of these groups founders that it was a waste of time and energy trying to stop people wanting to distill and grow tobacco as it boiled down to not a safety issue but Revenue from Excise tax.

             

            This is my opinion and if I am wrong I will be corrected I am sure...

            Cheers

            Ken Mc

             


            From: Distillers@yahoogroups.com [mailto: Distillers@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Rob Macrobert
            Sent: Wednesday, 3 September 2008 12:49 p.m.
            To: Distillers@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [Distillers] Any Canadian Busted?

             

            My partner and I were going to be down $7500 in APPLICATION fees, and the requirements before applying make sure you can not legally apply.
            Example:
            You must have a facility, fully set up and ready to run, for inspection of equipment and process before a license is granted.
            You can not legally set up that facility without having the license that legally allows you to own "...a device, or mechanism, for the purpose of distillation of alcohol by application of  heat, cold, vacuum, or any other method....".
            That last part I'm paraphrasing from memory.

            Every other requirement is equally contradictory.

            New Zealand , here I come..

            Cheers,


          • Eric Yendall
            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
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              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.
            • anthony547357
              -What s the situation in the UK? ... Act which is written from the standpoint of collecting taxes from
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                -What's the situation in the UK?





                -- 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
              • harisaki2004
                And here in Australia you can apply free through the tax office to manufacture alcohol. All you need to do is make/purchase your still. The fill out yards of
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  And here in Australia you can apply free through the tax office to
                  manufacture alcohol.

                  All you need to do is make/purchase your still. The fill out yards of
                  forms, they then come and inspect you and give you a license.

                  Of course you have to report your volumes of alcohol used/sold and pay
                  the excise.
                  There is no excise on alcohol used to fortify wines.

                  regards
                  Hari.


                  --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "KM Services" <km_services@...> wrote:
                  >

                  > New Zealand, here I come..
                  >
                  > Cheers,
                  >
                • bbornais
                  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,
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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.
                    >
                  • Zapata Vive
                    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
                    Message 9 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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
                      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@yahoogro ups.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.
                      >

                    • bbornais
                      The exception is for research institutions that are regognized holders of Canadian funding for applied research (example: NSERC). So the answer is no. Unless
                      Message 10 of 19 , 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.
                        > >
                        >
                      • subsonic40grain
                        ... The production of alcohol in the UK via illicit distillation is illegal full stop. Home brewing and wine making is not, provided you do not sell. No
                        Message 11 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > -What's the situation in the UK?

                          The production of alcohol in the UK via illicit distillation is
                          illegal full stop. Home brewing and wine making is not, provided you
                          do not sell. No licence is required to make beer at home, although
                          prior to 1963 this was the case. To sell you need a licence.

                          In terms of prosecution for illegal home distillation, I seem to
                          recall that the offence is a civil one as opposed to a criminal one
                          (my memory may be wrong mind as this is not my precise field). That
                          said, it would not be a good thing either way. I looked at the
                          relevant page on the UK customs and for those who wish to see the
                          full English version paste the link below into your browser. Next
                          time you tip a dram you may well appreciate the other 'effort' that
                          went into producing it! i'm not sure if the law in Scotland is the
                          same mind. If anyone REALLY wanted to know more I could find out,
                          but the bottom line is that its illegal.

                          Subsonic

                          http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.p
                          ortal?
                          _nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_000245&propert
                          yType=document
                        • subsonic40grain
                          I never quite understand the hyperlink pasting on this site! I screwed up somewhere..... The link is this, but paste the lot in one line, if that makes sense.
                          Message 12 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I never quite understand the hyperlink pasting on this site! I screwed
                            up somewhere.....

                            The link is this, but paste the lot in one line, if that makes sense.
                            Apologies for the screw up. If anyone reads the whole document you get
                            a gold star and 10/10 from me :-))

                            Subsonic

                            http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.por
                            tal?
                            _nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_000245&propertyT
                            ype=document#P364_27455
                          • Eric Yendall
                            Yes I did read this and I remain unconvinced. It all hinges on the context i.e. the rest of the act. The issue is the definition of a still and the definition
                            Message 13 of 19 , Sep 4, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Yes I did read this and I remain unconvinced. It all hinges on the context i.e. the rest of the act. The issue is the definition of a still and the definition of a "person". Since the act is concerned with licensing and regulation of commercial operations, then one can argue that it does not apply to individuals producing alcohol for their personal use. If the law is not ambiguous, where are the convictions? Just one is needed to prove your contention. I have yet to find one. It would not be difficult to come up with a list of Canadian personal distillers: all they would have to do is raid Ian Smiley's operation, which is run quite openly and apparently legally.

                              In politics and government, never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
                            • Brendan Keith
                              I think your distinction between person and commercial operation is flawed. It is blanketedly illegal unless you are a licensed commercial operation or
                              Message 14 of 19 , Sep 4, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Message
                                I think your distinction between "person" and "commercial operation" is flawed. 
                                 
                                It is blanketedly illegal unless you are a licensed commercial operation or research institution.
                                 
                                You don't really think they'd leave a loophole that large, do you?
                                 
                                 

                                --

                                Brendan Keith

                                bkeith@...

                                 

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Distillers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Distillers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Yendall
                                Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:25 PM
                                To: Distillers@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [Distillers] Re: Any Canadian Busted?

                                Yes I did read this and I remain unconvinced. It all hinges on the context i.e. the rest of the act. The issue is the definition of a still and the definition of a "person". Since the act is concerned with licensing and regulation of commercial operations, then one can argue that it does not apply to individuals producing alcohol for their personal use. If the law is not ambiguous, where are the convictions? Just one is needed to prove your contention. I have yet to find one. It would not be difficult to come up with a list of Canadian personal distillers: all they would have to do is raid Ian Smiley's operation, which is run quite openly and apparently legally.

                                In politics and government, never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                              • Eric Yendall
                                We ll let the courts decide, shall we? Never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
                                Message 15 of 19 , Sep 5, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  We'll let the courts decide, shall we?


                                  Never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
                                • Dave Lineback
                                  Hey, boys and girls, it s ALL legal until you are busted. So, burn a clean fire, cover your tracks, distract the crows with a dead cat, and keep your mouth
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Sep 5, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hey, boys and girls, it's ALL legal until you are busted. So, burn a clean fire, cover your tracks, distract the crows with a dead cat, and keep your mouth shut.

                                    Dave iNC

                                    Brendan Keith wrote:

                                    I think your distinction between "person" and "commercial operation" is flawed. 
                                     
                                    It is blanketedly illegal unless you are a licensed commercial operation or research institution.
                                     
                                    You don't really think they'd leave a loophole that large, do you?
                                     
                                     

                                    --

                                    Brendan Keith

                                    bkeith@sympatico. ca

                                     

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Distillers@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:Distillers@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Eric Yendall
                                    Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:25 PM
                                    To: Distillers@yahoogro ups.com
                                    Subject: [Distillers] Re: Any Canadian Busted?

                                    Yes I did read this and I remain unconvinced. It all hinges on the context i.e. the rest of the act. The issue is the definition of a still and the definition of a "person". Since the act is concerned with licensing and regulation of commercial operations, then one can argue that it does not apply to individuals producing alcohol for their personal use. If the law is not ambiguous, where are the convictions? Just one is needed to prove your contention. I have yet to find one. It would not be difficult to come up with a list of Canadian personal distillers: all they would have to do is raid Ian Smiley's operation, which is run quite openly and apparently legally.

                                    In politics and government, never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.


                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.