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

RE: [Distillers] Any Canadian Busted?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.