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

Re: [Distillers] Re: Any Canadian Busted?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
      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 2 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
        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 3 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
          > -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 4 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
            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 5 of 19 , Sep 4, 2008
              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 6 of 19 , Sep 4, 2008
                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 7 of 19 , Sep 5, 2008
                  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 8 of 19 , Sep 5, 2008
                    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.