Sciencemadness Discussion Board

legal absolute ethanol

Magpie - 12-12-2004 at 15:18

This is a hypothetical question that I have been wondering about. In the US it is illegal to prepare your own 95% or absolute alcohol through fermenting sugar, etc. However, if you chose to purify alcohol that you had already paid the tax on, say rot-gut vodka from your local state govenment sponsored liquor store, would this be legal? :o

Mendeleev - 12-12-2004 at 15:44

Yes, as long as you're 21, and you don't sell it.

neutrino - 12-12-2004 at 17:40

Actually, its perfectly legal to make your own alcohol (not sure about age, though). It’s only illegal to purify it. Kind of dumb: you can make alcohol mixed with nasty byproducts, but you can’t remove the byproducts legally. Stupid government…

Mendeleev - 12-12-2004 at 19:07

Are you sure, I thought it was legal to do anything but sell it?

Darkfire - 12-12-2004 at 19:29

Distiling of ethanol is illegal.

Oxydro - 12-12-2004 at 19:46

How about increasing concentration without distilling?

Ethanol

MadHatter - 13-12-2004 at 15:20

The U.S. government allows an individual to manufacture 100 gallons of alcoholic beverages
a year provided distillation is not involved and the beverages are not sold. So freezing a
mixture to increase the proof is perfectly legal.

tom haggen - 13-12-2004 at 18:37

You wont be able to get much more concentrated than 40% alcohol by freezing. Does alcohol form an azeotrope with water making it very hard to get really high concentrations i.e. 95% +.
And by the way, If you ferment sugar would methyl alcohol be some of the nasty by products that need to be removed?

[Edited on 14-12-2004 by tom haggen]

Darkfire - 13-12-2004 at 19:31

I think the methanol thing with moonshine was from people trying to distill ethanol from denatured alcohol, not by brewing their own.

Magpie - 13-12-2004 at 22:22

I will reformulate my question in a more direct manner:

Would it be legal, in the US, to make 95% alcohol by distillation from vodka that you just purchased at the state liquor store?

tom haggen - 13-12-2004 at 22:51

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But don't quote me on it. I'm planning on doing this only with 191 proof alcohol called ever clear. that way I won't have as far to go to get to 100%. I think I have herd that it is really hard to remove water at high concentrations of alcohol though.

[Edited on 14-12-2004 by tom haggen]

Distillation

MadHatter - 13-12-2004 at 23:27

Magpie, as far as I know, distillation of any alcohol, even booze that has already been
taxed is still illegal in the U.S.. The only way I know for someone to get around that is to
apply for a permit that allows the user to distill alcohol for fuel. But then that person would be
subjected to random inspections by the BATFE and I don't think it's worth the hassle. The
problem I find with all these damn regulations is that it's all about tax money and nothing else.

Tom Haggen, it's probably not worth the effort to re-distill something that's already
at 191 proof. Another method will be needed, personally I like rock salt, to dehydrate the ethanol. I forget what the azeotrope for ethanol/water is but I believe it's just over 96%. You may want U2U Ramiel because this member appears to have more experience than most.

[Edited on 14-12-2004 by MadHatter]

Magpie - 14-12-2004 at 10:32

MadHatter, I'm inclined to believe that you are right

I agree that governments are primarily concerned with tax collection. But also they do what is convenient for them and don't worry about whether or not they have trampled on personal freedoms.

I haven't read the tax codes. I'm getting most of my knowledge through "The Lore of Still Building" by Howard & Gibat. This book says "You cannot build a still, even for the distillation of water, unless you get it registered with the Federal government." Now you could carry this to absurdity by saying that a 25 mL RBF connected to a distillation head and a condenser is illegal. For all I know it may well be. If true, every organic lab in the US is illegal unless they have a Federal permit.

If you wish to have 95% or absolute ethanol as a lab reagent it seems that you better have some documentation showing:

1. You obtained it through a legal supplier, or
2. You made it yourself but did not use distillation.

Stills

MadHatter - 14-12-2004 at 14:02

Magpie, this is from the Government Printing Office. Sorry for the long post but
I hope it helps you. I put some of the more pertinent information in BOLD.


[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 27, Volume 1]
[Revised as of April 1, 2004]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 27CFR29.45]

[Page 783-784]

TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FIREARMS

CHAPTER I--ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY

PART 29_STILLS AND MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Stills

Sec. 29.45 Meaning of terms.

When used in this subpart and in the forms prescribed under this
subpart, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly
incompatible with the intent thereof, terms shall have the meaning
ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the
singular, and vice versa, and words in the masculine shall include the
feminine. The terms ``includes'' and ``including'' do not exclude things
not enumerated which are in the same general class.

[[Page 784]]

Appropriate ATF officer. An officer or employee of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) authorized to perform any functions
relating to the administration or enforcement of this part by ATF Order
1130.25, Delegation Order--Delegation of the Director's Authorities in
27 CFR Part 29, Stills and Miscellaneous Regulations.
Director. The Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the
Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
Distilling spirits or spirits. That substance known as ethyl
alcohol, ethanol, or spirits of wine in any form (including all
dilutions and mixtures thereof, from whatever source or by whatever
process produced).
Distilling. The conduct by any person of operations that constitute,
as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5002, operations as a distiller. Such operations
include: (a) The original manufacture of distilled spirits from mash,
wort, or wash, or any materials suitable for the production of spirits;
(b) the redistillation of spirits in the course of original manufacture;
(c) the redistillation of spirits, or products containing spirits; (d)
the distillation, redistillation, or recovery of spirits, denatured
spirits, or articles containing spirits or denatured spirits; and (e)
the redistillation or recovery of tax-free spirits.
Distilling apparatus. A still or condenser, as defined in this
section, and any other apparatus to be used for the purpose of
distilling.
Executed under the penalties of perjury. Signed with the prescribed
declaration under the penalties of perjury as provided on or with
respect to any document prescribed under this subpart or, where no form
of declaration is prescribed, with the declaration: ``I declare under
the penalties of perjury that this ---- (insert type of document),
including the documents submitted in support thereof, has been examined
by me and, to best of my knowledge and belief, is true, correct and
complete.''
Manufacturer of stills. Any person who manufactures any still or
condenser, as defined in this section, or any other apparatus to be used
for the purpose of distilling. The term includes a person furnishing
separate parts of a complete still or condenser, of any kind, to a
person who assembles same into a still or condenser for distilling and a
person who procures materials or apparatus and converts same into a
still or condenser for distilling.
Person. An individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association,
company, or corporation.
Still. Any apparatus capable of being used for separating alcoholic
or spirituous vapors, or spiritous solutions, or spirits, from
spirituous solutions or mixtures,
but shall not include stills used for
laboratory purposes or stills used for distilling water or other
nonalcoholic materials where the cubic distilling capacity is one gallon
or less.
This chapter. Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I (27
CFR Chapter I).
United States. The several states and the District of Columbia.
U.S.C. The United States Code.

[T.D. ATF-207, 50 FR 23682, June 5, 1985; 50 FR 28572, July 15, 1985, as
amended by T.D. ATF-439, 66 FR 8770, Feb. 2, 2001]

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 27, Volume 1]
[Revised as of April 1, 2004]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 27CFR29.55]

[Page 785-786]

TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FIREARMS

CHAPTER I--ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY

PART 29_STILLS AND MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Stills

Sec. 29.55 Registry of stills and distilling apparatus.

(a) General. Every person having possession, custody, or control of
any still or distilling apparatus set up shall, immediately on its being
set up, register the still or distilling apparatus, except that a still
or distilling apparatus not used or intended for use in the
distillation, redistillation, or recovery of distilled spirits is not
required to be registered. Registration may be accomplished by
describing the still or distilling apparatus on the registration or
permit application prescribed in this chapter for qualification under 26
U.S.C. chapter 51 or, if qualification is not required under 26 U.S.C.
chapter 51, on a letter application, and filing the application with the
appropriate ATF officer. Approval of the application by the appropriate
ATF officer will constitute registration of the still or distilling
apparatus.
(b) When still is set up. A still will be regarded as set up and
subject to registry when it is in position over a furnace, or connected
with a boiler so that heat may be applied, irrespective of whether a
condenser is in position. This rule is intended merely as an
illustration and should not be construed

[[Page 786]]

as covering all types of stills or condensers requiring registration.
(c) Change in location or ownership. Where any distilling apparatus
registered under this section is to be removed to another location, sold
or otherwise disposed of, the registrant shall, prior to the removal or
disposition, file a letter notice with the appropriate ATF officer. The
letter notice will show the intended method of disposition (sale,
destruction, or othewise), the name and complete address of the person
to whom disposition will be made, and the purpose for which the
apparatus will be used. After removal, sale, or other disposal, the
person having possession, custody, or control of any distilling
apparatus intended for use in distilling shall immediately register the
still or distilling apparatus on its being set up or, if already set up,
immediately on obtaining possession, custody, or control. The registrant
shall also comply with the procedures prescribed in this chapter for
amendment of the registration or permit application.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number
1512-0341)

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1355, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5179))

[T.D. ATF-207, 50 FR 23682, June 5, 1985; 50 FR 28572, July 15, 1985; 50
FR 30821, July 30, 1985, as amended by T.D. ATF-439, 66 FR 8770, Feb. 2,
2001]


From documentaries I've seen, BATFE agents wait for the moonshiner to actually apply
the fire and start the distilling process - in other words they catch them in the act.
It proves the violation of the law.

[Edited on 14-12-2004 by MadHatter]

Magpie - 14-12-2004 at 19:57

Thanks for posting the code. It's typical government gobbleygook but does seem to refute my citation from Howard & Gibat about the legality of having a still for non-ethanol use.

But you cannot have a still with greater "cubic capacity than 1 gallon." (A crudely worded statement but what would you expect from people who don't understand what they are talking about.) I presume this means the still column proper has to be <1 gallon. So if you want to make a large water still you are fucked also.

This law looks like it was written in the '40s. They only talk about distilling. But I bet if you upgraded wine by fractional crystallization (freezing), molecular sieves, or other methods they would find a way to prosecute you for that also. Now if you upgraded state liquor store vodka by these non-distillation methods that might be technically legal. I personally don't think the judge would back you, however.

BromicAcid - 21-2-2005 at 14:15

I was bidding on an item on eBay today, some distilling flasks and I got this little warning message on the confirmation page:
Quote:

Important:
You are about to bid on an item that may be subject to strict regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state and local regulatory agencies. If so, do not bid on this item unless you are authorized to purchase it. If a license or other authorization is required to purchase this item, the seller will verify your eligibility to purchase this item before completing the transaction. Consult the FDA’s Website for more information.
Hummm... the FDA... shouldn't that be the BATF or something of that nature?

neutrino - 21-2-2005 at 14:42

You get that message a lot, its best just to ignore it. The web site has no information I can find on anything like this and only talks about purchasing home medical equipment. So far I’ve gotten that message while buying a broken hotplate and filter paper, but no-one cares as long as they get their $$$.:D

USFDA

MadHatter - 21-2-2005 at 15:22

BromicAcid, they're probably just covering their asses with that statement. I have seen it
applied to medical equipment on eBay.

T_FLeX - 22-2-2005 at 06:25

In some states you can buy pure alcohol straight from the liquor store. Look for the brand golden grain; it's as pure as it gets, 190 proof 95% alc/vol.

lol its a popular drink here in georgia, made famous by ludacris:D

mick - 23-2-2005 at 13:26

Curiosity.
Has any one ever had a head ache or hang over from drinking pure alcohol (BP grade, 99+%), diluted 50/50 with water of course. I never did.
mick

typo
mick

[Edited on 23-2-2005 by mick]