yes, Tom, it's all about freedom. but seen from another perspective, those legislators are valiant freedom fighters. they're leading the battle to free us from the yeastie overlords.
I suppose I should thank them then.
10th amendment (read for yourselves) - States should be able to choose. I support that. Tubercle believes state law trumps the fed.Here's
the problem with that. And here
I'm only trying to be beer-political which I think is a legitimate discussion for the board, but as Keith pointed out, there's carry over . . .
Homebrewing is a matter of privacy, as are a couple of the things I linked to. I'd be surprised Tubercle, if you actually blindly support a state's right to decide something when it clearly infringes on the privacy or the rights of the individual and where the state has no legitimate interest.
The 10th Amendment is great - read it again, especially those last four words.
States should neither prohibit nor mandate homebrewing. It is not any of their business. You're more likely to get sick or die from a jar of home canned tomatoes than a bottle of home brewed beer. If a state chooses to say you shouldn't be allowed to walk to your neighbor's house with a bottle of homebrew, well, I disagree but at least that is a legitimate issue.
Mods, if this is too politcal, sorry. Feel free to delete.
I think it's clear where I stand anyway