Cracking down on freedom related to alcohol was one of the early emergences of authoritarian tendencies in the United States government, as demonstrated by President George Washington leading troops to confront people in Pennsylvania who were participating in what became known as the Whiskey Rebellion against a US government tax on distilled spirits.
The crackdown has continued in various forms in the many years since, including with President Ronald Reagan signing into law in 1984 the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. That statute used the threat of withholding highway funds from state governments to pressure them to impose alcohol purchase and possession prohibitions on people under 21 years old. At the time, many states had set lower “drinking ages.”
One US government restriction regarding alcohol is a “Reconstruction era” statutory prohibition that has stayed in place for over 150 years. It bans distilling at home.
This home distilling prohibition could be struck down by the US Supreme Court if the court reviews the case of Ream v. US Department of Treasury. The case involves an Ohio resident who wants to distil spirits at home for his own consumption, something prohibited by US statute since 1868.
C. Jarrett Dieterle of the Manhattan Institute, which is involved in the effort to seek Supreme Court consideration of the case, presented in a Saturday Reason article a review of the ongoing litigation. The article also explains how the top US court deciding in favor of home distilling could additionally impose greater limitations on the US government’s ability to use the Constitution’s Commerce Clause as a basis for restricting the exercise of freedom in other regards as well.
