Hmmm... (unimportant) legal question

[LabRatBrewer]

State of Texas
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE
TITLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec 1.04
(7) "Wine and vinous liquor" means the product obtained from the alcoholic
fermentation of juice of sound ripe grapes, fruits, berries, or honey, and includes wine coolers.

Case closed.

Crap, what to do with all these unsound ripe grapes?

 

[mysteryshrimp]

"Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the
juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section. Only ale, malt liquor, or beer made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of malted barley with hops, or their products, and with or without other malted or unmalted cereals, may be produced under this section. The possession of wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer produced under this section is not an offense if the person making it complies with all provisions of this section and the wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer is not distilled, fortified, or otherwise altered to increase its alcohol content."

Case not closed. What this means is that you can make wine from honey, but not under this section. In other words, by the letter of the law, you need a license.

What I find interesting is this:

"The possession of wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer produced under this section is not an offense if the person making it complies with all provisions of this section and the wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer is not distilled, fortified, or otherwise altered to increase its alcohol content."

Nowhere in this section does it mention an age limitation. Head of household can be under the age of 21. But it does say that as long as the wine/beer is made in compliance to this section, it's not illegal to to possess.

 

[LabRatBrewer]

"Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the
juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section. Only ale, malt liquor, or beer made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of malted barley with hops, or their products, and with or without other malted or unmalted cereals, may be produced under this section. The possession of wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer produced under this section is not an offense if the person making it complies with all provisions of this section and the wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer is not distilled, fortified, or otherwise altered to increase its alcohol content."

Case not closed. What this means is that you can make wine from honey, but not under this section. In other words, by the letter of the law, you need a license.

What I find interesting is this:

"The possession of wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer produced under this section is not an offense if the person making it complies with all provisions of this section and the wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer is not distilled, fortified, or otherwise altered to increase its alcohol content."

Nowhere in this section does it mention an age limitation. Head of household can be under the age of 21. But it does say that as long as the wine/beer is made in compliance to this section, it's not illegal to to possess.

TABC 106.05 has this covered.

 

[Zuljin]

Home making mead is legal in Texas. The law says so. It says home making wine is legal and it defines wine as may be from fermented honey. No two ways about it. Even if one plays the abv and abw angle, there are still clear laws that make home making mead legal.

Appeal denied.

 

[MyNameIsPaul]

Huh?

Sorry, posted from mobile so didn't get too much into it, but as far as the IRS is concerned with filing statuses (HoH, Single, Married filing jointly, etc...) the only way someone can file as HoH is if they have a deceased spouse and eligible dependent (child) It's the most advantageous way to file, with the most deductions.

It doesn't matter who makes more $, the term Head Of Household with the IRS has to do with filing status.

I brew the beer in our house, so I'm definitely the HoH here. I also wear the pants around here, though she picks them out for me =)

 

[woozy]

Home making mead is not legal in Texas (without a license). The law says so. It says only home making wine from fruit is legal and it defines wine as may be from fermented honey. Nxoxtxwxoxwxaxyxsxaxbxoxuxtxixtx. It's a little ambiguous and strange.

There. I fixed your post for you.

you're welcome.

 

[woozy]

State of Texas
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE
TITLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec 1.04
(7) "Wine and vinous liquor" means the product obtained from the alcoholic
fermentation of juice of sound ripe grapes, fruits, berries, or honey, and includes wine coolers.

Right! That defines what wine is; *not* whether wine is legal or not to make at home. Mead, whether commercially or at home, is considered wine. Dandelion wine is not, by the way.

Then the law says:

Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the
juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section

Honey is very specifically *not* mentioned. Thus mead, which has been defined as wine, is specifically not covered in this section. In other words it can not be made at home without a license. Interestingly (mildly) dandelion wine, which had been defined *not* to be wine, is covered in the section.

 

[woozy]

as far as the IRS is concerned with filing statuses the only way someone can file as HoH is if they have a deceased spouse and eligible dependent (child)

Which is clearly not what the Texas law means by "Head of Household". Otherwise married people can't make beer.

 

[Zuljin]

Yall are getting high on something other than life. The Texas Bluebonnet Brew Off has three, 1, 2, 3, categories for home brewed mead. The Knights of the Brown Bottle, a local DFW club, won a medal in the 2012 competition. The Cap and Hare gives lectures on home brewing mead. I assure you, it is legal to home brew mead in Texas, without any special license.

 

[MyNameIsPaul]

Yall are getting high on something other than life. The Texas Bluebonnet Brew Off has three, 1, 2, 3, categories for home brewed mead. The Knights of the Brown Bottle, a local DFW club, won a medal in the 2012 competition. The Cap and Hare gives lectures on home brewing mead. I assure you, it is legal to home brew mead in Texas, without any special license.

I've seen state signs on the side of the road (similar to mile markers, street signs, etc) That say "Brand XYZ Meadery" just like they do for Wineries. I know that's a commercial business, but they had to start somewhere, so I assume mead is for sure legal in Texas. It's not like it would stop anyone anyways, kind of like the 200 gallon rule...

 

[woozy]

Yall are getting high on something other than life. The Texas Bluebonnet Brew Off has three, 1, 2, 3, categories for home brewed mead. The Knights of the Brown Bottle, a local DFW club, won a medal in the 2012 competition. The Cap and Hare gives lectures on home brewing mead. I assure you, it is legal to home brew mead in Texas, without any special license.

All I'm saying is that the law, as it is written on the snippets cut and pasted and presented here, is clear and unambiguous that home-brewing mead is *not* specified in the wines one is allowed to brew for personal use without a permit.

I'm not saying *anything* about whether The Texas Bluebonnet Brew Off is familiar with the law nor whether it gives a rats ass about it. Nor am I saying anything about whether the law is ever enforced. And I'm not saying anything about how the law enforcement, courts, and public have interpreted and obeyed those laws for the last 70 years. I'm sure in all practicality and all recent interpretations of the law home-made mead is legal in Texas but as that law is written it is not. They might want to do something about that.

After all, Ohio wasn't a legal state for nearly one hundred and fifty years without anyone realizing it. By all recognition, observance, and practice Ohio appeared to be a legal state at the time and everyone accepted it as such. But it wasn't.

And while they are at it, they might want to do something about married people not being able to make beer.

 

[Zuljin]

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Still legal.

Think about it. Bluebonnet is a huge competition. They hold their events at big name breweries. They, and thereby the breweries who host them, get attention from TABC. Are you really going to sit there and say that's going on illegally?

And then there is, of course, the actual law which defines what wine is.

I see what you're trying to do. It ain't working. Playing word games with the law doesn't change the law. Ohio was a state, slavery was illegal in Mississippi and homemade mead is legal in Texas.

If you want to revise your position to say that one day someone might word the law differently in a way you'll better understand it, that's fine. That happens. The fact remains though, it's legal in Texas.

 

[motobrewer]

so, Zil, you could go that way, the direction you're currently headed-

or you can take what we're pointing out and do more investigation. I know you're aware of things that happened in Oregon and Wisconsin over the last few years.

In wisconsin, it was "illegal", by the book definition, to remove homebrew from the place where it was made. Nobody paid any attention to it, especially since the Wisconsin State Fair hosts one of the largest homebrew comp in the state.

Then, some politician got some bug up his a$$ (namely, the BMC distributors) about a Racine beerfest where homebrew was served. Suddenly, the law was a huge deal, and all comps that year (except the Wisconsin State Fair.....go figure) were cancelled.

We eventually got the law changed.

All I'm saying is, don't underestimate the stupidity of a politician with a lobbyist up his ass.

 

[woozy]

Look, I've read the law. And you've read the law. And the law says only wine made from fruit juice is legal. And mead is not made from fruit juices. I'm not playing any word games. The texas law defines wine as a fermented beverage made from fruit juice or honey and then specifically states only wines made from fruit juice or dandelion leaves can be made without a license. No word game.

So yes, huge events go on against the law and no-one knows the law? Yeah, that happens sometimes. Take a look at this. Opium poppy seeds are being sold FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATION ("Grows 4 feet high", "Plant in Spring or Fall", No need to buy a LARGER quantity of these! A few plants will get you gazillions of seeds! FUN TO GROW!!!") on amazon! Amazon! Am I telling you that amazon is breaking the law. Yes. yes, I am.

Also, you seem to have this weird idea that the Texas law defines wine as being made from honey *helps* your argument. It doesn't. It just makes the fruit juice and dandelion leaf stipulation that much more specific.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Unless of course LabRat is correct (not entirely unlikely as he is a lawyer) that it is likely that definitions are spelled out more neatly in other parts of the law...

 

[woozy]

Unless of course LabRat is correct (not entirely unlikely as he is a lawyer) that it is likely that definitions are spelled out more neatly in other parts of the law...

That might be the intent. But That's all the more reason one should clean up a sloppy law. Once the term "wine" is defined you should pretty much use the term "wine" and only the term "wine" thereafter if indeed the law was intended to mean wine in general.

If you use phrases like "wine made from fruit juices" *after* you've specified by definition that wine need not be made from fruit, then the lawmakers are just shooting themselves (and the good folks who are obligated to obey the law) in the foot.

They should simply have said ""Only wine as defined above may be produced under this section" if that was their intent. *Dumbasses*

So maybe the intent of the Texas law was to allow home-making of mead. Maybe we are the first to notice this discrepency (ha!). But by carelessly putting in a "only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits" phrase *after* wine had been nicely and neatly *defined* as "the product obtained from the alcoholic fermentation of juice of sound ripe grapes, fruits, berries, or honey, and includes wine coolers" they have, whatever their intent, shot the law in the foot and Texas now has a law "on the books" making it illegal to home-brew mead.

Even if no-one intended that law and no-one noticed that law and no-one obeys that law and no-one ever interpreted the law to exclude mead, the law is still there on the books.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

When you put it that way I would tend to agree.

 

[Zuljin]

All these words said, and it's still legal.

I can agree that the law could be worded better, but not that it's worded to make home made mead illegal. That's the biggie here. Whether it's legal or illegal, and I maintain that it is legal.

I got an example too, as well. We had a design proposal at work changed to replace HOA switches with LOR switches. We also changed Computer to Auto on the graphics. Making these changes didn't change any functionality. The devices would function exactly the same no matter what the text was. We knew it. Everyone knew it. We only wanted the change so they would conform with our standard. That was it. No change to any function at all. It was totally cosmetic. This is all there is to the great mead law debate of 2013. Is it pink or pink? Either way, it's still legal.

So riddle me this, Batmen. Why would it be illegal? What's the precedent? The back story? Show why it would be intended. Demonstrate it in the spirit of the law.

Now I must take my leave, so that I may degas my Texas home made mead. Run tell that!

 

[mattd2]

They should simply have said ""Only wine as defined above may be produced under this section" if that was their intent. *Dumbasses*

So riddle me this, Batmen. Why would it be illegal? What's the precedent? The back story? Show why it would be intended. Demonstrate it in the spirit of the law.

Has the Latest debates to get the Alabama homebrewing laws change not shown that sometimes laws actually do not make sense (especially once those debates are long forgotten). Sometimes those pushing the bill have to make comprimising ammendments to get the bills passed.
I can see someone that was opposed to this bill make the argument that mead made from unpasturised honey could lead to botulism, if the guy(s) argued enough it might have been the easy fix to get the bill past to say "ok then, you can make it from anything but honey" and therefore the specific wording of the section was changed to reflect that intent.

 

[woozy]

I can agree that the law could be worded better, but not that it's worded to make home made mead illegal.

"only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits"

How can that be interpreted in any way but that home making of mead is not allowed under the written law?

That's the biggie here. Whether it's legal or illegal, and I maintain that it is legal.

If by legal you mean allowed by public consent, unprosecuted by law or court, and even deemed legal and acceptable by a court of law. Then sure, it's legal. (Although I don't know if any court ever spoke on the issue.)

But if be legal you mean compatible with written laws and statutes and not expressly forbidden in written law and statutes. Then no, it is not legal.

I got an example too, as well. We had a design proposal at work changed to replace HOA switches with LOR switches. We also changed Computer to Auto on the graphics. Making these changes didn't change any functionality. The devices would function exactly the same no matter what the text was. We knew it. Everyone knew it. We only wanted the change so they would conform with our standard. That was it. No change to any function at all. It was totally cosmetic.

So, are you claiming that you *didn't* change the logo? Who claimed anything about functionality? What relevance does that have with written law? I'm only claiming what the written law said. I'm not making any claim about what people do with it.

So riddle me this, Batmen. Why would it be illegal?

Because the law says only wine made from fruit juice is legal.

What's the precedent? The back story? Show why it would be intended. Demonstrate it in the spirit of the law.

Why on earth would I need to do any of those? Why would I *want* to? I don't know why they did it. And since reading what CreamyGoodness had to say, I'm not at all sure they ever intended to do it. And as for the spirit of the law... well, you and I both know that there is *absolutely* none. Other than selling of homebrew and the Wisconsin state fair debacle I don't know of any one federally or state level prosecuted by these statutes. Certainly not for brewing mead.

Now I must take my leave, so that I may degas my Texas home made mead. Run tell that!

I won't tell your state about your Texas mead if you don't tell my state about my picking California poppies. {which actually isn't, and never was, against the law but every Californian grew up hearing stories that it was}

 

[woozy]

Has the Latest debates to get the Alabama homebrewing laws change not shown that sometimes laws actually do not make sense

**SOMEtimes****?!?!?!?

I can see someone that was opposed to this bill make the argument that mead made from unpasturised honey could lead to botulism, if the guy(s) argued enough it might have been the easy fix to get the bill past to say "ok then, you can make it from anything but honey" and therefore the specific wording of the section was changed to reflect that intent.

I'm thinking that it's more likely that making it from honey or straight sugar was more like distilling and moonshine in the eyes of those living with the memory of the shadow of prohibition. They're willing to make exception beer and fruit wine where the alcohol is a subproduct but when you mess with the sugar directly... ooh, scary.

Or maybe now after creamygoodnesses post, maybe they wrote the "only wine made from fruit" clause first and their intent was for "natural" wine rather than "illicit" wines of dubious nature ("this? this is my grandmother's old recipe for corn, rye, and ethanol wine"). Later they probably came up with the official definition and never realized in was in contradiction to the way the clause was written.

If so, it's possible that Zuljin is right that mead is "legal" in the sense that no-one intended it to not be legal and no-one ever noticed or interpreted it to be illegal.

But however it came about, as the law is written, mead is verbitten.

 

[motobrewer]

All these words said, and it's still legal.

I can agree that the law could be worded better, but not that it's worded to make home made mead illegal.

I guess the good thing about being from Texas is you can always plead stupidity. And it will almost always be valid.

 

[ronsky]

Sec. 109.21. HOME PRODUCTION OF WINE, ALE, MALT LIQUOR, OR BEER.
(a) The head of a family or an unmarried adult may produce for the use of his family or himself....

So... if I go visit a friend in Texas (stop laughing... I could totally have a friend) and they serve me a homebrew stout with a shot of whiskey to make a Boiler Maker, has he been in violation of the law?

Bigger point, and I bet one that we are all guilty of is the "for the use of his family or himself..."

So, yes if you drink it he is in violation (in the strictest interpretation of the code) since you are not the head of the household or a family member.

 

[Zuljin]

**SOMEtimes****?!?!?!?


I'm thinking that it's more likely that making it from honey or straight sugar was more like distilling and moonshine in the eyes of those living with the memory of the shadow of prohibition. They're willing to make exception beer and fruit wine where the alcohol is a subproduct but when you mess with the sugar directly... ooh, scary.

Or maybe now after creamygoodnesses post, maybe they wrote the "only wine made from fruit" clause first and their intent was for "natural" wine rather than "illicit" wines of dubious nature ("this? this is my grandmother's old recipe for corn, rye, and ethanol wine"). Later they probably came up with the official definition and never realized in was in contradiction to the way the clause was written.

If so, it's possible that Zuljin is right that mead is "legal" in the sense that no-one intended it to not be legal and no-one ever noticed or interpreted it to be illegal.

But however it came about, as the law is written, mead is verbitten.

**possible****?!?!?!?

And you can call the state. Call the guvnah. Call TABC!

Hey. That's a good idea. I'll contact TABC. And I'm so sure, I won't even use my usual double proxy super secret squirrel email from a Linux laptop at a public wi-fi hotspot email, like I usually do when contacting the gubmint.

 

[Zuljin]

I guess the good thing about being from Texas is you can always plead stupidity. And it will almost always be valid.

I'm not from Texas, but I got here as soon as I could. Your argument is invalid.

 

[motobrewer]

Bigger point, and I bet one that we are all guilty of is the "for the use of his family or himself..."

So, yes if you drink it he is in violation (in the strictest interpretation of the code) since you are not the head of the household or a family member.

Yeah, see, that's the same wording that screwed over Wisconsin two years back.

 

[mattd2]

**SOMEtimes****?!?!?!?


I'm thinking that it's more likely that making it from honey or straight sugar was more like distilling and moonshine in the eyes of those living with the memory of the shadow of prohibition. They're willing to make exception beer and fruit wine where the alcohol is a subproduct but when you mess with the sugar directly... ooh, scary.

Or maybe now after creamygoodnesses post, maybe they wrote the "only wine made from fruit" clause first and their intent was for "natural" wine rather than "illicit" wines of dubious nature ("this? this is my grandmother's old recipe for corn, rye, and ethanol wine"). Later they probably came up with the official definition and never realized in was in contradiction to the way the clause was written.

If so, it's possible that Zuljin is right that mead is "legal" in the sense that no-one intended it to not be legal and no-one ever noticed or interpreted it to be illegal.

But however it came about, as the law is written, mead is verbitten.

I think we have the answer with your last 2 posts, insummary:
Law makers are ****ty at making laws,
In some things to do with legislation what is written was not what was meant to be written
The above only comes out when someone complains about it - and the most common solution is to amend the legislation to what was obviously intended but messed up in the first place - until that happens everyone goes about their days technically breaking the law without even knowing it

 

[woozy]

I guess the good thing about being from Texas is you can always plead stupidity. And it will almost always be valid.

Now let's not get mean.

I think we have the answer with your last 2 posts, insummary:
Law makers are ****ty at making laws,
In some things to do with legislation what is written was not what was meant to be written
The above only comes out when someone complains about it - and the most common solution is to amend the legislation to what was obviously intended but messed up in the first place - until that happens everyone goes about their days technically breaking the law without even knowing it

um, I'm not certain that they didn't intend to exclude mead and if the did intend to exclude mead the law isn't poorly written. But if they didn't it is.

I'm more inclined to think that the legislature that actually sat down and wrote the law did so with reasons (or lobby pressure) to be picayune and arbitrary and that no-one paid attention from the beginning rather than to think that they did the law in a slap-dash manner.

I mean if you think about it, there's any number of reasons mead could have been excluded not the least being the spouse of legislature having a bug up her butt about vikings. Stupid laws have been writing for lesser reasons.

*hrrmmph* clothing and paper out of hemp can be abused by drug addicts and *hrmmmph*

Zuljin does seem to think I'm trying to state something more than I am.

So I'll goad him on with these pretty clear statements of Texas law:

1) It's illegal to give homebrew to someone who is not a family member.
2) If your spouse, parent, or other family member is the head of your household you may not homebrew.
3) It doesn't look like I can make rhubarb wine either... (Even if its the stalk of rhubarb is a fruit, which it isn't, you aren't naturally fermenting the juice as the juice has utterly no amount of fermentable sugar. )

 

[Zuljin]

No. Not at all. You're saying it's illegal and I'm saying it's legal.

TABC sent me an automatic out of office reply that said it may take 5 business days to answer the question. With July 4th being Thursday, it wouldn't surprise me it took until week after next.

 

[woozy]

No. Not at all. You're saying it's illegal and I'm saying it's legal.

yeah, but you seem to think it everybody doing it in public on a grand scale with well-publicized competitions and everyone thinking it is legal and no-one ever being cited for it and lack of precedence and reason and knowledge for prohibiting it, somehow pertains to its legality.

You seem to think its legality pertains to an iota of common sense or to the actions of the entire citizenry, law enforcement, and the courts of Texas.

 

[motobrewer]

picayune

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[woozy]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

meh... you're probably right.

...goes to dictionary....

No. It means what I thought it meant. I meant it to mean petty and small-minded. Although I was putting a pinch of implied "arbitrary" into definition which isn't in the word itself but implied from context.

 

[ajdelange]

....or beer is not distilled, fortified, or otherwise altered to increase its alcohol content.(c)

So... if I go visit a friend in Texas ...

The operators of this site have been advised by legal counsel to prohibit discussion of distillation because the servers are located in Texas. For some reason, discussion of freeze concentration is OK. I am confused.

 

[Zuljin]

yeah, but you seem to think it everybody doing it in public on a grand scale with well-publicized competitions and everyone thinking it is legal and no-one ever being cited for it and lack of precedence and reason and knowledge for prohibiting it, somehow pertains to its legality.

You seem to think its legality pertains to an iota of common sense or to the actions of the entire citizenry, law enforcement, and the courts of Texas.

I've been pretty clear and consistent that I believe it's legal because the law says it is. The rest was supporting argument.

Now, hold on to your honey combs. I'll brb.

 

[Zuljin]

Yes, the home brewing of beer and wine is legal in the state of Texas. Since mead is honey wine it is covered by the following section of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code.



SUBCHAPTER B. HOME PRODUCTION OF WINE, ALE, MALT LIQUOR, OR BEER

Sec. 109.21 HOME PRODUCTION OF WINE, ALE, MALT LIQUOR, OR BEER. (a) The head of a family or an unmarried adult may produce for the use of his family or himself not more than 200 gallons of wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer, per year. No license or permit is required.

(b) The commission may prohibit the use of any ingredient it finds detrimental to health or susceptible of use to evade this code. Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section. Only ale, malt liquor, or beer made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of malted barley with hops, or their products, and with or without other malted or unmalted cereals, may be produced under this section. The possession of wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer produced under this section is not an offense if the person making it complies with all provisions of this section and the wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer is not distilled, fortified, or otherwise altered to increase its alcohol content.

(c) There is no annual state fee for beverages produced in compliance with this section.



Sec. 109.22 DELIVERY OF HOME-PRODUCED WINE, ALE, MALT LIQUOR, OR BEER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. (a) This section applies only to a person who is authorized under Section 109.21(a) to produce wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer.

(b) For the purpose of participating in an organized tasting, evaluation, competition, or literary review, a person to whom this section applies may deliver wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer produced and manufactured by the person to locations that are not licensed under this code for the purpose of submitting those products to an evaluation at an organized tasting competition that is closed to the general public or by a reviewer whose reviews are published if:

(1) no charge of any kind is made for the wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer, for its delivery, or for attendance at the event; and

(2) the commission consents in writing to the delivery.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize an increase in the quantity of wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer authorized to be produced by a person under the authority of Section 109.21(a) of this code.



Please contact us if you have any additional questions.



Todd Talley

Management Analyst

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
5806 Mesa Drive, Suite 210
Austin, TX 78731
Office: 512-206-3305

Fax: 512-206-3349

E-Mail: [email protected]



DISCLAIMER: The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

 

[Zuljin]

Ka-boom! Boom! Boom!

 

[woozy]

And there it is *again*

Subchapter B. Section 109.21 (b): Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section.

---
Okay, so you believe it is legal because the law says it legal.

All right. I believe it is illegal because the law says it *isn't* legal.

And... !!ods-blocket!! ... THERE IT IS: Subchapter B. Section 109.21 (b): In black and white, plain as the nose on your face, or any other cliche, right there, it's *always* been right there!

Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section.

There! read that again!

Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section.

The law says mead is *not* legal.

 

[woozy]

...or does Texas law consider honey a fruit?

 

[Zuljin]

The answer came live and direct TABC. It's legal.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

If an overzealous police officer were to try to charge Zuljin with having illegal homebrew mead (and he lived in Texas), could Zuljin use the email he received from the TABC in court to prove that he was acting in good faith and within what was thought to be the confines of the law?