Is that in comparison to the US? Because US food was cheaper than dirt in the past before all the food processing conglomerates decided to leverage their dominant market position to increase margins.
Many people already load and reload their own bullets in the US because it is significantly cheaper. Good brass can be used many times over and loading equipment consists of an arbor press and some dies. Regulation would make getting it harder and more expensive, but all you would be doing is creating an ammunition black market that funds criminal enterprise with a supply still too large to do much in hampering gun crime.
Responsible gun owners and hunter who practice regularly would be harmed the most because they use tons of ammo. Criminals won't because they might only shoot a few bullets in their life and usually from close range.
My state still has a ban on butterfly knives. As if doing some highly practiced hand flip move makes it more deadly than flipping out any other knife with a far more solid connection.
I wish I could believe that but many people are perfectly okay with curtailing certain parts of rights so long as they aren't parts of a right they personally use or value. Plenty of pro-2a people were fine with gun control when it was being used to suppress the Black Panthers. And also many times to "fight crime" with specific firearm features and configurations being illegal despite not making anybody safer.
That was true, but largely is not true anymore. When Trump was pushing a blanket ban on trans people owning guns, gun rights organizations come out in force against (while anti-gun organizations like Everytown didn't).
There are a lot of perks to drug dealing for low pay versus working fast food or customer service in a store for low pay. If you work at Macy's you always gotta look decent and be smiley and friendly, if you sell cocaine you can tell bad customers to go fuck themselves and do your work hungover and wearing dirty sweat pants. If you deal near or out of your house you don't have a real commute, can work any schedule you like, don't have to ask permission for any decisions, basically the same as many 1-2 person businesses except with unusually high demand.
Having seperate boiling points wont matter if they form into an azeotrope. Not all liquids can be distilled from one another even though every liquid has a different boiling point.
From what I understood ethanol and methanol form an azeotrope and boil together at a mixed temperature. And the going blind stuff is just prohibition propaganda both to make home distilled alcohol seem dangerous and to scapegoat the fact that the government was actively poisoning "industrial" ethanol.
methanol and ethanol do not form an azeotrope with each other, they only (both, each) bind to water. that's why separation of methanol and ethanol by holding key temperatures works at all.
furthermore, the azeotrope effect only becomes relevant at concentrations beyond 90% alcohol. so when you're producing pure methanol and ethanol, then distillation won't cut it beyond 90+% as water+(m)ethanol then *at these high concentrations* boil and evaporate together. that's the grain of truth in your statement.
last not least going blind from methanol is _very_ real.
Methanol will certainly make you go blind if you consume it at too high a ratio, it just isn’t a risk when distilling because you can’t feasibly make that happen on accident and it would be hard to even do it on purpose. I think that’s what parent likely meant.
To me it is just proof that modern capitalist markets are inherently flawed in serious ways that nobody wants to admit. Everyone goes on and on about market efficiency and liquidity and capitalism doing some sort of self-balancing act, but it repeatedly fails over and over again on both individual and larger group scales. It just seems closer and closer to simple gambling, using the wealth and capital of large masses of society, but with the potential winnings mostly just going to a small few.
reply