Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Allows Direct Shipment of Wine
jrrl writes "For a while now, ordering wine (of the alcoholic variety, not the almost 0.9 variety) online has been a somewhat dicey proposition in some states. But today, the Supreme Court overturned state laws that disallowed direct shipment of wine from out of state. Their reasoning is that the states' 'authority to regulate the sale of alcohol within their borders' under the 21st Amendment does not supersede 'the Constitution's ban on state discrimination against interstate commerce.' States could still disallow all direct shipments, but at least they have to be evenhanded now."
Anyone else glance at the title and think: What the hell would a state have to do with non-emulation?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
This is an important decision. It will affect the lives of millions. Its obviously more important than things like..say..not letting completely unrelated 'riders' along on bills for something like..you know..helping our troops to survive in a battlefield environment.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
The rationale for getting rid of this holdover from alcohol prohibition is the Commerce Clause and the discriminatory application of the laws. It is about time that the government allows me to make adult decisions for myself.
Michigan isn't satisfied and is proposing banning all over-the-net wine orders on the flimsy reasoning that kids will be able to buy booze without government control.
When you have a weak argument, tell them you are legislating "to save the children".
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Actually, if you live in Maryland (or many of the other impacted states), this is a long overdue, worthy development. I'm just waiting for the state to cut its own nose off, and ban the shipment of wine including that of the (marginal) local wineries.
Never the less, I expect that those of us that build e-commerce web sites will have a few hundred brand new - if slightly tipsy - customers. With the patchwork shipping problem gone, many of the smaller operations will now consider it worth getting into the game. Thank you, Supreme Court, for doing the right thing on this. Cheers!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I guess we can count on the courts to protect us from those M$-biased, patent hoarding, big business Congressmen trying to shut down the open source movement!
Ok, I bet I'm not the only one who misinterpreted the headline. But seriously, why is this on Slashdot, and why is it under YRO? Are the editors even trying?
But consider this: It is a big loss for "states rights", because it says that states have no right to control interstate commerce that passes through their borders.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I am sure ze french are very 'appy about dis.
I'm not trying to troll here, I just don't see how this is nerdy, relevant, or important at all. Sure, this is good for interstate commerce, but the federal government has had a strong record of opening that up anyway. All I can see happening because of this is teen lushes in Pennsylvania getting wasted on Napa Valley wine without their parents knowing.
Please, if you're more insightful than me, explain what the "broader" issue is.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Is there a thriving business driving wooden barrells of wine over state borders in the USA? With the old trucks, and stetson hats and tommy guns?
Does the book keeper come along too?
OK, so my visualisation is a little close to the rediculous, but where I come from, nuclear weapons might get you in trouble.
But a bottle of 1986 Shiraz?
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
... free as in speech, or free as in beer?
I was so expecting to see an article about a Windows Emulator...I'm offically a hopeless nerd. Heh anyway...
My parents own a bar in Ohio. You know you'd be surprised the amount of laws there still are about these kind of things. I'm happy to see that these steps are being taken but really it makes one wonder about the state of interstate commerce.
That is plain wrong.
The constitution grants congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
A law regulating internet sale of alcohol will originate in congress. They might give some of the regulatory rights to states. Then it would be legal.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Maybe its the snarkish nature of me, but minus the Internet part....doesnt this seem like a court case that should have been decided in the...oh say, 1800s?
i know, i hate adequacy and appropriateness trolls as much as the next
but seriously, this story is pretty far off the mark of slashdot's focus, no?
am i missing something?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Kennedy, Scalia, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer... what a majority.
John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas against!?! When was the last time they were on the same side of the fence?
Maybe this court isn't as political as some seem to believe.
1) It is a significant advance for common sense application of the Constitution. The states were clearly trying to help out whatever local businesses they had that would benefit from importation restrictions, and the Supremes saw through it. Hooray! 2) It is a blow to the idiocy of state-imposed taxes on Internet retail sales. The constitution is pretty clear that states don't get to post import duties on things brought in from other states. However, the states have been trying to squeak past this one for years. Maybe with this decision to lean on, it'll be another argument to prod the Supremes in future legal actions to reject a sales tax on cross-border transactions.
Dog is my co-pilot.
the constitution's "ban on state discrimination against interstate commerce.'" Interesting. Does that mean that gun control laws that ban interstate sale of firearms or requires exchange only by licensed dealers are also unconstitutional?
--
Vote for your hopes, not for your fears - Vote Third Party
Canada is not a US state yet.
SB 877
Reading the text of the enacted bill:
Enrolled version
It looks like shipping direct to consumers from in-state wineries was also illegal, so perhaps the Supreme Court decision wouldn't have changed anything.
Why does this stuff matter to nerds?
Beep. Boop. Beep. You have questions. I have answers and your home address.
Living in Wisconsin (a state that currently bans the direct shipment of wine), this is a welcome thanks to underage drinking everywhere.
Now I can finally join the wine.com club and get my monthly bottles of wine without even using a front!
God bless the USA.
Thomas' dissent was about respecting the laws that congress had already established, the written letter of the constitution and the "protecting minors" angle that the states supposedly had. Beside the obvious fact that protecting minors was never a factor in this regulatory area, Thomas does indirectly invoke a good question. Where does too much freedom become a problem?
I happen to believe that morality means nothing when not imposed from within. Law and order can only accomplish so much and history has shown that the states that care about peace and that leave the matters of personal morality like sex and drug use to the church to deal with are the states that have the most peace. That's why some of us believe that the state's goal should be to maximize freedom to the highest extent without undermining law and order, even if many of the people don't want it.
For libertarians, this makes sense. Why not be able to have both unfettered school prayer AND legal drug use by adults? Isn't society better off when the individual is free and the government has a few defined tasks that it specializes on rather than becoming some monstrosity that has 50 bazillion departments that regulate everything from littering to education to the hair cut a toy poodle can have on sunday? Sometimes what the people want isn't moral or legal as it infringes on the rights of others without cause.
There was no good reason to keep people from being able to buy wine from other states directly. Part of the goal of the establishment of the federal government was to turn the states into a free trade zone. That's why the federal government has the exclusive authority to regulate interestate commerce. The "will of the people" had to bow to the law, and sometimes doing that actually makes the people freer than they may want to admit.
Part of the reason we have a constitution is that our founders did not believe that the will of the people often should be followed... and for good reason. It was the will of most whites for much of our history to keep blacks down. It was the will of most Germans to elect Hitler. Go down the line and you'll see that good men and women backed by good laws, not a democratic process, have carried the day for freedom and justice.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
If they're STATE laws. A federal law to that effect would stand, since the federal government is the one that gets to regulate interstate trade.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This ruling might be good news for some folks in the long term, but in the short term at least it doesn't help folks in Maryland (and from what I can tell most other states). The existing state laws here don't contradict the USSC requirements.
Useful links:
Wine Institute pages on interstate wine shipping:
http://www.wineinstitute.org/shipwine/
US Wine shipping laws, state-by-state, from Wine Institute data
http://wi.shipcompliant.com/Home.aspx
Status of Maryland state laws is that individual wineries have to pay a $10 annual license fee, and that only allows them to ship wines that aren't otherwise available locally, and then they still have to use the three-tier system (so they have to ship to a distributor/wholesaler who then ships to a retailer near me).
That's a pretty painful process, and it's not obvious that it produces a useful result. (If the wine is sold anywhere in the state, then it's not eligible for this shipping method AFAICT, even if there's nowhere within an hour's drive that stocks the wine...)
Needless to say, it's more likely that I'd have such a wine shipped to a friend in a nearby state, or just find a store in DC/VA with a better selection where I can actually buy that wine. But that doesn't address things like "wine of the month" clubs which might be nice but which simply can't comply with Maryland restrictions.
This case settles a conflict between the interstate commerece clause and the 21st amendment Passed February 20, 1933.
Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
well that alows states to regulate the transport of booze in their borders, but many states NY in particular were using this to bolster local wineries at the expense of out of state whineries
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
I wonder if the bottles will come indivdually wrapped in a paper bag.
Hey, it's good enough for Mentats!
- Piter De VriesShow me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Baptists (non drinkers) have been a major force behind attempted legislation to force all alcohol to be sold from local retail outlets. They claim it is so underage kids can't order their own wine and drift into a life of sin. But who really thinks that a parent would not notice credit charge bills or large packages delivered to home.
The real reason is to keep other adult Baptists from secrectly drinking. Right now, most "wet Baptists" have to drive 100 miles to buy their hooch at liquor store where it is unlikely someone will recognize them. UPS delivery will make it much easier to be secrectly wet.
"If you go fishing with a Baptist, make sure there is at least 2 of them" (e.g. if there is only one then he will drink all of your beer).
We don't want kids getting drunk and turning into alcoholics. Most banks and currency exchanges sell credit cards. All a kid needs to do is buy a credit card, they will sell them to anyone.
Are you smoking crack? What the hell kind of bank do you know of that gives credit cards to minors? You can't even get a checking account until you're an adult. Not to mention, when something is delivered that is of any value, a signature is usually required by the courier. Do you think DHL, UPS or FedEx are going to turn over a case of alcohol to a fourteen year old kid at the door?!
I guess we should require adults to show up at the post office to pick up condoms and their porno mags, too. Wouldn't want children ordering those.
Personally, I don't even care. Kids who are stupid enough to drink already drink and they do it without the internet. There are PLENTY of adults who readily buy alcohol for kids. Their kids, someone else's kids - even just a strange kid in front of a convenience store asking adults to bring them out a six pack.
(1) Nerds care about liberty, part of which includes freedom from unnecessary government fettering; and
:)
(2) Nerds drink.
[ home ]
no, kids will continue to get it like they always have: get someone else to buy/steal it.
When are the Supremes going to rule on Ashcroft v. Raich (the medical marijuana case) and MGM v. Grokster (if you don't know what it is, you don't deserve to live.) ? That's what we care about! (DISCLAIMER: I'm not of legal drinking age yet, so I shouldn't and won't profess an interest in this...it could well be overturned by the time I'm allowed to buy the wine legally...)
I hate the one hundred and twenty character limit for signatures with an all-enveloping, all-destroying, incredible pass
I do admit to figuring out how to get wine mailed to me back in high school however it was the 1980's and I always was an early adopter. So I do admit that there is the danger that some kid will get a hold of wine. Perhaps that kid will develop a taste for it and learn to drink slowly and appreciate the subtle nuances of the vintners art.
In all actuality though they'll make it into spritzers and use it trying to get into that neighbor girls panties.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
How many minors have you met that would be interested in buying wine? Beer, hard liqour and coolers yes, but wine?
LOL, this is a health issue.
Then why involve the government in the equation?
Gasoline is a central nervous system depressant that can cause liver damage due to naturally occuring benzene that is expensive to remove.
Do you propose that children should be kept more than 15 meters from a gasoline pump? Kids are exposed to gasoline vapors while their parents are fueling their vehicles.
How about spray paint? Care to legislate the use of that material?
The fact is governmental attempts to control the or abuse of substances is expensive and bound to fail. You can argue that the damage done to individuals from substance abuse is a burden to society, while I can counter-point that the money spent to arrest, adjudicate, and incarcerate someone would be better spent on treatment.
Goverments are not good nannies.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
This is great news for me seeing that was partly involved in the setting up of a online beer company whos main sales outlet is the internet and who have a Custom Label web app so you can create your own labels to put on the bottles .
.They also give you a share in the company for ordering the beer online and ship it via courier to your house only if you live in Australia of course.
,
The company is called Brewtopia and the beer is called Blowfly based in Sydney, Australia and they offer shares for signing up as member on the website and for refering friends
Recently they annouced they are preparing a IPO to list on the Australian Stock Exchange.
http://www.blowfly.com.au/ if you want to join up
Now I live in the US Blowfly Beer has been unavailble in the US partly due to the law of commerce across state lines
Great News for small wineries and microbrewers in the US and maybe even Australia .
LOL, this is a health issue. We don't want kids getting drunk and turning into alcoholics. Most banks and currency exchanges sell credit cards. All a kid needs to do is buy a credit card, they will sell them to anyone
I don't think so. Most, if not all states do not allow minors to enter into a contract without the additional signatures of their parents or legal guardians, and consider minors to be anyone under 18. What company will hand you a credit card without a legally binding contract?
Making the world a better place, one psychotic episode at a time.
I agree with this decision. It is not the state's business whether or not I get my wine from a liquor store or over the Internet. Despite their talk about sales to minors, the real concern of people who supported the bans on out of state direct shipments (and now all direct shipments) was/is the bottom line of wholesalers and liquor store owners.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Come on people...this court decision belongs on slashdot...don't y'all see that Internet Wine Sales are gonna be the next big thing? Who do you think are gonna be on all of the pop-ups!
What the hell kind of bank do you know of that gives credit cards to minors? You can't even get a checking account until you're an adult.
Prepaid credit cards are sold to people over 16, I believe. Same with checking accounts.
The legal age in this country is 18, so yes, they are minors.
I happen to believe that morality means nothing when not imposed from within.
OK. Agreed.
Why not be able to have both unfettered school prayer AND legal drug use by adults?
We have legal school prayer. The only issue is whether an authority acting in government capacity can lead it or not. But of course, that's not "morality being imposed". That's only the government telling you how to pray. Completely different.
Isn't society better off when the individual is free and the government has a few defined tasks that it specializes on rather than becoming some monstrosity that has 50 bazillion departments that regulate everything from littering to education to the hair cut a toy poodle can have on sunday?
Where's the poodle part? Not aware of that. The government has evolved to be big. How would you know how large it should be? Oh that's right, you're making practical decisions based on idealogical principles! How silly of me! We don't need any evidence that it could work in a modern society! Count me in!
It was the will of most whites for much of our history to keep blacks down.
For the first ones, it really depends on how you define "most". In 1861 (over 100 years ago, thus further than over half our history ago), a man was elected president from a new party founded on the basis of abolishing slavery. He recieved most of the popular vote. Most of the founding fathers were against slavery in principle, but saw no way out of it (many freed their slaves after their death).
It was the will of most Germans to elect Hitler.
Hitler never got the majority of the popular vote so I fail to see how that's most. His high was somewhere around 1/3. In fact, if the laws written in the Weimar constitution were actually followed, Hitler would've never had vast sweeping powers. But Hitler decided he didn't need a big government making laws and abolished the government by fiat He could do it himself! I guess you and he do have something in common!
(As a caveat, disolving the representitive body in England caused a civil war a few hundred years ago. The Germans had no such response in the 1930's, so maybe I'll give you popular acquiescence, but no doubt caused by popular fear).
Seriously, I enjoy your principles, but where you go with it and how you derive it are simply ranting. If I want sensationalism, I'll watch Jerry Springer.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
If this was about preventing the kids from ordering alcohol over the internet, why did it only apply to out of state sales? The answer is it was never about the kids, it was about protecting in-state wineries.
Youth should be taught safe drinking. They should learn to know their limits, and what alcohol can do to them.
After all, they're going to drink, so let's make sure they do it properly.
It's time for a drinker's license, just as there are driver's licenses and hunting licenses. You should have to pass a test (with both written and practical components), or you shouldn't get to drink.
In the absence of a drinker's license, kids will learn their drinking skills from peers and young adults, often those with the worst drinking skills. Bartenders, while often highly trained professionals, seldom have the time to instruct young novice drinkers on the finer points such as:
Until we properly attend to the needs of our youth, we won't be sure of the kind of society we'll become. The future of drinking, and our civilization built on its mighty foundation, is too important to be left to random chance.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
mod parent up +5, WEMON
You can just download it. Why make a big deal about shipping it?
Some people feel good about having a high-quality stamped CD, a printed manual, and a support contract.
Others just want to get a buzz :-)
The really interesting story here is that Juanita Swedenburg, a winemaker in Middleburg, Virginia, is the old lady who was irritated enough to challenge the law, and won. Middle class, they built their winery saving a bureaucrat's salary plus hardship pay. Nothing fancy. Proves there's still some room for common sense in the republic...
Then came Prohibition, and when that (thankfully and inevitably) failed we got the 21st Amendment.
The repeal of Prohibition lasted only four years. After the 21st Amendment legalized alcohol, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 in effect banned pot nationwide.
If you're not old enough to buy wine in a store, you can have it shipped to you?
That's kinda neat.
yeah it would completly "paralyze" the legislative process to seperate such things as a national ID system and an Iraq war spending measure.
in other news, supreme court reaffirms that it is the parent's responsibility, not the government's to raise their child
Newsflash: Your 16 yr old son could probably already get booze without you knowing it.
All a kid needs to do is buy a credit card, they will sell them to anyone. Then they go on-line, and order wine.
I just can't imagine many 15 year olds out there buying 20 dollar bottles of wine to get drunk on. Wouldn't they just get a 18+ friend to buy some cheap beer for them? It has been a while, but that is what always happened when I was in high school. Besides, the current law in many states allow internet sales of wine within the state so the kids could already do this; they just can't order a California Chardonnay. I am very disappointed that there are 4 Supreme Court justices that bought this lame "save the children" argument and dissented on this.
Doesn't WINE come with every Linux distro that's available in the world? I guess we need the Supreme Court (USA) to keep Microsoft from interfering with WINE. You would think with a few gazillion USDs in the bank that they could get their own booze.
Some banks are stupid and issue credit cards to dogs, albeit unwittingly.
However, kids CAN get debit cards which are just as good as credit cards. Failing that, they'll just get someone to buy the alcohol for them, just like what happens with almost every teenager who wants to drink.
The stupid part of the whole minors drinking alcohol issue is the idea they somehow magically become mature and responsible when they turn 21 (or 18). Instead of enforcing the laws against drunk driving and adding stiff penalties, they think they can somehow solve the problem by making it illegal for us to drink period.
A government by the people or against the people?
Consider some of the examples of Australian responses to problems with petrol sniffing or chroming. These seem to be directly related to your examples of spray paint and gasoline. Yes, people are considering restrictions on gasoline and spray paint as a way of dealing with the problems of substance abuse.
Governments may not be good nannies but they are a damn side better than most people at taking care of themselves.
When I was investigating a start-up, I began to read about all the different liquor laws across the country. Quite frankly, its insane. Here in Texas, certain beverage sizes are restricted to an uncommon size and wholesalers control the entire market. Alcohol producers cannot send product directly to stores it MUST BY LAW go through a distributor then sent on to your local store. Literally there are warehouses where all they do is unload the truck and reload another right there. Thank the Texas legislature and a whole lot of campaign contributions for that one.
s /news.html
If your really interested in learning more about the situation and how crazy it gets you can read this great article from the Houston Press (Houston's Counter Culture Weekly Magazine) here
http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2005-04-07/new
I think if you cut through all posturing what it comes down to is more about taxation than regulation. There's been uneven success at taxing the internet so there's going to be resistence to giving any part of a lucritive source of revenue.
You seem to presume that the only thing a government can do in response to substance abuse is to make it illegal.
That is what the legislature thinks, not what I think.
Well, why don't you put two and two together and wonder if the government has any reason to be involved in treatment and harm-minimisation strategies.
The recidivism rate calls bullshit on your argument. Convicts are users when they go into prision and are users shortly after parole.
Consider some of the examples of Australian responses to problems with petrol sniffing or chroming.
Why should I consider Austraila as a shining example of liberty?
Governments may not be good nannies but they are a damn side better than most people at taking care of themselves.
You just answered my question.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
"Wouldn't they just get a 18+ friend to buy some cheap beer for them?"
In America, you need 21+ aged friends to buy cheap beer.
The whole "activist" tag is just stupid. Any judge, faced with what they honestly consider to be drift from what the bulk of what law should be, is going to be "activist", because they are act upon their own legal theories. This applies to all political angles. (Think of the cases where judges have recused or resigned over what they thought was unjust law. That's an extreme version.)
Scalia is sometimes an "activist". So is the 9th CC. (And it is funny that the 9th handed him a massive lit grenade with Raich, and will be interesting to see what he does with it). But you can't fault him for consistency. I personally believe he is wrong a lot, but he is consistent. Most SCOTUS watchers (especially those who watch with an agenda, instead of professional interest or merely as a spectator sport) miss his nuance.
I personally think he and Kennedy are the most interesting members. (Again, not endorsing either of them; they're just, in my view, the most interesting.)
I forget what 8 was for.
Michigan's Governor Granholm has a bill awaiting her signature that would allow motorists to transport an opened but recorked bottle of wine from the restaurant where it was purchased and partially consumed to the buyer's home. This is kind of a no brainer -- "hmmm, I just paid $120 for this bottle, and we only had one glass. Chug the rest and drive home sloshed, or leave it on the table for the bus boy to drink?" (It's currnetly illegal to have an open container (even a re-sealed open container) in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, at least here in Michigan).
I am not left-handed, either!
And farewell Bandit. Don't these people know what their inconsiderate law-making is doing to the memories of cultural icons?
Nihil Illegitemi Carborvndvm
does this work with all alcoholic beverages, or only wines ? I do not see how it wouldn't work with all of them... so this must mean I can order some everclear now, maybe. maybe not :(
Does your 16-year old have his very own, unmonitored by you, credit card / debit card? Last time I checked, not many internet retailers took cash. The supreme court knocked down rules that prohibited interstate commerce. yay supreme court
Besides your kid should have to sit around in front of a quik-e-mart and ask passersby to buy for him like the rest of us god fearing americans! Back in my day we didn't have the internet! we had creepy guys, older brothers, and bums with state ID's! and we had to have them buy is cheap wine in the snow, uphill, both ways! AND WE LIKED IT!
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
...unless you want to get wet.
"Are you smoking crack? What the hell kind of bank do you know of that gives credit cards to minors? You can't even get a checking account until you're an adult. Not to mention, when something is delivered that is of any value, a signature is usually required by the courier. Do you think DHL, UPS or FedEx are going to turn over a case of alcohol to a fourteen year old kid at the door?! I guess we should require adults to show up at the post office to pick up condoms and their porno mags, too. Wouldn't want children ordering those. Personally, I don't even care. Kids who are stupid enough to drink already drink and they do it without the internet. There are PLENTY of adults who readily buy alcohol for kids. Their kids, someone else's kids - even just a strange kid in front of a convenience store asking adults to bring them out a six pack.
Proof that having a 4 digit user number != having a 3 digit IQ.
I am not left-handed, either!
Why should I consider Austraila as a shining example of liberty?
Because we're a hell of a lot 'freer' than the US is nowadays.
How about antibiotics? Should government be able to regulate the sale and use of antibiotics thorugh keeping them prescription-only with the aim of preventing resistant strains?
My first thought was, Aha! Supreme Court... Wine... favorable... and for a tiny fraction of a second, I was trying to find out if they had said something bad or good about alternative Windows APIs.
Of course, this all happened real fast. I'm happy with this one too, because it gives the "more freedom" result.
Convicts are users when they go into prision and are users shortly after parole.
What's jail got to do with it? You still seem to be presuming that you lock up all substance abusers. Maybe if you stopped them from going to jail (or killing themselves) in the first place you might have a chance.
Why should I consider Austraila as a shining example of liberty?
Because it's a veritable light on the hill compared to the United States of America where you worry about 20-year-olds mail-ordering a $240 case of wine instead of getting the cheapest malt liquor they can find in the local bottle shop.
You just answered my question.
What question?
LOL, this is a health issue. We don't want kids getting drunk and turning into alcoholics. Most banks and currency exchanges sell credit cards. All a kid needs to do is buy a credit card, they will sell them to anyone. Then they go on-line, and order wine. A few days later, they recieve a shipment at their front door. Find some house where the parents work late, and can collect the wine and go drinking.
Since when did kids have to order expensive wine over the net to get drunk? It is not a problem. Kids do not have that good of taste, nor are they willing to spend that kind of money when they don't have to. They will get ripped on anything at hand, including American beer. They are not going to buy mail order wine to do that.
This idea that this is to "save the children" is incredibly bogus. The real reason is to protect the in-state wine distributors from any competition.
Anyone who uses the excuse that something is to "save the children", it almost never is. There is always some other agenda in play. Most people are too clueless to see it, however.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
I was wondering why Amazon.com bought Wine.com two weeks ago. Looks like that investmet will pay off nicely now.
Prepaid credit cards aren't credit cards. They're just a proxy for cash you've already paid. Same goes for checking accounts; the bank already has the money, you're just drawing on it. If you've got cash, the bank doesn't care how old you are. But a credit card means you're spending money against your reputation, and that makes a huge difference: They want to be sure you're a legal adult and can enter into contracts and whatnot. That's why banks will virtually never issue credit cards to minors.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
From your subject, I was afraid you would try to argue that the US is a democracy.
Admittedly, this case had problems, regardless of the philosophies involved. I for one am glad that the Supreme Court decided to interpret the boundary between in-state and out-of-state commerce as it was intended by both the original Constitution and the 21st Amendment, by separating the concept of "delivery" from that of "sale".
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
LOL, this is a health issue. We don't want kids getting drunk and turning into alcoholics.
Yeah, I can just picture it now:
Billy: "Hey Bobby, wanna get drunk?"
Bobby: "Sure, Billy! But where are we going to get some alcohol? Sure we can fight in Iraq and kill people, but we need to be 21 to be allowed permission to drink certain beverages."
Billy: "Well, lucky for me I managed to get a credit card without them knowing I'm underage."
Bobby: "Cool! But won't stores check your ID?"
Billy: "Aha! You forgot about the internet. Tons of shops willing to sell you cases of wine."
Bobby: "Oh man, this is going to be great. Let's google for some wine sites."
Billy: "Okay, here's a good one. Lots of stuff in stock. How about a 2003 Pinot Noir?"
Bobby: "Naw, I heard that's a bad year. Now a 2004 Shiraz is just what the doctor ordered!"
Billy: "You fool! Only sissies drink Shiraz, and 2004 is much too recent to fully develop the subtle hints of oak that a good Shiraz requires. I say we go for a medium-bodied Cabernet Sauvignon, say... 2002 late season."
Bobby: "But all they have from 2002 is the leftover wines. Don't you read Wine Spectator? And those ones are decidedly missing out on the fruity overtones and smooth finish."
Billy: "Good point. Hm... how about something from the Napa Valley, I hear their 2001 Merlots are spectacular."
Bobby: "Excellent choice... so, want a case of it?"
Billy: "Yeah, might as well. We'll have some good leftovers for all those chicks we'll invite over! [chuckle]"
Bobby: "Okay, I'm just checking out... now standard shipping is 5-7 days, but for an extra $21.95, we can have two-day shipping fully insured."
Billy: "Do they do overnight?"
Bobby: "Apparently none of the couriers will take overnight shipments because it's so fragile."
Billy: "Okay, let's do the two-day shipping."
Bobby: "Done. Order has been placed, here's the confirmation number for UPS. Man, Wednesday night is going to be rocking!"
Billy: "Yeah man... I can't wait..."
Bobby: [stares at monitor blankly]
Billy: "So..."
Bobby: "Uh..."
Billy: "Hey, wanna sniff some glue? Then maybe neck a little?"
Bobby: "Sure, I'll go get the stuff!"
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
The US' way is supposed to be for these sorts of things to happen on the lowest level possible. If a town or city wanted to ban liquor, they can. If they wanted rules about restriction of sale of certain items, they can have that too. Doing it at the Federal level is a travesty on the intent of the form of government. It really isn't appropriate on the State level, either.
Yeah, it's a "diet" thing
The Raven
UPS would likely just leave it on the steps just like everything else. Signature required and otherwise. If not left on the steps, then left around back without a note, or in the bushes what ever they feel like. FedEx is a tad better... they ask you to sign a waver... then they always leave crap on the steps no matter the value. I have no clue about DHL.
But I can't say ordering spirits online resulted in FedEx... DHL... or UPS but rather a private carrier that charged an arm and a leg.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
You can enter into a contract at 18.
You can't get alcohol until you are 21.
Therefore,
You could have a credit card at 19, but still not be able to legally purchase alcohol.
Now it would also be very nice if this or similar decision was extended to cars. For now many states require local dealer to sell you car -- you can't just go online and order it from, say, Vermont. In order for online car seller to be able to serve customers in, say, Texas, they have to have local affiliated dealership. While perhaps "back then" it was a useful law, and a part of attempt to separate out dealerships and car manufacturers, so to avoid price gouging, these days it's simply protecting local tax revenue.
Hyperom.com
Here in Ohio I believe you can get carded to buy spray paint. I'm pretty sure they cut off spray paint sales for minors to reduce vandalism. Don't know for sure - I was already past 18 when it was in the works.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
Well, since America abdicated from that position it became up for grabs.
"Prepaid credit card" is a contradiction right there in the name. By "credit" you want to be able to buy something now and pay for it later, but "pre-paid" obviously means you already paid for it beforehand. The right term would be "cash card", or "debit card" for the ones that are tied up to your bank account.
Most credit cards encourage you to get extra cards for other family members. It will have the same cc number, but your kid's name. The adult gets the bill (so don't order $500 worth of merchandise from AnalBeads.com if your mom looks at her cc statement).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
With a cosigner on the account, you can own and use a VISA card online. I would know, as I'm a 15 year old with a VISA card that's linked to my checking account.
"Their reasoning is that the states' 'authority to regulate the sale of alcohol within their borders' under the 21st Amendment does not supersede 'the Constitution's ban on state discrimination against interstate commerce.' "
Therefore, I can order, online, legally, according to this ruling:
Prostitutes (though I'm not sure how she'd fit in a box, but I digress) Narcotics, explosives (fireworks for the 4th of July) and anything else for that matter because states cannot supersede interstate commerce! How about that!
I get all my wine shipped by Nicks Wines - http://www.nicks.com.au/ - The best site I have found for Aussie wines. They seem to ship internationaly too. I wonder if international trade agreements trump US State law? Can anyone point me in the direction of a similar US site? I wouldn't mind a couple of cases of some of that Napa valley plonk.
Actually, the wineries mostly would like to be able to ship to consumers in other states.
It's the distributors that have both the wineries and the consumers by the short hairs. They slosh buckets of money around every state legislature to stamp out direct sales. This is a huge defeat for them.
Too much Law; not enough Order.
while I can counter-point that the money spent to arrest, adjudicate, and incarcerate someone would be better spent on treatment.
And I can argue that that money would be better spent on one bullet and a tax rebate.
Why is society obliged to provide a safety net for drug use? Don't use drugs. If you do use drugs to the point that you become a burden to society, that's your problem.
We should do what the brits did with Australia. Let's create a Drug Treatment Reservaton by walling off a few thousand acres of Wyoming and suspending minimum wage laws within that area. If you get arrested and need drug treatment, we slap one of those electronic monitors on your leg and send you to the reservation. We'll let you back out after 2 years. Either you'll figure out how to survive without bothering productive members of society or you'll die.
Let's put drug addicts to work!
paintball
There are certain things that really should have more uniform laws nationally. There can always be problems when the laws are so wildly different in different places. It makes business difficult at times and could have a negative impact on the economy because of the costs associated with having to know what laws in what states affect your business where it maybe legal where you operate from.
...so my friend came over and asked to use the phone. I said "Certainly." He said "Do I need to dial 9?" I say "Yeah. Especially if it's in the number. You can try four and five back to back real quick if you want..."
Alas, poor Mitch. I knew him, Horatio...
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
Maryland? Or, Montgomery County? Last I heard there were only two states and Montgomery County, Maryland that had an absolute monopoly on alcohol sales. Since states trump counties and the Constitution trumps the states maybe I can now start getting good wines instead of the drech that the county warehouse distributes. Even better would be that the county finally figures out that it's fighting a loseing battle and they'll finally let Trader Joes start ordering outside the county channel and sell wine in their stores here like they do everywhere else. It just seems so, weird, that TJs is dry.
All online retailers have the responsibility to make sure the recipient of the alcohol is over the age of 21 in the US or 18 in Australia, this should be verified by the courier before he drops the the goods off.
.
Online liquor retailers could loose thier licence to sell alchohol if they dont do this
Maybe your state needs to consider a Parenting Licence.
I just can't imagine many 15 year olds out there buying 20 dollar bottles of wine to get drunk on.
Nah! For me it was Tennents Export. Tastes awful but cheap and easy to buy when your mate is the cashier at the local supermarket.
If you can't drink until you're 21 university must be *so* boring.
You're not from New England, are you? I remember back to the no so distant past when:
1) I couldn't buy booze in a package store in MA on Sunday (except for Sundays between Thanksgiving and New Years, I know, nuts). (changed in 2004 or 2003)
2) Retail Stores didn't open until noon on Sundays. (changed in 1994)
3) A company or person can own no more than 5 retail liquor licenses. This is why the Trader Joe's in Cambridge can sell wine/beer while the one in Swampscott cannot. I've heard that there are 5 Star Markets in MA that sell beer/wine...
4) Can't drink beer an bowl.
5) Can't buy a pitcher of beer just for myself. (Stupid Happy Hour regulation!)
That's all for now...
If only I could get FedEx or UPS to leave the fucking box. They always come when I'm at work. I live in the middle of nowhere. Just put it on the fucking porch! I hate having to call them and run into the UPS/FedEx office and picking my package up 2 days after they first tried to deliver. Hell, even if I sign the fucking slip and tape it to the goddam door, they still can't be bothered to leave the fucking thing.</rage>
Vile, but potent.
Local newspaper had an article about the descision, and the fact that it's not going to change much at this time.
I live in PA, and I'm not going to be able to order wine online anytime soon. The State Store is going to retain the monopoly as the sole distributor in-state.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That's just the law. Pretty much everyone on campus drinks, and drinks often, regardless of age.
The downside is when the state police and state liquor control board show up at a party and everyone bolts like they're on fire. In fact, my senior year, PLCB raided a frat party. People started jumping off the third story balcony to get away. There were crazy broken/sprained legs that day. But, I guess a broken bone or torn ACL is a small price to pay for a clean record...provided you can stagger away after you land.
Still one of the funnier sights I ever saw. It was like the building was on fire, or a bunch of lemmings scurrying off a cliff in a big long line. Craziness.
I posit the notion that PLCB raids cause more harm to the health of minors than alcohol. Stopping a college student from drinking is like stopping a college student from fucking. It isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.
When I was 13 (I'm British, legal drinking age is 18) we did a school exchange to Belgium and were very excited by the fact that we could buy beer anywhere we wanted. Except, the Belgian kids looked at us oddly whenever we ordered beer with lunch - once the novelty/rule-breaking was gone, so was the attraction.
Ever see American kids in Tijuana? Tell me again how prohibition discourages alcoholism...
Mad Dog. Boones Farm. I've never had moonshine but I know it's still prevalent in the South.
Dephine URL
The problem is that some groups are so big that legislators can get away with adding additional "benefits" to the bill because the people who might actually care that the particular legislator's pet project is a total waste of money don't live in that legislator's district, and nobody is dumb enough to vote against a bill backed by a lobby as powerful as the agricultural lobby.
Same reason we got the national ID cards - somebody stuck it on the defense appropriations bill, and after the beating Kerry took because he voted against a defense appropriations bill (nevermind that the bill was crap), ain't nobody going to vote against one of those things if they have ANY thoughts whatsoever of running for office again.
Democracy at it's finest: Prevent people from voting against stupid stuff by forcing them to vote against money for the troops at the same time.
paintball
Some of you might scoff because you have never tried it and it is virtually unheard of in the US. But Canadian wineries are producing some very good wines since they riped out all of the native grapes in the late 70's and early 80's and replanted them with traditional french varieties.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
It was IJ's lawers who made it possible to take this case to the SCOTUS and to win the case.
h tml
http://ij.org/economic_liberty/ny_wine/5_16_05pr.
Why do Americans:
a) have strange laws about what they should drink?
b) make the whole subject into a complex philosophic and political discussion topic?
c) think that anyone else in the world cares two hoots about the strange repressions which make US society one of the most hypocritical and self-centred on earth?
If this decision makes anything at all different for you (e.g., permits shipping of wine from out of state), then shipping of wine from inside the state was already allowed.
I don't see where the bitching comes in.
Lea
As far as I could tell, the most bored, miserable students on campus were usually those that drank the most.
Things haven't changed much now that I have a job.
"but I don't think they've gone that far."
Such touching innocence.
If you think that the alcohol industry is any more caring of its drug users than the cocaine industry or the opium industry, you have been watching too many beer commercials.
Does this apply to beer as well?
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
Give it time, little Brother, you'll get here eventually.
Black and grey are both shades of white.
Wrong. The ruling still allows states to prohibit direct to consumer wine sales (or direct sales of alcohol above FOO proof, or even go outright dry); the catch is, if they do so, it has to apply equally to both in-state and out-of-state wineries. The NY Law, for example, banned direct ship sales from out-of-state wineries, but allowed direct ship sales from NY wineries.
It's only a loss for state's rights in that they can't apply protectionist legislation to prop up domestic vinyards (or breweries). However that "right" was already supposed to have been lost around 1789, when the constitution (and the commerce clause) was ratified in the first place.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
How about antibiotics? Should government be able to regulate the sale and use of antibiotics thorugh keeping them prescription-only with the aim of preventing resistant strains?
Yep, but that has less to do with protecting the individual from themselves than it does society protecting itself from an infectious disease.
Lest you begin to think that I'm arguing that some crackhead should be allowed to steal to support their habit because I don't favor regulating what people do to themselves, I feel compelled to point out that theft is already illegal.
Putting someone in jail because they do drugs but keep themselves employed and refrain from stealing is a waste of taxpayer money.
Should we incarcerate everyone with a compulsive disorder? How about compulsive eaters? Some of them steal food and their lifestyle will add to the already skyrocketing costs of the healthcare system.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Why is society obliged to provide a safety net for drug use?
Or compulsive gamblers, or compulsive shoppers, or compulsive eaters.....
And I can argue that that money would be better spent on one bullet and a tax rebate.
I say we start with fucktards like yourself.
I'll use my own piece, thank you.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advise. Put down the bottle and see an attorney in your jurisdiction (preferably one who has also put down the bottle).
.
The repeal of prohibition is actually a grant of federal power to the states (and there are a couple more, such as the appointment of electors, notwithstanding what you were told in high school civics).
States have carte blanche to regulate alcohol, even if such regulations would normally violate other provisions of the Constitution. Prior to this decision, the only regulation that I can recall ever being struck down was the use of different drinking ages by gender (lower for women).
The states that banned out of state shipments, however, weren't regulating alcohol. They were granting favorable treatment to in-state wineries. Please note that the regulations were not of the "no wine shipments" variety but rather "no wine shipments from out of state wineries, but in-state wineries can."
Nothing in this ruling stops states from banning all wine deliveries--they just have to have the same rules for other states as their own.
Aside from such cases, states can make their alcohol laws as moronic as they want--witness Ohio, Pennslyvania, and Utah . .
hawk, esq.
basically anyone that cannot control themself. why should society pick up their slack.
darwin was right, until we put a stop caring for all the slow humans ofthe herd.
nature should be allowed to take over
Aren't most French wine grapes these days descended from California stock? Something about a couple of nasty plagues that wiped out most European grape stocks in the 19th century...
Or is this just an urban myth?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Just FYI: They have a form you can fill out and post on your door. I work out of my house and often have my headphones on too loud to notice the knock at the door. I have a signed release form that allows delivery to leave the box on the porch and mark the delivery signed for.
If it is a common issue for you, you should look in to doing this. Although if you really are not there, having the thing posted on the door is a nice sign to others that something juicy is about to get dropped off and left outside.
Yes Phyloxra (sp?) did wipe out a lot of European grape varieties and I believe that the solution was to graft the grapes onto North American root stock that was resistent. The actual grape varieties (Cab. Sauv., Metlot, Syrah, ..) are all of European origin however. The native grapes that I refered to that the Canadian wineries purged were things like Concord and Niagara. Some of the local native/french hybirds do such as Baco Noir are still grown and are very good.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Goverments are not good nannies.
What's your alternative?
Granted governments are imperfect, but look at the record. You use the example of gasoline and paint. What is no longer in either of these? Lead! It wasn't enlightened self-interest which took the lead out saving millions of kids from brain-damage.
Or take the case of auto accidents. For decades Detroit couldn't sell safe cars. Few manufacturers tried and they failed. But 10s of thousands of people were being killed every year. So "Nanny" had to step in. The results were immediate and today with many more cars on the road, we have fewer deaths than we did in the '60s.
Examples are numerous. Sure some people are still going to try to win a Darwin Award, but don't blame the government just because it can't ensure the safety of every citizen. Remember, dead people have no rights.
Similarly, over 90% of drug deaths in the Netherlands are foreign tourists. Making stuff 'generally available' makes it boring too, so I fully agree.
Now that it's legal to order wine from other states online, I'm sure some of you must have recommendations of good wineries. I'll start by tossing out one from Napa Valley, V. Sattui:
http://www.vsattui.com/
I find their reds, particularly their Cabernets and Zinfandels (no, not White Zinfandel, regular plain old Zinfandel), to be quite nice. Not a big fan of their whites, though. I'd love to find an exceedingly dry, oaky Chardonnay, so let's hear some suggestions!
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Best. Post. Ever.
I didn't know there was a perpetual release form to fill out, but I'm going to have to find it and fill it out so they know.
Luckily, I live about a quarter mile from the nearest person, with nothing but trees, corn and hay fields, and various fauna in between. I'm not too terribly worried about anyone keeping tabs on whether UPS is dropping something off or not. If they're paying that much attention, they'll probably also notice I don't lock my doors either.
Yes and cars cost $8,000 more for airbags and seattbelts now too. A friend of mine had a 1 year old car that was totaled after a relatively minor accident because all the airbags deployed.
All of this caretaking imposes a huge cost on society. It's always very tempting but it has a lot of unintended consequences.
We are smothering under a sea of regulations meant to protect us.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You say this like it would be a BAD thing????
For the most part...slow moving government is a good thing!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Kids need to know to avoid playing pitcher quarters until they build up a good tolerance.
Since when did kids have to order expensive wine over the net to get drunk?
Kids and most other people want the instant gratification of the purchase and consumption of alcohol and the preparation and wait for the delivery is unacceptable. Hell, even warm beer that an overage person can easily pick up anywhere is unacceptable.
Also, most kids go with more easily to get things like beer from the local store and things that are more easy to get like marijuana and cocaine. People _never_ check your IDs for the latter, and are more than willing to sell it to anyone willing to pay. When I was underage, it was much more difficult for me to get alcohol than the illegal drugs. I even liked the feature that the illegal drugs would be delivered to me, which was rare for alcohol.
Texas has the most dumbass laws about alcoholic beverages I have had the displeasure of suffering with.
Look at some of the stupid stupid stupid things they do with beers and ales. Defining a beer type by it's alcohol content is crap! A lager is a lager because it's LAGERED, not because it has an ABV of X. Ales are ALES because of the way that they're fermented...
The stupidity of definitions around beers is the same for wines.
Next, we need to take away the ability of a county to ban alcohol sales. Dry counties are crap, and it shouldn't be legal for municipalitie, counties or states to do such a thing.
There's a world of difference between protecting people from EACH OTHER and protecting people from THEMSELVES. If you can't see that, kindly move to Antarctica and leave the rest of the world for people who aren't morons.
But, what happened to the good old tennet of 'Personal Responsibility'? Hey, if people wanna fsck up their brains, and take stupid chances with themselves, hey, let them. It is not the governments responsibility to watch over you and your actions. As long as you're not doing anything to harm another...have fun I say...and also, be prepared for the consequences of your OWN actions.
I've often wondered if some of the reasons we seem to have more problems in society today is that through laws governing behavior, we've short circuited the natural selection processes? Perhaps there should be more people on the Dawin Awards list...and we are artificially prolonging bad behavioral traits?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Isn't it the case that shippers in the United States (FedEx, UPS, etc) already have policies in place for requiring an adult signature? I'm pretty sure that they've done that for years for things like beer-of-the-month-club microbrewery shipments.
No one bought the "save the children" argument. You can read the dissent to see what they did buy.
Stevens/O'Connor: The court should give deference to historical intent (specificly making a textual argument about the 21st).
Thomas/Renquist/Stevens/O'Connor: Past legislative acts immunize the states from the commerce clause vis a vis alcohol regulation. This is something that congress has the power to do, if it in fact did in this case. The 21st Amendment is consistance with the reading of previous legislative acts.
Thats my 1 penny summary at least.
Pax -- Ob
It wasn't enlightened self-interest which took the lead out saving millions of kids from brain-damage.
You are right, the producers of the lead based paint and gasoline had better (and lead free) products available, but people would not buy them as they were more expensive than the products containing lead.
So what did the paint producers, the gasoline producers, and the insurance companies do? They lobbied for legislation REQUIRING the elimination of lead in the products. When the laws were passed the profits of the paint companies rose, the profits of the gasoline companies rose, the insurance companies paid out less for care of lead-based brain-damage, and everyone was happy - except the end user who was paying more for what they needed.
Interesting that regular gasoline (with lead) was cheaper than unleaded - and that many cars could not run with unleaded because they had valves that would burn up without the buffering of the lead additives.
Interesting that the lead was BOUGHT and added to the gasoline, but the price of gasoline WITHOUT the additive was higher - and when the additive was banned, only the higher priced version was available. The gasoline producers saved money by not having to buy the additive, and made more profit by selling the same thing at a higher price. SWEEEEET!
Also interesting is that you can buy tetraethyle lead gasoline additives in auto performance stores over the counter for those cars that have to have lead to protect their valves.
Or take the case of auto accidents. For decades Detroit couldn't sell safe cars. Few manufacturers tried and they failed.
Good point. Why did 'Few manufacturers tr[y]'? because the buying public was being led by the nose through advertising (by the auto manufacturing companies) to buy the larger, more powerful models (6000 SUX!! YEAH BABY!!), not the safer, more fuel efficient models.
When there was more profit in selling land barges that got terrible gas milage, that weighed several thousands of pounds, and that were capable of speeds their parts (tires, brakes, etc) could not manage, then there was no point in trying to also make safe models.
Remember the cost/benefit rules the auto manufacturers live by - if it is cheaper to settle a few claims for millions of dollars than to re-tool to FIX a problem, the problem doesn't get fixed no matter the number of people killed.
Remember 'Unsafe at Any Speed' by Ralph Nader?
Remember when seat belts were optional and no one would pay extra for them? Remember when they were required in the front seat but not the back seat? If the back seat is so much safer, why not put the driver in the back seat 'for their own safety'?
Also, when an 'optional' extra cost safety feature is made mandatory, the playing field is leveled in that ALL the manufacturers have to include the 'feature' - and the base price can be jacked up to cover the costs.
The results were immediate and today with many more cars on the road, we have fewer deaths than we did in the '60s.
Interesting. You do realize, don't you, that the government allows MORE depreciation against taxes for large, unsafe, non-fuel efficient vehicles than for smaller, fuel efficient vehicles - which means the government seems to be advocating usage of larger, more dangerous, gas-guzzling trucks over the use of safer, more environmentally friendly vehicles.
[D]on't blame the government just because it can't ensure the safety of every citizen.
It has never been and should not now be the job of the government to ensure the safety of ANY citizen. The Federal government sould be most concerned with the interaction between the states - UNITING the states into the UNITED STATES - and with the interaction of this nation with outher nations and coutries. The states should be most concerend with the providing of infrastructure of needed services at the best cost to their citizens, not to the highest campaign contributer or the company most willing to hire the office holder when they leave office.
Damn, I am long winded! I am sure I had a point in there somewhere, if anyone finds it, could you point it out for me?
Thanks!
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
Additionally you run into the Texas problem here. Texas has this law. As a result people often kill bills on purpose by using useless riders.
Try E-Guittard. Scharffen Berger isn't bad either. A step down from both of those is Ghirardelli
"Would you rather have a playstation addicted dork wearing a star wars t-shirt?"
Adding lead was a cheaper way to bring up the octane rating of the gas. They weren't "saving money" by not adding the lead, then charging more. It actually did cost them more to produce the gasoline without the lead.
The problem with lead, and the reason it is a valid governmental purpose to regulate it, is that it is pervasive - you buy cheap gas and I suffer the consequences - I pay for expensive gas and it doesn't benefit me unless almost everyone else does the same thing.
Two days later, when UPS shows up:
UPS: "I need an adult signature, are your parents at home?"
Mom: "Billy, what's this?"
Boby: "Oh, crap! It was Billy, it was all his idea!"
A long step down. But not as far down as Hershey.
And the brethren went away edified.
Further, the kids might be able to order it, but most alcohol distributors require a signature of a person 21+ from the UPS man before he gives you the box...
I looked at this article and thought - that's interesting, I like drinking wine.
I agree with your second point - except that I am not sure that the Federal government has any business regulating it, it should be the state government or the pocket book of 'the people' who are doing the regulating.
On the first point, you are just wrong.
The gasoline in the 1920's was used in very low compression engines which were very wasteful of gasoline - but gasoline was cheap and plentiful, so who cared!
The car manufacturers wanted to sell higher compression engines in heavier cars, but the higher compression caused unpleasant (and damaging) knocking when using the gasoline of the day. Many things were tried to reduce or eliminate knocking - including Bromine, Selenium, Iodine, Anine dyes, and ethol alcohol, as well as benzine (sp?), sulpher, and other aromatics.
Tetraethyl lead was chosen for a variety of reasons, including the patentability of the process for making it. Delco labs was a pioneer in anti-knock fuel additives, and was swallowed by GM as their Research Division. After a time, the Ethyl Lead production was spun off as a separate company, the Ethyl Additive Corp.
From internal memos from GM, the process that produced tetraethly lead cost about one penny per gallon and was sold to the fuel distributers at three cents per gallon - for a net profit of two cents per gallon. The memos estimated that GM would have a profit from the production of tetraethyl lead of $60,000,000 per year BACK IN THE 20's! I have no way of calculating the equivalent in todays dollars, but would assume it would be significant!!
The production facilities were toured by professional chemists who were horrified by the lack of safety precautions. Even when 8 workers died from lead poisoning in the first year - the go-live had to be postponed when the trial runs poisoned the workes to the point they were unable to work on the live production line - the main concern (as stated in internal memos) was the bad PR which could reduce the demand for the lead additive, not the safety of the workers.
Bottom line, it DID NOT cost more to produce gasoline without lead, unless you figure the PROFIT from selling the lead additive reduced the cost of producing the gasoline.
Unless you are talking about lately when regular (with lead) was removed from the market in favor of unleaded gasoline. In that case, I would probably claim that the increase in cost (if any) would be in the refinery hardware needed to increase the octane (the anti-knock component of the gasoline), not in the production of the gasoline itself. In addition, the lead was used as a lubricant in engins with soft valve seats and would have to be replaced with another lubricant - or the valve seats would have to be made of harder materials that did not require the lead buffering.
On a related (but not directly) note, my fiancee buys the higher 89 octane gasoline for a '97 Jeep. I have tried to explain that the higher octane is not needed if there is no knocking, but she seems to think 'a higher price means it is better gas'. My thoughts on the subject are that, if there is no knocking, there is no need for additional anti-knock compounds (higher octane), the vast (or maybe half-vast?) majority buy the lowest price gasoline, so the higher octane - and higher priced - gasoline is more likely to be older with the attending greater possibility of 'stuff' (like water, gum, and other crap and crud), as well as a suspicion of pricing motives when there is, and remains, a $0.10 price difference between the lowest grade (87 octane locally) the mid grade (89 octane) and the highest grade (91 octane locally). As long as she is spending her money on gasoline, I don't care which octane she choses, but will continue to try to educate her.
Octane is added to reduce knocking - or premature detonation/ignition of the air/gas mixture. That means higher octane gasoline DOES NOT BURN AS WELL as lower octane gasoline - but we are charged MORE for the gasoline that burns WORSE. Interesting marketing concept.
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
I should have the right to choose my wine from any state I desire it. I can't get Missouri wine as far away as Arkansas. I cross a state line and I can't get it. I can get Arkansas wine all-day-long, but wine one state up is off limits. "Why don't you go to a liquoer store?", you might ask. I did. The distributors don't offer ANY wines from Missouri in Arkansas. It's a freedom of choice issue which is just one more example to show that only lobbyists can get laws changed. Even this change is not for the consumer; it's for the fairness of the businesses.
Do you really believe that anyone is worried about teens using this to buy wine? I have a teen and trust me, she finds alcohal if she wants it. The law states that she has to go to school. Guess how effective that was at getting or keeping her there.
If Nerds don't drink wine, then I agree with you, the article doesn't belong here. I do drink wine and am glad it was here or I would have missed it.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
I'm 22, but if I shave, I can pass for 17, easy. I went into a hardware store after shaving the day previous, and I got carded for some spray primer I needed for my wargames figures....
I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
I'm a penguin, you insensitive clod! Keep those retards on your own soil!
I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
Nice history of gasoline, but I'm not sure how it shows I'm wrong. To get more power out of an engine, you use higher compression, which requires higher "octane rating". If it was cheaper to increase that without adding lead, then why would they take a more expensive route? The consumer doesn't see the individual prices, doesn't care if those 3 cents goes to the gas station, the refinery, or the maker of the additive. All they care is that if they use a lower octane gas, their engine starts misbehaving (and I grant you that many just think it's "better gas", so buy it even when they don't need it - but that doesn't change that they'll still try to find the cheapest way to put out gas that they can label "91" or whatever). It wasn't adding lead that lead to higher priced gasoline, it was the requirement for higher octane gasoline that lead to higher prices - and they would have been even higher if they had done it without lead.
Once they started producing leaded gasoline, it's true that the engines started to be designed around that. Aviation engines still use leaded fuels ("100LL" is 100 octane "low lead" and has more lead in it than leaded auto fuel ever did - some engines have been certified (using a process called "Supplemental Type Certificate", or STC) to use auto fuel, and even then it is usually recommended that you run a tank of 100LL through it every 5 tanks or so). But it if were cheaper to produce fuels without lead, there'd have been a demand to use them, including building engines that didn't need the lead in the first place.
I don't know what kind of teenagers you hang out with but most are interested in alcohol bang for the buck and aren't going to shell out even $15 for a bottle of wine.
Anyone under 21 who has an appriciation for the good stuff is welcome to it in my mind. These aren't the people the law is trying to protect. Besides anyone who I've known who was under 21 and liked decent booze had plenty of older friends/relatives who would buy it for them.
In my experience teenagers get alcohol by having someone who is 21 or older to buy it for them or going to stores that are known for not carding.
As for direct shipment, most wineries who do this are small wineries selling a high-quality premium product. The issue they face is very often out-of-state distributors don't want to deal with small volume wines or producers. Not that it is much of a problem here but my state has been pretty good in the last few years about licensing specialty distributors. Then again my state allows direct shipment from most of the wine producing states. Probably something to do with us having the second largest wine industry in the US after California.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
I never said overbrewed. I do know the difference, especially since the process (toasting the leaves and the temperature that the leaves are steeped at) is very similar for tea. You can have your stroke now.
I happen to like my coffees roasted on the dark side myself. It is as much a matter of personal taste as anything else. In Europe and the Mediterranean basin you find coffee roasted anywhere from very light (just enough so that it isn't green coffee anymore) to very dark (nearly charcoal). I will agree that Starbucks tends toward the dark end of that spectrum but their coffee wouldn't be unusally dark for say Naples.
I've had lightly roasted fine coffee and still prefer the dark stuff myself. Now I will say that I try to avoid Starbucks whenever possible but their coffee is drinkable (at least their beans, drip, and straight espresso are I don't do the sweetend crap for people who don't like coffee)
Kiona 2002. I currently have 8 bottles left of the two cases I purchased at the beginning of last year. I'd currently sell them for far higher than what Inniskillin or Jackson-Triggs best ice wines are going for.
Ah Kiona, I'm familar with them they do some very nice non-ice wines as well.
I think I know how they get away with selling it so cheap. The growing conditions in much of Eastern Washington are nearly ideal for a number of grape varieties and the conditions are pretty consistent from year to year which means that nearly every year is a good year with little chance of crop failure (at least compared to Napa or Bordeaux). In addition the conditions for the formation of ice wine occur at nearly the ideal time every year in some vinyards. I believe this is especially true of Kiona's vinyards. Therefore they can put a certain amount of their crop into ice wine production with little risk.
Their 2003 wasn't as good in my opinion. Too much acid on the palate. Some wineries sell at higher price points because they can. Some wineries sell at lower price points because they feel like it and it is a good business strategy as well. I would sooner buy a case of really good $20 ice wine than I would three bottles of a $80 good ice wine. In fact, I bought two cases. Which winery made the higher profit off of me?
For whatever reason most Washington wineries tend to favor low price points for the quality and doing relatively high volume (not as high as E&J but up there with the higher volume quality Napa or Sonoma producers). There are very few of the sort of botique wineries in Washington doing super small case volumes like you see in California.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
It's a site that has over 1800 wineries listed (with more added daily) that helps you search by region and states to name a few.
Find out more about wineries in your area so you can plan a visit or purchase thier wine online!!
Thanks for reading this shameless promotion of my site!!!