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."
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.
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'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.
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.
but seriously, this story is pretty far off the mark of slashdot's focus, no?
am i missing something?
Every IT person I know is also a wine nut. I guess programming and drinking large quantities of wine go hand in hand.
Edit that... Drinking large quantities of cheap wine that you convince everyone is better than the expensive wine. I had one buddy who went crazy over Chilean wines. He kept claiming their $8 dollar a bottle reds were better than most $30 dollar a bottle reds here in the states.
Then again, I guess to read his code you would have to be drunk. It is the cypher.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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.
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!
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).
Actually, it isn't Michigan that came up with that idea. It's the WSWA- Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America. They represent the middlemen who stand to lose if they can be bypassed via the internet, so they came up with this bullshit idea of "but the kids will buy liquor over the internet if it's sold that way". It's bullshit- they're just trying to protect their localized monopolies.
Posting anonymously since I do a lot of business with WSWA types.
In the 1800's there were few, if any laws. Then came Prohibition, and when that (thankfully and inevitably) failed we got the 21st Amendment.
In true American style, however, we couldn't grant ourselves a freedom without imposing restrictions. The drinking age was one that arguably makes sense (though IMO it should still be 18.) The rest are purely arbitrary and defined by the community, which is why some states can't sell liquor on Sunday, some states only allow liquor sales in state run stores, most (but not all) have cut-off times when it can't be sold at night. That's why can you buy beer all night in New York, but liquor and wine sales stop at midnight. And it's why can't you buy wine in a supermarket in NYC when California lets you buy anything in any store as long as it's before 2am.
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 .
There's an analogous situation here in Colorado: you can't buy a bottle of liquor on Sunday. The state isn't banning it to save your soul; you're welcome to drink your way to perdition in a bar. The reason? Sunday closing is much more harmful to total by-the-drink sales than it is to total package sales, and business overhead is substantially higher for a 7-day store than for a 6-day store. So bars stay open on Sunday, liquor stores close, and they're both happy. Every attempt to repeal the Sunday-closing law is shot down by the liquor business.
Same deal on cars, by the way...you can't buy a car on Sunday, and John Elway Toyota wouldn't have it any other way.
rj
Small wine/beer companies have zero chance to compete against the likes of Budweiser, Busch, Coors and other lousy products meshed with superior marketing.
Bull. It's a completely different market. The bread and butter of the microbrew market is not people that normally buy 30 packs for a Friday night. That said, all the big beer companies in the US have seen lower sales, partially due to the more discerning share of the market getting a clue (or yuppies wanting to be cooler, you decide). I know many bars/restaurants where I can get microbrews on tap... one small place in my town has 50+ on any given night.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
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.
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!
This has been done before -- but I think the last time was by Andrew Jackson. It worked out OK for him. His face is still worth $20, after all.
And the brethren went away edified.
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?
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.
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.