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..."
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.
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.
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.
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?
Because it's about your right to order wine over the Internet. One o' them new-fangled Internet thing-a-majigs that the evil nasty gummint doesn't understand.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
The alcohol business has a serious branding issue far worst than the computing industry. It's completely driven by marketing.
Small wine/beer companies have zero chance to compete against the likes of Budweiser, Busch, Coors and other lousy products meshed with superior marketing.
I cannot tell you the list of wine/beer that I highly prefer, that I will never see in any restaurant. Why? Cause they'd rather stock 300 bottles of Budlight that they can sell.
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
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.
Why does this stuff matter to nerds?
Beep. Boop. Beep. You have questions. I have answers and your home address.
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!
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.
Ah, the old "government can only do one thing at a time" and "the citizenry can only think about one thing at a time" argument. Regardless, this was in front of the Supreme Court because it was brought there by people who wanted to see it resolved. If you think you can make a lucid case for congress not welding multiple topics into single bills/acts... have fun! That will never happen without an amendment, and that won't happen because it would completely paralyze the legislative process. Many bills, by definition and out of practical necessity, address several, dozens, or hundreds of "issues" at once. Constitutional language that would split the hairs on what is or is not a separate (enough) issue would be nearly impossible.
How about just voting for people that will carry on in a way more to your liking? And how about pursuading more people to do the same? That beats the hell out of during the legislative process into an unworkable stream of micro-incremental bits and pieces.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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
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).
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 .
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.
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.
One can argue that software engineering is a flawed enough system without using it as a model for unrelated activities, but I think that a requirements gathering process would be useful in the legislative process in the U.S.A.
Each bill should have a well-defined purpose and anything that doesn't deal with that purpose should be eliminated. There must be other means of compromise in the Congress besides the practice of lumping unrelated issues into budget approvals and omnibus acts.
When I purchase a sandwich at a deli, I don't expect to have to pay for aluminum siding, so why does a bill about funding for troops in Iraq have to have unfunded federal mandates on driver's licenses?
The biggest problem here is that states have lost their sovreignty in the pursuit of federal funding.
90% of everything is crap. Also, crap is relative.
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
Each bill should have a well-defined purpose and anything that doesn't deal with that purpose should be eliminated. There must be other means of compromise in the Congress besides the practice of lumping unrelated issues into budget approvals and omnibus acts.
The problem with this is most bills could never be passed because the consituency for many problems isn't large enough to push the bill through. (I guess some would argue that that would be a good thing, but I am not one of them.) For example, a typical bill related to agriculture only affects states with large farming industries, but there are plenty of people who couldn't care less. So to bring other groups on board, you have to add additional benefits to the bill. This is what happens when you have to get 535 people to come to an agreement on something.
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.
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.
Come out to Denver some time. I believe we have more microbreweries per capita than anywhere else in the US, as well as The Great American Beer Festival (http://www.beertown.org/events/gabf/index.htm).
Derek
Don't Panic...
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
I live in Montgomery County, which, indeed, feels like a Mafia-owned town when it comes to wine sales. It's incredible that my trips to Virginia (where my data center is) double as opportunities to get real wine at real prices, but make me a felon as I drive back to my house. From what I can tell, this will make all of that moot (as long as I'm willing to pay freight to my door - I don't know that this will help with TJs!). About. Freaking. Time.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
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.
The argument for red/purple grape juice has to do with the higher antioxidant levels apparently present, but you can get higher levels in artichokes, beans, and other things. Lycopene is another buzz topic, so if you want lots of that eat tomatoes and watermelon.
Basically the best health advice has always been to take things in moderation, and to eat healthy and exercise. I find it amazing the power of will millions of people have to stick to crazy diets and programs when all they need to do is adhere to the above advice.
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.
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.