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.
States never, ever had the right to regulate interstate commerce. That power is reserved for congress.
The reason why is when we had the Articles of Confederation, every state regulated commerce, and it was a clusterfuck. It was like dealing with foriegn nations, all with their own tarrifs and trade policies.
This law has nothing to do with state rights, because it was never a state rights issue.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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.
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!
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.
I don't get why it even matters. I mean, why should wine be any different than computer equipment, condoms, flowers or pepperidge farms gift baskets? Why should any of them be restricted (or for that matter, why shouldn't ALL of them be restricted).
It doesn't matter, and that's the point that the Supreme Court just hammered home. The real essence of this is that a state can do a lot of things to regulate what (and how) things can be sold in their state, but they can't do so in a way that discriminates against people in other states (people, in this case, being winemakers selling across the border). So, you can let everyone sell wine, or no one. But the patchwork of crazy regulations was definately restricting commerce in an asymmetrical (and unconstitutional) way.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No, the laws regulating intersate firearms sales and shipments are Federal.
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).
but what I want to know is why would people buy wine over the internet?
Let's see: you've been on a trip to Napa Valley and went to a small vineyard there and bought a few bottles of a wine you enjoyed. Now back home, you'd like to get more of the same wine but can't find it at a retailer locally.
BTW, I don't really understand your comments: does the coffee taste the same everywhere (Mc Donalds, local Mom&Pop, Starbucks)? Is a burger from McDonalds the same as a burger from a fancy restaurant? I agree that some places are overrated but quality is something you have to pay for (not overpay though...)
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!"
Most people I know who are wine geeks are also food geeks: they are very palate oriented, love trying new tastes and new combinations. And wine is just another vector of exploration.
Starbucks is crap. Most coffee drinkers will agree on that they burn their beans. I wouldn't say music is easily comparable in good or bad for one genre or another.
Wine: there are some really crap wines out there. The only people who drink them are drinking it to get drunk. I didn't drink wine regularly until two years ago because I valued my brain cells over the poor quality of wines that I came across. I still don't like dry wines. But give me a nice ice wine or port and I'm quite happy. In fact, I spent last year's vacation in Portugal to explore ports. There are many things which make up a wine which aren't even present in the cheap crap: fruitiness (whether it tastes like bing cherries or apricots or pear even), acid, tannin, and how these are balanced. A lot of wines I try out are a little too high in acid to be drunk alone, but apply that acid to a pairing with cheese and it's the perfect compliment.
But back to your question of why would people buy wine over the internet: because their favorite wine is X miles away and they don't want to travel for it. There are really good wines that are sold a three hours drive away from me and I buy them over the internet because shipping is cheaper than the gas it would cost me to get up there and back. There are wines 400 miles away from me and in a different state and it would be great if I could get that specific wine that I like over the internet rather than have to travel there or order through a wine club with a heavy mark up.
And good wine isn't necessarily expensive either. I've found incredible ice wines at $20 where the average price goes for $60.
Life's too short for crap wine, killing brain cells with crap wine, and periods of time you don't remember because you were drunk off your ass (and excuses to act that way in the first place).
I'd have to know your niche to be able to make a comparison to explain. I'd say it is why a particular distro of linux is favored more than others.. and why all distros of linux are above and beyond your vending machine windows box.
Dong ma?
"Would you rather have a playstation addicted dork wearing a star wars t-shirt?"
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.
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.
Section 2 of the 21 amendment allows states to regulate the interstate commerce of wine to some extent (the extent of which was at issue today):
The question then is not whether states can regulate the importation of wine, but the extent of the states' power to declare which importation is "in violation of the laws thereof." The Supreme Court held today that this was intended to reflect the intent of the framers of this amendment that the normal dormant commerce clause analysis was to apply, that is, states can't discriminate against the products of other states but may generally regulate interstate commerce if done without discrimination and for a valid purpose (here, provided by the 21st amendment itself).
IAAL.
sig my booty, check my website
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
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."
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.