Supreme Court Allows Direct Shipment of Wine 448
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."
Yeah, yeah, yeah... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah... (Score:5, Funny)
WINE == Wine Is Not an Emulator.
Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah... (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, It took a few seconds to realize 'they're talking about wetware here, not software.'
Commerce Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:Commerce Clause (Score:5, Informative)
The supreme court merely ruled that states could not treat intra-state state sales differently from out of state sales.
The ruling preserves state control over this issue as long as the policy doesn't discriminate against out of state sellers.
see: http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/05/suprem
Re:Commerce Clause (Score:5, Informative)
It's fundamental to the way the US economic system was set up that the States are prohibited from acting in a protective manner over their industries with regard to other States. You can't charge a tarriff, for example, when you import cars into California from Detroit. What a State can do is regulate the way something is sold within its borders. It seems to me Section 2 of the 21st Amendment was put there to overcome objections from those States that wanted to remain dry after Prohibition was repealed for everyone else. I think the Supremes are holding them to this. States are still allowed to prohibit mail-order booze -- but they must prohibit all of it, not allow it from in-state producers and not those from out-of-state. Many of these laws (IIRC) were frankly written to protect local wine producers. That ain't allowed.
I agree that Michigan's desired ban seems silly. But if that's what they want, they can have it. The idea that people have the right and responsibility to mostly regulate their own local affairs as they see fit is basic to our federal system. That's why we have a federal government and not a national government. (It's been acting more like the latter than the former lately. That's no reason to wish it could when we want it to -- to, say, force Michigan to allow Internet wine sales -- and similtaneously wish it wouldn't when we don't -- in, for example, the way some "homeland security" issues are being handled.)
Re:Commerce Clause (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Commerce Clause (Score:3, Informative)
The Court can fine the bejesus out of you if you don't comply. I vaguely remember that the Judge who decreed that Nixon had to hand over the Watergate tapes was asked what he would do if Nixon refused. The judge replied that he would fine him enough to essentially bankrupt him.
Not sure why the courts didn't do that in the Jackson case. Maybe because the case involved the State of Geor
Re:Commerce Clause (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:2, Interesting)
Consider some of the examples of Australian responses to problems with petrol sniffing [abc.net.au] or chroming [theage.com.au]. These seem to be directly related to your examples of spray paint and gasoline.
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:2)
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
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:3, Informative)
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"
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:2)
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?
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:5, Funny)
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!"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:3, Interesting)
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 aft
Re:Err wine? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Commerce Clause (Score:5, Funny)
Ahhh, but we were one step ahead of you. We've completed the trace and the leg breaking is on its way. That'll teach you to post comments on Slashdot disparaging the WSWA. Bwahahahahaha
The Geek/Wine Interface Is Now Complete (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:The Geek/Wine Interface Is Now Complete (Score:2)
Re:Maryland? Or, Montgomery County? (Score:3, Informative)
Lets Drink! Opps. Sorry, was that your SISTER? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Lets Drink! Opps. Sorry, was that your SISTER? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Lets Drink! Opps. Sorry, was that your SISTER? (Score:2)
States have never had the right to control strictly interstate commerce. The Constitution says that outright, granting that power to the Federal government, not the states. That's what the Court recognized here. This isn't to say the states can't regulate commerce in wine or alcoholic beverages in general. They can apply any rules they want to the sale of wines, it's just that only the Federal government can create rules that apply specifically to wines shipped between states. If the state wants to make a l
Re:Lets Drink! Opps. Sorry, was that your SISTER? (Score:3, Informative)
The states can still regulate the sale of alcohol within their borders.
They are just prohibited from applying the law in a manner that is discriminatory to out-of-state vendors.
Re:Lets Drink! Opps. Sorry, was that your SISTER? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lets Drink! Opps. Sorry, was that your SISTER? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Lets Drink! Opps. Sorry, was that your SISTER? (Score:3)
The stigma of 'shitty American beer' could be brought low in short order if people had access to some of the fine brews coming out of Washington and Oregon. Some of the best spirits come from small, passionate producers, and eliminating the mass distribution requirement only encourages good product. We've got some of the best hops and brewers in the world around here, and nobody but the locals know it.
Oh shit, I've said too much. Don't co
So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Please, if you're more insightful than me, explain what the "broader" issue is.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
My Dad's friend actually had 2 cases of wine sent to my Aunt's house while we were on vacation there because it was easier and cheaper since you couldn't get it from the state store, even by ordering it.
The law only seems to affect larger orders, unlike what kids order, kids don't go and order 12 bottles of wine. And if they want one bottle of wine, they could buy it off e-bay or some crap. Shipping 1 bottle is not a real problem because who would want to complain about one bottle being shipped, its like stopping someone for going just 1 mph over the amount a police officer can stop you at, its being a dick and a nitpick.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Informative)
Now why is it on slashdot? I guess one of the editors likes wine.
I like it because it provides the opportunity to g
Re:So what? (Score:2)
It's been a big gripe of mine for several years that I was unable to get certain wines (meads, mostly) that I wanted because it was illegal to ship them to my home.
Now I can finally get it again without having to futz with convincing the local stores to order it for me.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
As a French living in Santa Barbara, I do appreciate quality food and wine and there's plenty to choose from around here and there's even some of them fancy restaurants in town.
I was just trying to relate to the poster I was responding to as he/she obviously hasn't developped appreciation for the finer foods or drinks or hasn't been exposed to them yet. Maybe I
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Not that I have this problem in Australia, but I can give you one beauty of buying wine over the internet: corporate liquidation (no pun intended) auctions. We have a company here that deals with a lot of corporate failures that was (is still?) auctioning a fair whack of wine. I bought a dozen bottles of something (for the price, I wasn't picky!) that had a RRP of $25 each bottle and the dozen
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Wheres Elliot? (Score:4, Funny)
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?
Wow that caught me off guard (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Get it right, it is the constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Get it right, it is the constitution (Score:3, Informative)
And si
Re:Get it right, it is the constitution (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3)
try 1930 something (Score:3, Informative)
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 st
Re:try 1930 something (Score:2)
-If
slashdot, news for lawyers? (Score:2)
but seriously, this story is pretty far off the mark of slashdot's focus, no?
am i missing something?
Re:slashdot, news for lawyers? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:slashdot, news for lawyers? (Score:2)
I wish that someone would take the Feds to task on their belief that they somehow have jurisdiction if someone grows pot in his closet.
The Federal government goes so far beyond its Constitutional mandate it makes me sick. It's as though the executive and legislature have had someone rip the 10th Amendment out of their pock
Justices Vote Was Surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Justices Vote Was Surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, this particular 5-4 split has not happened in the past ten years
However, within 5-4 decisions, Stevens and Thomas agree about 16 percent of the time.
Scalia was clearly the swing-vote on this case
"Although Scalia is no fan of the dormant commerce clause, he has written that:
Since the state laws in question here demonstrably fell into the former category, and we can infer that Scalia was not persuaded by Thomas' account of the 21st amendment, stare decisis required him to vote to strike down these laws." (http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/05/supre
Re:Justices Vote Was Surprising (Score:2)
Scalia and Thomas are both pathetic shills for their politics, one loudmouthed, the other introverted, but they are equally bad.
Re:Justices Vote Was Surprising (Score:2)
Re:Justices Vote Was Surprising (Score:2)
The Institute for Justice [ij.org] does great work. They're basically the libertarian version of the ACLU. Congrats to them on their victory in court.
Gun control? (Score:4, Insightful)
You Could Probably Make that Argument... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gun control? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gun control? (Score:5, Insightful)
Texas also prohibited shipments from out-of-state (Score:4, Interesting)
SB 877 [state.tx.us]
Reading the text of the enacted bill:
Enrolled version [state.tx.us]
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.
So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Two reasons (Score:2)
(2) Nerds drink.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
It's the basic dilemma of democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Please support your argument with real facts (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Wish it helped me more in Maryland (Score:4, Informative)
Useful links:
Wine Institute pages on interstate wine shipping:
http://www.wineinstitute.org/shipwine/ [wineinstitute.org]
US Wine shipping laws, state-by-state, from Wine Institute data
http://wi.shipcompliant.com/Home.aspx [shipcompliant.com]
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.
Thunderbird (Score:2)
I wonder if the bottles will come indivdually wrapped in a paper bag.
Hey, it's good enough for Mentats!
- Piter De Vries
The Baptists will be/get pissed. (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re:The Baptists will be/get pissed. (Score:5, Funny)
What's the difference between a Baptist and a Catholic?
The Catholic will say "hi" to you in the liquor store.
(I grew up going to a Baptist church...)
S
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Baptists will be/get pissed. (Score:2)
I'm just wondering how tax will work since most states want to increase the hell out of sin taxes (Pun intended).
Re:The Baptists will be/get pissed. (Score:3, Informative)
Read it carefully (Score:2)
I do admit to figuring out how to get wine mailed to me back in high school however it was the 1980's
This explicitly DOESN'T legalize it everywhere. (Score:4, Informative)
About time America (Score:3, Interesting)
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/ [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 .
Good (Score:2)
Doesn't anyone care about safety? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Doesn't anyone care about safety? (Score:2)
So, let me get this straight. (Score:2)
That's kinda neat.
Re:So, let me get this straight. (Score:2)
I'm not a huge wine fan, though.
Say what... (Score:2, Funny)
Want to blow your mind...go read liquor laws (Score:5, Informative)
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
Now I get it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Whew... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whew... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Whew... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Whew... (Score:3, Informative)
Derek
Re:Whew... (Score:2)
Why this is on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yay (Score:3, Insightful)
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 weldin
Re:yay (Score:3, Insightful)
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 san
Re:yay (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:WOOT!!! (Score:4, Funny)
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!