Befuddling Liquor Laws
In today’s New York Times, Eric Asimov steps into the bizarre and confusing world of U.S. liquor laws.
This topic’s been setting parts of the online wine world ablaze in the aftermath of a recent operation in which representatives of Wine.com gathered evidence of rival wine retailers illegally shipping wines to certain states (including New York), and reported those retailers to state authorities. While Wine.com representatives say they’re out to change these rules, the event has turned attention to the Byzantine tangle of state laws that came out of the repeal of Prohibition, more than 75 years ago.
Asimov writes: “The attention illuminates the tensions inherent in an Internet economy bound by post-Prohibition laws that created the three-tier system of producers, distributors and retailers, regulated on a state-by-state basis.”
As the interstate sale of wine and spirits has blossomed in the Internet era, the rules have only grown muddier. Asimov notes that a 2005 Supreme Court decision on interstate commerce in wine may have created more confusion than it cleared up. Wholesalers and distributors, who benefit from rules that limit the direct sale of wine from producers to consumers, are content to have the system remain the same, arguing that the three-tier approach helps protect consumers from fraud and helps keep alcohol out of the hands of minors. Asimov quotes Craig Wolf, chairman of the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, who says most people are fine with the current system, “except for a small, very vocal segment who say they can’t get their bottle of 1997 whatever,” Wolf says.
Granted, my primary area of interest is spirits and not wine, but there are times when I’m looking for the spirituous equivalent of a bottle of “1997 whatever,” and my frustrating state-run liquor system is just standing in my way. At these times, I turn to out-of-state retailers, who approach the world of online commerce in liquor with attitudes ranging from strictly-by-the-book to anything-goes. It’s encouraging to see that regulators in my home state of Washington are at least recognizing there’s a problem, as Asimov reports: “It’s very difficult if not impossible to enforce compliance off the Internet,” said Rick Garza, deputy director of the Washington Liquor Control Board. “We know it happens, so creating a license for it, and permits and requirements is probably the best course, rather than ignoring it.”
Clearly, the current system is archaic and confusing; clarification and a possible change of the rules are needed. What’s your take? Have you been stymied in your search for a particular vintage or bottling because of your state’s liquor laws? And are you concerned that changing the laws would lead to chaos for consumers?
About the author: Paul Clarke blogs about cocktails at The Cocktail Chronicles and writes regularly on spirits and cocktails for Imbibe magazine. He lives in Seattle, where he works as a writer and magazine editor.
View other entries from Cocktails.
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
5 Comments:
Well, Wine.com is off my Christmas list. While they argue they're bringing the laws they disagree with to light they're doing it by messing with their competitors. I'd have had a chuckle if they'd been slapped with a RICO case for repeated attempts to illegally import wine into NY state.
I'd love to buy whatever I want from whomever I want. But I was very much against the Surpreme Court's decision to force states to make changes for internet alcohol purchases. The states currently have the right to regulate alcohol sales in their state. I'm not comfortable with retailers in another state pressuring the Federal Gov't to force their way in. If your state has laws you don't like, you fix it.
I like to do my shopping at BevMo on Sundays. In some areas other than my own that's illegal. I have no right to lobby for someone else to change their local laws.
Alcohol isn't the only thing regulated on a state by state basis. Porn, BB-Guns, Archery equipment, pets and produce all have regulations governing their sale in different states. It should be up to the people in those states to sort out their own regulations.
IdeaRat at 8:05PM on 01/30/08
I wish there weren't so many articles quoting K&L in San Francisco. (There was one in the Miami Herald this week too).
I get my wine from them (ship to NYC) and I don't want the authorities looking in too deeply!!
pemabuk at 12:57PM on 01/31/08
@ IdeaRat:
It was actually the wineries themselves that "forced their way in" with regard to the 2005 Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case, not the retailers or wholesalers. SCOTUS' decision made sure that the states regulate per the 8th Amendment without violating the interstate commerce clause in Art. I. sec.8, which allows federal courts to strike down state laws that discriminate against interstate commerce. This is a simplified explanation, but I think it suffices without sounding ridiculous.
Basically, in the past, some states (like New York) prohibited out-of-state wineries from selling directly to consumers, while permitting in-state wineries to do so. Doesn't sound fair does it? Well, five out of four SCOTUS justices called out the discrimination here.
And I humbly agree with the majority; why not give all wineries a shot at making all consumers happy? Greed just might be the answer.
Susquehanna at 1:17PM on 01/31/08
Before I get called out on it, states regulate alcohol under the 21st amendment. I've got the 8th amendment on the brain . . . 'cause it's cruel and unusual punishment to disallow consumers the right to pay a reasonable price for the out-of-state wine we drink.
Back to work.
Susquehanna at 1:27PM on 01/31/08
And holy ______. "Five out of nine" SCOTUS justices is what I meant. I've got to stop turbo-posting comments. My credibility has gone to nil.
Susquehanna at 8:27AM on 02/01/08