More Wine Sir?

Blogging will be light for the next week as I take my finals. But for now...



The WSJ has this article about the recent Supreme Court Wine Case. Here's a nice quote:

Needless to say, the state liquor cartels aren't happy at the prospect of being cut out as middlemen in this lucrative business. But the arguments they muster are as weak as a white-wine spritzer. One is taxation; states may lose tax revenue if consumers can purchase wine over the Internet. Yes, that could happen, since Congress has enacted a moratorium on taxes on Internet sales across state lines. But why should wine be any different from every other product sold online?

You know the liquor lobbies are really desperate, however, when they argue that direct wine sales would make it easier for minors to obtain alcohol. Kids these days are precocious, but it's hard to imagine a teenager using dad's credit card to order $20 bottles of wine for a party a couple of weeks from now. In any event, measures already in place for blocking intra-state wine shipments to minors could easily be extended to interstate sales.

They do a nice job of pointing out the dangers of letting states regulate inter-state commerce:

If the Supreme Court lets states impose restrictions on wine sales, watch for curbs on other products sold online. A negative ruling could affect all Internet commerce in which a state can express a regulatory concern. Think automobiles or insurance or contact lenses.

Federal appeals courts in three circuits have struck down bans on direct shipment of wine; two others have upheld the ban. So now it's up to the Supremes to decide whether the Founders meant to exclude wine when they wrote the Commerce Clause requiring free trade among states.