Comments on: Prohibition redux?

CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh explains why lobbyists for alcohol distributors are fighting the legalization of direct Internet shipping.

Prohibition redux

I think it should be legal to order beer, (a legal substance) online, I am a beer connoisuer, and would like to be able to access any beer I please, and have it shipped to me, as I know others like me would also support. thanks!

Prohibition Redux

Amen to that, Joe.

Prohibition redux

I think it should be legal to order beer, (a legal substance) online, I am a beer connoisuer, and would like to be able to access any beer I please, and have it shipped to me, as I know others like me would also support. thanks!

Prohibition Redux

Amen to that, Joe.

21st Amendment

While your comments make perfect economic sense, Declan, there's a constitutional problem here. The "sales to minors" claim is a red herring, but states rights under the constitution is not. If the commerce clause governed, I think the outcome would be the rational one. But here, the compromise that led to the 21st Amendment gives states almost carte blanche in regulating booze. And it is a fundamental principal of construction that the specific governs the general, so the 21st will probably be interpreted as a carve-out from commerce clause authority of the federal government to step in and regulate or deregulate. Of course the states still have a sticky problem of enforcement.

21st Amendment

The issue is not whether or not the 21st Amendment allows states to regulate alcohol -- clearly, it does. The issue is whether states can discriminate against out of state shippers, which is prohibited by the Commerce Clause. If a state treated all alcohol the same way, then there would not be an issue. It seems likely that the Court will rule that a state may regulate alcohol as it sees fit, but it may not violate other provisions in the Constitution when so doing.

[Ubber geek]

fundamental principal

http://www.analogstereo.com/plymouth_voyager_owners_manual.htm

21st Amendment

While your comments make perfect economic sense, Declan, there's a constitutional problem here. The "sales to minors" claim is a red herring, but states rights under the constitution is not. If the commerce clause governed, I think the outcome would be the rational one. But here, the compromise that led to the 21st Amendment gives states almost carte blanche in regulating booze. And it is a fundamental principal of construction that the specific governs the general, so the 21st will probably be interpreted as a carve-out from commerce clause authority of the federal government to step in and regulate or deregulate. Of course the states still have a sticky problem of enforcement.

21st Amendment

The issue is not whether or not the 21st Amendment allows states to regulate alcohol -- clearly, it does. The issue is whether states can discriminate against out of state shippers, which is prohibited by the Commerce Clause. If a state treated all alcohol the same way, then there would not be an issue. It seems likely that the Court will rule that a state may regulate alcohol as it sees fit, but it may not violate other provisions in the Constitution when so doing.

[Ubber geek]

fundamental principal

http://www.analogstereo.com/plymouth_voyager_owners_manual.htm

[MSGOLD406]

Poor, poor baby....

You can't get your bottle.

Let me ask you questions: Why should you treat wine differently than beer or spirits? Because that is your drink of choice? Because it pumps up the difference (in YOUR arguement) between you and the underage drinker?
There is order in the universe. The 21st ammendment protects that order.
The basic concept of your plight is not choice because the phenomen of your crusade has been a recent one....when in fact more and more choices have become available. Price? No, the shippers take up the difference. It all comes down to a few 'PRIMA DONNAS' that want their special hard-to-get-wine. BULLETIN: If a thousand people want a wine that produces a grand total of 300 bottles, 700 people are NOT getting wine... in or out of the Three Tier System!!! Wake up.

Cheers....
Mickael S. Goldman
Wine Salesman
New Jersey

[drcocktail]

Baby out with the bathwater

Whereas it may appear Declan is speaking of wine, and the popularity of wine makes it a fine central topic point, I am not, solely, nor is the proposed ruling. I am interested in Spirits first and wine second. If I could buy what I want locally it would be a moot point, but I can't. You can bandy about the term "prima donna" all you want, but in fact, that is the face YOU are showing by attempting to denigrate what we must assume is not YOUR first choice for beverage alcohol and the people who want it. Perhaps working as a salesman in the industry you have more choices and acquisition opportunities than the rest of us, or perhaps you are looking out for your own interests and screw what anyone else wants. Again, if I could buy New York or Ohio Catawba wine in California I surely would! Your commentary about 300 bottles for 700 customers is specious as well. Any of the wine and spirits merchants I've spoken to whose states interdict export/import would be GLAD to sell to me -- if they could. It's more like they struggle with sales now, and they'd be lots better off financially if they could sell to me and people like me. If there was a short run, increased production would enhance the local economy (though not, I note, your job) through increased profits and hiring. The internet economy is real. my lack of ability to buy the Cora Amaro, the regional Porter, or yes, the wines I'm after is an abridgement of MY freedom. States can claim power -and often rightly so- but to do so simply to maintain the status quo as you suggest is as wrongheaded as any law (like Prohibition) which has outlived its usefulness and which culture has moved beyond. I don't want you to lose your job, but trying to impede inexorable movement into the future is no way to keep it.

[MSGOLD406]

Poor, poor baby....

You can't get your bottle.

Let me ask you questions: Why should you treat wine differently than beer or spirits? Because that is your drink of choice? Because it pumps up the difference (in YOUR arguement) between you and the underage drinker?
There is order in the universe. The 21st ammendment protects that order.
The basic concept of your plight is not choice because the phenomen of your crusade has been a recent one....when in fact more and more choices have become available. Price? No, the shippers take up the difference. It all comes down to a few 'PRIMA DONNAS' that want their special hard-to-get-wine. BULLETIN: If a thousand people want a wine that produces a grand total of 300 bottles, 700 people are NOT getting wine... in or out of the Three Tier System!!! Wake up.

Cheers....
Mickael S. Goldman
Wine Salesman
New Jersey

[drcocktail]

Baby out with the bathwater

Whereas it may appear Declan is speaking of wine, and the popularity of wine makes it a fine central topic point, I am not, solely, nor is the proposed ruling. I am interested in Spirits first and wine second. If I could buy what I want locally it would be a moot point, but I can't. You can bandy about the term "prima donna" all you want, but in fact, that is the face YOU are showing by attempting to denigrate what we must assume is not YOUR first choice for beverage alcohol and the people who want it. Perhaps working as a salesman in the industry you have more choices and acquisition opportunities than the rest of us, or perhaps you are looking out for your own interests and screw what anyone else wants. Again, if I could buy New York or Ohio Catawba wine in California I surely would! Your commentary about 300 bottles for 700 customers is specious as well. Any of the wine and spirits merchants I've spoken to whose states interdict export/import would be GLAD to sell to me -- if they could. It's more like they struggle with sales now, and they'd be lots better off financially if they could sell to me and people like me. If there was a short run, increased production would enhance the local economy (though not, I note, your job) through increased profits and hiring. The internet economy is real. my lack of ability to buy the Cora Amaro, the regional Porter, or yes, the wines I'm after is an abridgement of MY freedom. States can claim power -and often rightly so- but to do so simply to maintain the status quo as you suggest is as wrongheaded as any law (like Prohibition) which has outlived its usefulness and which culture has moved beyond. I don't want you to lose your job, but trying to impede inexorable movement into the future is no way to keep it.

[R Me]

all about taxes

while the stated reason may be the states legal right to regulate the sale of alcohol, the real reson tht staes bar the outside sale of alcohol is tax dollars. The states that ban outside sales also have the most "state" control over the actual sale of alcohol. Take Michigan for example. I still remember when you had to go to the only store in town to buy alcohol(all but beer), that store was the official state run liquor store. The employess were state employees and the profit went to the state. They fought tooth and nail to keep it that way until legal action forced the state to a more open sales system.

Do you expect states to readily give up the largest tax per item the have now?? Compare/figure the tax on an expensive bottle of wine compared to six-pack.

[R Me]

all about taxes

while the stated reason may be the states legal right to regulate the sale of alcohol, the real reson tht staes bar the outside sale of alcohol is tax dollars. The states that ban outside sales also have the most "state" control over the actual sale of alcohol. Take Michigan for example. I still remember when you had to go to the only store in town to buy alcohol(all but beer), that store was the official state run liquor store. The employess were state employees and the profit went to the state. They fought tooth and nail to keep it that way until legal action forced the state to a more open sales system.

Do you expect states to readily give up the largest tax per item the have now?? Compare/figure the tax on an expensive bottle of wine compared to six-pack.