
Wines Are No Longer Free to Travel Across State Lines - prostoalex
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dining/drinks/interstate-wine-sales-shipping-laws.html
======
CalChris
The title is a little (not a lot) misleading:

    
    
      Wines Are No Longer Free to Travel Across State Lines
    

Later in the article, it points out that _There’s no jurisdiction for
retailers at the federal level._ No law was enacted at midnight last night.
Instead, 14 states including CA + DC allow importation across state lines.
Moreover, the laws in the other states only apply to retailers and not to
vineyards ( _Granholm v. Heald_ ). The change seems to have been that UPS and
FedEx are now enforcing this in the other 36 states. Maybe this is a better
title:

    
    
      In Some States, Wines Can't Be Bought From Out Of State Retailers

~~~
SeanLuke
I don't understand. How is this not a straightforward violation of the
Interstate Commerce Clause?

~~~
wyager
You can’t “violate” the interstate commerce clause; it grants powers, doesn’t
limit them.

(It, along with “necessary and proper”, have been used to justify just about
every activity the federal government has done.)

~~~
hexane360
So many people get this backwards, although I think some of this is the
Constitution's fault. Originally it was a list of rights the government had,
with the understanding that the states retained the rest. Then the bill of
rights added a few civil liberties, i.e. rights the government _specifically
did not have_. Theoretically this shouldn't make a difference, because
anything not listed in the constitution was already unconstituional. Of course
in practice we've read between the lines a lot with the original constituion,
so it makes some sense that we also set some hard limits to what we can't do.
But still, it makes it really confusing and leads to a lot of "interesting"
legal beliefs by people who aren't familiar.

~~~
marcoperaza
> _Then the bill of rights added a few civil liberties, i.e. rights the
> government specifically did not have. Theoretically this shouldn 't make a
> difference, because anything not listed in the constitution was already
> unconstituional._

I don't think this is true even for the strictest originalist interpretation
possible. Without the Bill of Rights, Congress and the President would have
much more expansive power in their creation and especially enforcement of law.

The Constitution does not establish a process for the federal government to
investigate, detain, try, and punish people for violating its laws, though it
is clear that it must have those powers. The major function of the Bill of
Rights is to draw lines around those powers, lines that perhaps existed in the
common law, but that could have been altered by Act of Congress in the absence
of a constitutional provision.

There are also parts of the Bill of Rights which do constraint Congress's
enumerated powers. For example, even under a strict originalist
interpretation, the Commerce Clause would allow Congress to take actions that
abridge the freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. It could prohibit the
publishing of certain newspapers across state lines, for instance. The First
Amendment prevents that kind of thing.

~~~
jacobolus
If I recall correctly, Madison’s original position was that the content of the
Bill of Rights (and more besides) was already implied by the Constitution, and
that the document was superfluous and possibly harmful if it led to people
considering rights not explicitly mentioned to not also be part of the
Constitution. He changed his mind, however, as a pragmatic gesture toward
unity and compromise with the Anti-Federalists.

~~~
marcoperaza
The position that he and Hamilton took was somewhat incoherent in my opinion,
since the Constitution _did_ list rights, like the prohibition on _ex post
facto_ laws and bills of attainder, and the guarantee of _habeas corpus_
except in times of insurrection.

Hamilton made an interesting argument in Federalist 84, that rights like
freedom of the press and of speech are too vague to belong in a legal
document, since their interpretation would necessarily be determined solely by
political winds. Compare to the more concrete prohibition of _ex post facto_
laws, for example. Nevertheless, the majority of the Bill of Rights turned out
to be more like those concrete provisions. The First and Second Amendments are
the most notable exceptions, and his predictions have partially panned out.
Thankfully, it's been for the better anyway: freedom of speech as we know it
would not exist without the First Amendment.

------
readams
Another of the many businesses that attempt to bypass competition with absurd
regulatory capture.

Taxis, auto dealers, and many others

~~~
ronnier
In Seattle we have a train that goes from the airport to downtown Seattle.
It's perfect and ideal to get to and from the airport. BUT! It stops at about
half a mile away from the the actually airport lobby as to not disrupt the
taxi business. I simply can't believe it.

~~~
jeffwilcox
It's a bit of a walk; the real amazement to me was that the rental car
terminal was built across the street from the Tukwila Int'l Blvd station - I
assume some union or lobbyist there for the bus driver's union forced that
one.

Karma is fun, though. It's fun walking past the cab and town car aisles in the
garage now (entirely empty, zero customers) and instead heading to the
millennial cab stand to wait for an Uber/Lyft.

~~~
marcoperaza
The whole setup really bothers me. They are clearly trying to make it
unnecessarily annoying to take an Uber. You should be able to get picked up at
the same place that friends/family would pick you up, right at the exit to the
terminal. Instead, you have to walk to a random spot in the middle of the
parking garage, where 50 other people are also trying to get picked up at the
same time, and there's a long line of Ubers crawling through one lane trying
to find their passenger.

~~~
vkou
Instead of asking why an Uber can't pick someone up at the friends/family
pickup lane, why not ask this question:

Why shouldn't a taxi be allowed to pick people up at the same place that
friends/family would?

An Uber is, for all intents and purposes, a cab - not a friend.

I assure you, the SeaTac taxi lane existed long before Uber. This isn't some
petty anti-Uber ruling.

~~~
marcoperaza
The SeaTac taxi lane is a different kind of thing altogether, since you just
walk up and take the next taxi. It is much more convenient, and is much more
logically justified, than the Uber zone, since Uber matches you to a specific
driver.

Aside from the fact that the cab lane creates convenience, while the Uber area
destroys it, there’s other reasons that apply to cabs and not Ubers. Cabs
would just be slowly crawling through the arrivals area, hoping to get a
client, and causing traffic. Ubers, in contrast, are there to find a specific
passenger, just like family/friends, and have no incentive to slowly crawl
through arrivals.

~~~
vkou
> and is much more logically justified, than the Uber zone, since Uber matches
> you to a specific driver.

That sounds like Uber's problem. If they just got medallions, they too could
queue up for curb-side pickup.

> Ubers, in contrast, are there to find a specific passenger, just like
> family/friends, and have no incentive to slowly crawl through arrivals.

Yes, they would absolutely be causing traffic. At most times of day, the
arrivals lane is already at close to capacity. Throwing in a bunch of
commercial traffic would be awful for the rest of us.

~~~
goialoq
family/friends are also causing traffic. Why do they deserve priority access?

------
magila
It's a minor nit, unrelated to the article's main point, but I found it
strange that the author seems to think you need a high-speed internet
connection to order wine across state lines. I'm guessing this comes from ISP
marketing which portrays broadband as an absolute essential for all internet
activities.

~~~
mikeash
Depends on your definition of "high-speed." I still think of that as meaning
anything faster than dialup. The front page of wine.com is 4MB, which would
take ten minutes to load over a 56k modem, so in that sense it doesn't seem
wrong.

~~~
magila
Of course the meaning of high-speed is always going to be relative. The author
makes it sound like ordering wine over the internet wasn't possible until
broadband become available. I don't know if such sites existed, but a wine
retailer certainly could have setup a storefront on the internet back in 1995.

~~~
johan_larson
Or even earlier. Catalog sales and mail order have been around for a long
time. 1-800 numbers for orders by phone started in the 60s and became standard
in the 80s. The internet didn't invent remote ordering.

~~~
mikeash
Do any still exist? They weren’t implying you _always_ needed a high speed
connection.

------
hedora
Idea for startup: web site that provides a unified storefront for vineyards,
but doesn’t actually touch the transaction or shipping.

Maybe the wineries pay the site a percentage of referred sales at the end of
the month.

Once you’ve made your first billion on this, please gift me a few choice
subscriptions. :-)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
If anyone in the New York area is interested in collaborating on this, as a
political project for 2018, let me know.

~~~
djstein
Interested. Not sure the extent you're willing to go other than "political
project" but I've got some other wine industry connections that may be
interested in this as well.

------
CaliforniaKarl
The only way around this that I can think of is if you live in a state that
has the wines locally, and a friend or family member wants one, you may be
able to ship it to them. Personally, when it is holiday time, I have shipped
wine to myself at my parent's address, so that I wouldn't have to pack it for
a flight.

Is it legal? My guess it is, but only because you aren't selling it to
someone. I am not a lawyer, and of course I am not your lawyer!

In doing so, I came up with some important guidelines for myself:

• ULINE has very good wine shippers, made of styrofoam
([https://www.uline.com/BL_5450/Wine-
Shippers](https://www.uline.com/BL_5450/Wine-Shippers)) and pulp
([https://www.uline.com/BL_5451/Pulp-Wine-
Shippers](https://www.uline.com/BL_5451/Pulp-Wine-Shippers)). This was a
helpful coincidence in that I already like to consume Black Blood of the Earth
(from [http://www.funraniumlabs.com](http://www.funraniumlabs.com)), and Phil
uses those shippers.

• Be safe, and use the shipping option that requires 21 or older delivery.
Even if you're shipping it to yourself. This has the helpful side-effect of
ensuring that someone is there to receive it, so it won't get left alone.

• Use 2-day shipping or better! That helps ensure that your box never sits on
a truck for too long, and especially not overnight. This is very important
when shipping something that is almost entirely water, during a time when much
of the country is experiencing freezing weather. Or, conversely, you don't
want it being exposed to too-high temperatures.

~~~
bonestamp2
> you may be able to ship it to them

This seems like a good idea but forget about it. I tried to ship wine last
year as a gift for my in-laws... I couldn't find a single carrier who would
touch that shipment. They all basically told me that they wouldn't deliver
alcohol for individuals, and this distinction was important since I was
already having wine delivered to my house by several of them (directly from
wineries).

Which courier did you use to ship it to yourself at your parents?

------
theyregreat
This sucks. Wine subscriptions are big money-makers for vineyards. And, it
will mostly hurt California.

~~~
binarycrusader
The article points out that (apparently?) wineries are exempt -- this is about
retailers:

 _...the Supreme Court ruling in Granholm v. Heald effectively lifted many
state bans on buying directly from out-of-state wineries.

Though the ruling applied to wineries, not to retailers, Granholm had a
liberating effect on consumers who suddenly found it much easier to find the
wines they wanted online. The decision also allows the direct shipment of
wines purchased by tourists at wineries to all states._

------
Simulacra
I imagine the path of alcohol and wine will give us a road map for future
regulatory of marijuana. Let's say for talking purposes that it's no longer a
schedule 1, what kind of regulatory capture and manipulation will be required
to keep cheaper states from exporting to those with more expensive tax
dollars?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I imagine the path of alcohol and wine will give us a road map for future
> regulatory of marijuana_

I don't think this is a safe assumption. Prohibition intersected with the
Great Depression and the Constitution. The latter is key; Section 2 of the
21st Amendment expressly gives states the right to regulate the
"transportation or importation" of "intoxicating liquors". Marijuana has no
such Commerce Clause [2] override.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-
first_Amendment_to_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-
first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text) _§ 2_

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause)

 _Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice._

------
TylerH
For anyone not wanting to read the article, here's the list of states where
UPS and FedEx will still ship wines to:

Alaska; California; Idaho; Louisiana; Missouri; Nebraska; Nevada; New
Hampshire; New Mexico; North Dakota; Oregon; Virginia; Washington, D.C.; West
Virginia; Wyoming

------
gok
Wonder if wine-exporting states like California could use their 21st amendment
powers to impose retaliatory tariffs on booze from states that are doing this.

~~~
twoodfin
No, this is the point of the _Granholm_ case mentioned in the article: States
can’t apply restrictions on imports they don’t apply to in-state products.

~~~
gok
Granholm v. Heald was about rules which targeted direct sales from wineries,
and held that states couldn't have different rules for in-state wineries and
out-of-state wineries. I'm saying California could impose rules on, say,
larger breweries, which don't really exist in California.

~~~
twoodfin
Huh? Even discounting now-massive craft brewers like Sierra Nevada and
Lagunitas, Anheuser-Busch has at least one huge brewing facility in CA:

[http://www.anheuser-busch.com/about/breweries-and-
tours/fair...](http://www.anheuser-busch.com/about/breweries-and-
tours/fairfield-ca.html)

Besides, the courts would see right through laws that just-so-happened to
affect only producers bigger than those in CA. What would be the rational
basis other than to evade _Granholm_?

~~~
gok
What would be the rational basis of distributor based laws?

------
surrey-fringe
Why is wine interesting?

~~~
Johnny555
Because it's one of the few products that can be legal to purchase in retail
stores by both the shipper and receiver, yet illegal to ship.

~~~
baddox
Joining some tobacco products as the only examples I know of, other than
obvious safety-related items (live animals, aerosols, etc.)

------
petre
In Europe, wine and beer and cider are not alcoholic beverages. They're foods.
You can also safely ship wine from Spain to Germany and beer from Germany to
Spain.

In the US you need to be 21 to drink beer or vote, yet 18 is fine to join the
army, meet new and interesting people and kill them.

~~~
vesinisa
You are mistaken on all points. All EU states have a legal drinking age, and
it is usually 18 or 16.

Almost all countries, including Germany, also impose an excise duty (harm tax)
on beverages like beer, but the amount of tax varies considerably by member
state.

It might be possible to order beer from some EU countries to others, but for
example certain Nordic countries still maintain a state alcohol monopoly which
practically makes it illegal for private consumers to buy alcohol online even
from another EU country (more precisely, it makes the bureaucracy for
_selling_ alcohol so complex for the foreign retailer, that they just refuse
delivery to these countries ..)

~~~
walshemj
The German one for beer is nugatory th uk beer duty is 14 times the German one

