Doh!

Yet another problem all wrapped up in solutions. Some of you may recall the hub-bub from this summer past when the Big Nine on the Supreme Court decided that direct sales from wineries to private citizens must be granted equal protection and/or equal discrimination under the law. Well, the bloom has apparently fallen off the rose, so to speak.

The law permitting direct interstate shipping has proven costly to NY wineries, so now they're ... Wine-ing for changes.

Gee, I suppose I'm the only one who saw this coming so I must say this is no surprise. As per usual, government, specifically our government, is really good at making things not happen. For the most part, this is probably a really good thing as the wheels turn mighty slow, preventing most knee-jerk reactions from coming to fruition. In the case of interstate shipping, it seems the 'engine' can't get out of it's own way.

" In a scenario few foresaw when it was passed, the state law has placed a higher burden of cost, paperwork and potential privacy concerns on wineries that had been shipping to consumers within the state with few complications for years."

Believe me, there are more than a few situations where distributors are the 'burden' and not the 'answer', but at the same time they can and do provide a service. And as it turns out, most people like to get paid for the service they provide. Of course, the issue of 'reason' rarely is involved in their re-imbursement equation, but still, you like to get paid, don't you?.

"Under the new law, Paumanok and other wineries now are required to get a verified signature from an adult 21 or older for every wine shipment to homes - even if the adult customer signed up for the service long ago at the winery's tasting room. Shipping services charge $2 to $3 to get the signature, and complications arise for those not home to receive the wine."

And then...

Because New York requires out-of-state wineries to apply for a license to ship here, states such as Connecticut have responded in kind. Massoud said Connecticut's license and label approvals cost $1,500 a year - more than he can expect to make in profits by shipping there.

So, let's run the numbers. A winery is going to sell you the wine you want at or pretty damn close to retail. On top of that, the shipping on a twelve bottle case is going to +/- $60 unless you're buying from Sine Qua Non or some other winery that insists on using bottles that weigh 12 lbs. empty. Then UPS want a few bucks for getting the old John Hitchcock and don't forget about that license and label crap, which one would expect the winery to roll into the price of the bottle. Blah, Blah, Blah.

You start to see why people aren't buying Budweiser over the internet.

"Steve Simpson, a senior attorney for the institute, pointed to Maryland as a state where wineries barred from shipping to New York could raise the issue. Maryland doesn't allow direct shipments from out of state. Because New York law bars shipments from states that don't allow New York shipments, the bill could be interpreted as discriminatory.

"They can't direct-ship to New York," Simpson said. "The New York law [therefore] discriminates against Maryland wineries."

And here we go again with the 'he said, she said' crap that landed this thing in Supreme Court's lap in the first place.

Sounds like somebody should just take their ball and go home. Again, I'm not the poster boy for the Distribtors but is it all that surprising that between the distros, the lobbyists, the politicians, and the money that drives them all, this situation has come to pass?

Not to me.