Vinotrip

Posted by: Gary on March 14th, 2008

Best comment this week (okay fine, the only comment this week) goes to Marc, who posted this in the comments of an earlier post. It is a response to his query on why HB-1260 did not pass.

Thank you for your correspondence. Let me explain why House Bill 1260 has failed to pass.
First, the Baltimore City Liquor Board or any other local board in the State would not have jurisdiction over, or the ability to revoke the license of, out-of-state retailers or wineries. We impose significant consequences upon in-State retailers who sell to minors, but would not have a similar ability to impose these same sanctions upon out of state retailers who ship wine to minors in Maryland. If we cannot closely control the activities of these shippers and discipline them in the same way we do in-State retailers, then it’s my view that we shouldn’t give them the same privileges.
Second, couriers that deliver wine across state lines cannot be properly regulated by the State. A recent Supreme Court decision made clear that whatever policies and procedures we put in place in Maryland to ensure that wine is not delivered to minors cannot be enforced, because they are pre-empted by federal law.
Finally, for wine connoisseurs who seek certain wines that are not currently carried by stores, there is already a way to do that. The wine can be shipped to a local retailer directly from the winery by obtaining a $10 permit from the Comptroller’s Office. While this does
not deliver the product to your doorstep, it still provides access to the wine at minimal inconvenience. And, most importantly, it does not open another means for minors to access alcohol.
I am hoping that we can work out a mechanism to handle these shipments better and in the future we can more fully satisfy your needs.

Delegate Carolyn Krysiak
Room 314 Lowe Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-841-3303

More FUD, but it is at least semi-rational FUD. Regarding Delegate Krysiak’s point about the Supreme Court decision, I don’t know to which decision she is referring. It can’t possibly be to this one: where the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot prohibit out of state wineries from shipping into a state if that state allows Intrastate wine shipping. That ruling came down almost three years ago, and still the liquor lobby is still fighting their way around it.

The ability to discipline out-of-state shippers whose wine ends up in the hands of an impressionable minor… that’s a deal breaker. In short, this argument means that alcohol shipping cannot occur. The retailer takes an order and ships it via FedEx or UPS, both of which require that an adult signature is required to receive the shipment. They won’t just leave the wine on a neighbor’s doorstep. After being signed for, though, if a minor gets his or her hands on the wine then it isn’t really the retailer’s fault. There are reasonable things we can require of out-of-state retailers. One is shipping with adult signature required on delivery. A second is a permit required to ship into the state. If you violate these rules then your permit is revoked and you get fined.

Finally, Delegate Krysiak repeatedly uses the term “winery” in the email. I don’t know if this is intentional and meant to highlight that there is, for this discussion, a difference between a winery and a wine retailer. I’ve found that on the East Coast the term is almost used interchangeably.

There is a ray of hope at the end, that bit about being able to ship to a retailer in exchange for a $10 vig at the Comptroller’s office. Anyone done this? Who needs the permit (me, the retailer shipping, or the retailer receiving)? If it’s legit, I’ll be all for it.

March 14th, 2008 | Category: Maryland, Wine shipping | Subscribe to comments | Leave a comment | Trackback URL