The Establishment's Extreme Attachment to the Status Quo
This Reporter Had Only Four Words for This Dem Rep After She Accused...
Lefty Trump Supporter Blasts the Elites for Inducing a Fake Market Sell-Off Over...
Why Eric Adams Left the Democratic Party
Why Elon Musk Called This Chuck Schumer Clip 'Pure Gold'
This Nation Just Agreed to Cut Tariffs to Zero After Conversation With Trump
All the Ukrainian Known Knowns
Trump Administration Yanks Visas of Band Members Over What They Displayed at Concert
Why Jeffries Is Threatening to File a Lawsuit Against Gov. Abbott
'It's Already Working': White House Celebrates March Jobs Report
One GOP Senator Joined Democrats in Voting Against Confirming Dhillon
CNN Accidentally Admits Preference for 'Shadowy Influence' Over 'Open Participation in Dem...
Siren: The Brutal Consequences of Not Extending Trump's Tax Cuts
Scott Jennings Takes on Karen Finney Over Ridiculous Point on Poll Numbers
WH Deputy Press Secretary Calls Tariffs Just ‘One Economic Tool’
OPINION

The Fierce Booze Battle

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
The battle over booze is a sexy, dirty, political mess that could leave you dizzier than a drunk after a long night at the pub.

At stake is the alcohol industry’s ability to ship products across state lines, jeopardizing the business of distributors around the country and the ability of small producers to get their product to market. Legislation will likely be considered by the next Congress that would nail down the regulations that prevent alcohol from being shipped and distributed freely throughout America.

Advertisement

“It violates our members' Constitutional rights,” said Wendyl Lee, the general counsel for the San Francisco-based Wine Institute, a coalition group that represents independent wineries. A recent Supreme Court ruling held that it was illegal to discriminate on producers based on size and on location, and illegal to allow states to continue to disallow wineries to ship to consumers in certain states. Until then, states could discriminate in any way they please, while under the influence of powerful distributor lobbies, say critics.

The CARE Act would essentially reverse the Supreme Court ruling, and allow states to discriminate in whatever way they pleased. Michael Johnson, the executive Vice President for the National Beer Wholesalers Association, argued in favor of the law in the interest of protecting minors and the public’s health.

“Licensed, independent distributors are essential to the American system of alcohol regulation that works to keep citizens and communities safe,” he said. “NBWA’s members buy only products that have been approved for sale by state regulatory authorities and sell only to locally licensed retailers who are responsible for selling only to those of legal drinking age.”

NBWA has been criticized as being one of only a few organizations to support the CARE Act; that’s because they have a lot to lose if the legislation isn’t passed. The three-tiered system of alcohol distribution in the U.S. developed after prohibition, where licensed distributors enforced strict distribution laws. The recent Supreme Court ruling could undo all of that.

Advertisement

In Johnson’s opinion, that’s a bad thing.

“Alcohol shouldn’t be sold any time, any place to any one because alcohol isn’t like potato chips, soft drinks or chewing gum,” he said.

Wine lobbyists argue that the CARE Act would eliminate direct-to-consumer shipping in 37 states and the District of Columbia, giving a monopoly to the distributors. But shipping and safety isn’t the only thing at play in this debate – there’s also the issue of states rights. Michele Simon, the research and policy director of the Marin Institute, says that without the states ability to discriminate on distribution, there is no way to control it.

“Someone has to be the holder of the alcohol at any moment. When you license someone like Wine.com, who is the holder? It gets very murky and confusing,” she said. “For any other kind of hazardous material, you want to make sure it arrives safely. Do we want FedEx to be in charge of distributing arsenic?”

Gladys Horiuchi, spokeswoman for the Wine Institute, says that’s a bunch of hogwash.

“If [wineries] ship to an out-of-state to a minor, they get thrown in jail for a year and fined $10,000, and the next time they could lose their basic permit to operate,” said Horiuchi. “Frankly, it’s too much of a risk for producers.”

Advertisement

It’s also a risk to politicians, who frequently have a multitude of booze distributors but only a few, if any, producers in their districts. If and when the next Congress takes it up, expect major divisions on the issue, which will probably not be tempered by a good-natured buzz from a strong, boozy brew.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement