The Supreme Court on Wine ...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - States cannot prohibit consumers from buying wine directly from out-of-state wineries, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a decision that could lead to lower prices and more easily available choices.

More: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=2&u=/nm/20050516/bs_nm/court_wine_dc

I can tell you there will be some corks popped in California tonight (if not already).

I'm really happy about this. There are a lot of wineries near me, but I like scuppernong, which I can't find here as well as a wonderful dessert wine sold by a winery in PA. This is really good news!

Now to find out whether out-of-state wineries will be forced to sell their wines at the Ohio-mandated markup.

The mandated markup is 33.3 percent between the winery and the distributor and 50 percent between the distributor and the retailer. However, the state requires a total 135 percent increase in the price of a bottle of wine before it can be sold to a consumer. No, the state does not get anything other than a seven-cent a bottle tax.

Michael... Makes me wonder what the mark up in Michigan is... Seems like alcohol was far cheaper when I was in Ohio a few years ago vs. this state.. But if they're anything like Michgan, you might be able to order directly from the wineries, then in a couple years have the state come after you with a tax bill.. I say this from recent stories of folks doing mail order cigarettes getting a tax bill in the thousands. (Smokes are about 5 bucks a pack here... cross the border to Indiana and the same pack runs about 2 bucks... Even cheaper if you mail order from the south)...

quote:

Originally posted by UncleVic

Michael... Makes me wonder what the mark up in Michigan is... Seems like alcohol was far cheaper when I was in Ohio a few years ago vs. this state.. But if they're anything like Michgan, you might be able to order directly from the wineries, then in a couple years have the state come after you with a tax bill.. I say this from recent stories of folks doing mail order cigarettes getting a tax bill in the thousands. (Smokes are about 5 bucks a pack here... cross the border to Indiana and the same pack runs about 2 bucks... Even cheaper if you mail order from the south)...

According to an AP story I read recently, wine costs more in Ohio than in any other state. There's a state mandated minimum markup on beer, too. And the state also controls minimum prices on liquor. Cars with Ohio plates are sometimes stopped coming into Ohio from Indiana and checked for alcohol purchased there. As to cigarettes, the state stops the occasional car coming in from Kentucky to check for contraband butts. In fact, Ohio agents stake out liquor stores in Indiana and tobacco places in southern states looking to spot Ohioans buying booze and cigarettes.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Hoffman:

Cars with Ohio plates are sometimes stopped coming into Ohio from Indiana and checked for alcohol purchased there. As to cigarettes, the state stops the occasional car coming in from Kentucky to check for contraband butts. In fact, Ohio agents stake out liquor stores in Indiana and tobacco places in southern states looking to spot Ohioans buying booze and cigarettes.

Unbelievable, sounds like the old days of moonshine and revenuers...
I can't believe the state is more worried about smuggled legal booze and cigarettes, instead of looking for real contraband, like illegal drugs.

From what I read of the Supreme Court's decision, it is only binding in New York and Michigan, the two states specifically named in the complaint, although it could apply to other states where wine can be shipped from in-state wineries, but is prohibited to wineries in other states. States which prohibit all wine shippig to consumer, whether sourced from in or out of the state can still maintain that prohibition.

This will be wonderful for someone who visited a small winery or had their product and cannot buy it locally.

quote:

Originally posted by berndog

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Hoffman:

Cars with Ohio plates are sometimes stopped coming into Ohio from Indiana and checked for alcohol purchased there. As to cigarettes, the state stops the occasional car coming in from Kentucky to check for contraband butts. In fact, Ohio agents stake out liquor stores in Indiana and tobacco places in southern states looking to spot Ohioans buying booze and cigarettes.

Unbelievable, sounds like the old days of moonshine and revenuers...
I can't believe the state is more worried about smuggled legal booze and cigarettes, instead of looking for real contraband, like illegal drugs.

From what I read of the Supreme Court's decision, it is only binding in New York and Michigan, the two states specifically named in the complaint, although it could apply to other states where wine can be shipped from in-state wineries, but is prohibited to wineries in other states. States which prohibit all wine shippig to consumer, whether sourced from in or out of the state can still maintain that prohibition.

This will be wonderful for someone who visited a small winery or had their product and cannot buy it locally.

In fact, the 24 states that permit in-state wineries to sell product to consumers will have to either change the laws banning out of state wineries from shipping to consumers within their states or will have to pass laws banning in-state winery sales.

From AP: The Washington-based Institute for Justice says the 24 states that ban direct shipments from out-of-state wineries are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont.

The vote was interesting. I agree with it. It was interesting to me to see who voted for it, because in this case, unlike some recent decisions, a good argument could be made for both sides. May every Justice serving today live to be 100, and never retire. JMO.

Best news for American wine drinkers in years. Long live the Supreme Court! of course I might change my mind about that after their next decision...

Cheers, John

I am delighted that good Oregon wine will now be more widely available

What happened to MEOWZART ???

Excuse me, but who gives a damn about any kind of wine produced in Michigan. or am I missing out on something good?

Cheers, John

http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2005/0517/local/stories/01local.htm
good news for our area

quote:

Originally posted by seafarer john

Excuse me, but who gives a damn about any kind of wine produced in Michigan. or am I missing out on something good?

Cheers, John

My brother in law lives in Michigan and sent us (illegally at the time) a great bottle of Michigan wine...here is info I found about it...

http://www.gangofpour.com/underground/nosound/tasting_notes/march_04/wyncroft.html#TOP

quote:

Originally posted by Rapunzll

I'm really happy about this. There are a lot of wineries near me, but I like scuppernong, which I can't find here as well as a wonderful dessert wine sold by a winery in PA. This is really good news!

Great minds think alike, as they say...scuppernong was exactly what I was thinking of when I read the headline...

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Hoffman
In fact, the 24 states that permit in-state wineries to sell product to consumers will have to either change the laws banning out of state wineries from shipping to consumers within their states or will have to pass laws banning in-state winery sales.

From AP: The Washington-based Institute for Justice says the 24 states that ban direct shipments from out-of-state wineries are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont.

MD bans in- and out-of-state wine shipments. It is a FELONY. Nothing will change for us. They don't descriminate, so they are within the Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court on wine? That's funny, based on his babbling, I always assumed Scalia was on crack.

I wonder if there was a pubic hair on Thomas' wineglass...

Thanks for the info on Wyncroft - sounds worth looking into. But I doubt I'll ever get any unless I visit the vineyard because I note the very small production of their wines.

Cheers, John

Dearfolk,
I'll rejoice when I can order beer from very small microbreweries out-of-state. Until then, I'll cross my fingers and toes and wish for polydactyly.
Wanting A Straub's Right Now, Ort. Carlton in 30601-land.

quote:

Originally posted by seafarer john

Thanks for the info on Wyncroft - sounds worth looking into. But I doubt I'll ever get any unless I visit the vineyard because I note the very small production of their wines.

Cheers, John

That is probably true. As I said, I was lucky to try some because I have family that lives nearby. I got it in trade as my brother in law wanted some wine from Long Island. Now we won't have to make this a clandestine transaction in the future.

more:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1116246913481

God, those wholesalers (ABC Distributers in NYState legalese) are a greedy bunch. They want to control every sale in the State - even though most of the wineries effected by the new ruling are so small the distributers refuse to represent them anyhow. They want to have their cake and eat it...

Cheers, John

quote:

Originally posted by meowzart

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Hoffman
In fact, the 24 states that permit in-state wineries to sell product to consumers will have to either change the laws banning out of state wineries from shipping to consumers within their states or will have to pass laws banning in-state winery sales.

From AP: The Washington-based Institute for Justice says the 24 states that ban direct shipments from out-of-state wineries are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont.

MD bans in- and out-of-state wine shipments. It is a FELONY. Nothing will change for us. They don't descriminate, so they are within the Supreme Court ruling.

Yeah, much like MD, NJ is another 'blue state' with hyper-regulated wine commerce, and a prohibition mentality. All types of wine shipment are similarly banned here as well, therefore no discrimination exists. NJ will never have the ability to have its residents enjoy a micro-vineyard California Cab.