Archive for March, 2006
Indiana bill passes House and Senate, awaits Governor's signature
March 15th, 2006
A legislative compromise in Indiana passed the House on Monday and the Senate on Tuesday and now heads to the Governor for final approval and signature. The Senate approved the legislation only after the group of 9 wineries that sued the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission agreed to drop their lawsuit.
Although it is fantastic that another prohibited state is moving to a limited direct model and opening to direct shipments, restrictions in Indiana HB 1016 will significantly limit the flow of wine shipments into Indiana. Similar to the current legislation in Colorado, HB 1016 requires an initial onsite visit to the winery by a consumer before wine can be shipped to the consumer directly via offsite sales. Colorado will likely remove this previous visit requirement when new legislation is finalized.
Other restrictions in the new legislation include a $100 permit requirement, a 3,000 case per year aggregate volume limit, and a two case per month volume limit per customer.
Read more here and here.
Indiana bill passes House and Senate, awaits Governor’s signature
March 15th, 2006
A legislative compromise in Indiana passed the House on Monday and the Senate on Tuesday and now heads to the Governor for final approval and signature. The Senate approved the legislation only after the group of 9 wineries that sued the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission agreed to drop their lawsuit.
Although it is fantastic that another prohibited state is moving to a limited direct model and opening to direct shipments, restrictions in Indiana HB 1016 will significantly limit the flow of wine shipments into Indiana. Similar to the current legislation in Colorado, HB 1016 requires an initial onsite visit to the winery by a consumer before wine can be shipped to the consumer directly via offsite sales. Colorado will likely remove this previous visit requirement when new legislation is finalized.
Other restrictions in the new legislation include a $100 permit requirement, a 3,000 case per year aggregate volume limit, and a two case per month volume limit per customer.
Read more here and here.
Dry Counties in Florida
March 13th, 2006
We’ve received a number or inquiries about the dry counties in Florida. Starting with a little background…
In the new Wine Shipment into Florida page, you will find the following text:
Dry Counties
Pursuant to Section 568.02, Florida Statutes, it is unlawful to sell alcoholic beverages containing more than 6.243 percent of alcohol by volume in a county that has voted against the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines, or beers. There are currently five Florida Counties to which this law is applicable: Lafayette, Liberty, Madison, Suwannee and Washington.
Taking a closer look at Section 568.05, we find this:
568.05 Penalty.–Any person who sells, or causes to be sold, any intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer in any county that has voted against the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer, or who keeps or possesses in any such county any intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer with intent to sell or dispose of same unlawfully, or who keeps or maintains in any such county a place where intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer are sold, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Many have questioned if this statute would hold if the sale technically takes place in California or any other state before the wine is shipped to a dry county. We contacted the Florida authorities about this question and got the following as a reply – “I would not ship to dry counties. You may refer to Florida Statutes Chapter 568 for details.” Sounds pretty clear to me.
Keep in mind that Florida will likely establish permanent legislation in the coming months. Let’s hope they address this issue more specifically in the new regulations.
Setback in Maine
March 7th, 2006
The Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee of Maine voted 8-2 against a proposal to allow direct shipments via a permit system. A fight is expected on the House floor.
Read more here, especially the Reader Comments section at the bottom of the article. Here are a few choice quotes:
As a Mainer who loves wine, I am very frustrated that the legislature is making it difficult for me to get the wines I want. The arguments about minors ordering wine are clearly weak, and may just disguise the pressure by those who really profit from the current arrangements: the distributors, who get to choose what to make available and to price it as they like. Wine here is more expensive than in other states for a reason! Distributors like to claim that anyone can obtain any wine by going through them. That, of course, is a bald-faced lie. Many small wineries sell *only* through their mailing lists. I don’t think it’s likely that we’ll get to see any of those wines. Most Maine towns do not have a local store that sells fine wine. Many consumers drive a long distance to go to a store, only to discover that what they want isn’t stocked or can’t be obtained in the state. It’s frustrating. Is it a wonder that the parking lots of the New Hampshire Liquor Stores are always full of cars with Maine plates?
I work for a large winery and we ship out of state with the usual requirements and have never EVER had a minor order wine for out of state shipping. I dare anyone to come up with a scenario where a person under age 21 orders a $40 bottle of Reserve Merlot. The arguments about underage drinking is so lame! Underage drinkers want BEER not wine – for heavens sakes get with the program.
It is ludicrous to imagine that kids will be ordering expensive wines from California. Kids know how to get hold of booze if they want it and most of them don’t even like wine. The distributors are the culprits here. They have absolute control of wholesale supply and they don’t want anything to disrupt that. The Legislature usually goes along, as they do with banking and other big interests.
Every single reader comment pushes for access to direct shipments.
Hawaii moves to end reciprocity
March 7th, 2006
Two similar bills would create a limited direct model in Hawaii, which currently has reciprocity with 13 other states. The proposals are similar to the laws established in New York, Connecticut, and Texas with a permit requirement and a per customer limit of 24 cases per individual per year.
