quote:

Originally posted by Tom From Glen Ellen, CA:
How that conflict is to be resolved has already been addressed by the Supreme Court in Granholm v. Heald.

In that decision it was noted that indeed states could regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol in almost any way they choose....AS LONG AS they treat in-state and out-of-state interests equally.....

So, retailers and the consumers that want to do business with these retailers must, once again, rely on the courts to remind the legislators that there are actual legal standards and constitutional principles to be followed. This is why SWRA and its members are forced to go back to to the courts: to remind wholesalers and their lawmakers that the principle of constitutionalism and fairness are more important than finding one's way into the fairway.

Tom Wark
Specialty Wine Retailers Association

Great posting, Tom. Very well communicated.

quote:

Originally posted by Roy Hersh:

quote:

And here's an oxymoron: the WSWA, that promotes the sale of all alcoholic beverages, being referred to as neo-Prohibitionist! There's one for the books!

You are showing your lack of understanding of the bigger picture.

Roy, you are spot-on correct! The WSWA is a shell designed to only protect the financial interest and viability
of distributors rights. They do not care one bit about consumers, retailers or restaurants. As long as they can keep monopolies (making high gross profits) away from competition and continue on the road of wholesale protectionism,
they win from the financial success of their clients. Distributors have all the power and control in many states and it's not going away.

Also, don't believe for a second that the WSWA "We Don't Sell to Teens" campaign is some change in policy like the WSWA cares. Certainly, they are not PRO-underage drinking, don't get me wrong, but this is all part of the latest PR campaign designed to lull the consumer into actually thinking running every bottle of wine or liquor through a distributor somehow protects and saves the country. Since most wholesalers only sell to businesses, they show their
agenda quite clearly. Showing the possible underage buying potential of on-line alcohol ordering and shipping, which "hurts" distributors control and profits, is the real goal of the WSWA. To prove this allows them to continue
to legislate better laws for their cliente at the expense of every American wine buyer. You pay for this everytime
you buy a bottle.

Roy Hersh "You are showing your lack of understanding of the bigger picture."

So, tell me..... what is the BIG picture?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Goldman:
Roy Hersh "You are showing your lack of understanding of the bigger picture."

So, tell me..... what is the BIG picture?

The big picture is that when I walk through a swamp and I have leeches attach themselves to me, I burn them off. They don't do a thing for me......

Much like the three tier system.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Goldman:
Roy Hersh "You are showing your lack of understanding of the bigger picture."

So, tell me..... what is the BIG picture?

This is the big picture as I see it.

1) There are two camps in this big picture: Distributors/Wholesalers and Consumers/Producers. Wine.com has sided with distributors.
Wine.com has sided with distributors. Those descriptions are overly simplistic, but they work for the most part. I know distributors and enjoy talking wine with them. But they have their interests, I have mine and the two cannot be reconciled.

2) Nothing here is about free enterprise.
The industry regulations are terribly burdensome and have little or nothing to do with anything that could be called sound economic policy. The next person that wines about free enterprise really needs explain this situation at their next Atlas Society meeting and live through the resulting chuckles.

3) This is also not about respect for law.
The "rule of law," in any context where it's important, is not always just the words on the page. As I argued earlier, laws are interpreted differently, ignored in some places and enforced haphazardly in others.

My point is not that it is OK or a good idea to break the law. Violating the law is always a risk. I obey the shipping laws for three reasons: the service I get locally, the direct shipping options legally available and professional considerations that cut against explaining why I knowingly broke a non-traffic law.

My point is that moral judgment for a legal violation is not a matter of course. Respect for law is fundamental to our society and to commerce, but the law is not always without some play in the line. If that's too nuanced for anyone, go back to doing what you do well, it isn't that important. Just do not tell anyone here that this is all about respecting the law.

4) I have yet to hear a competent defense of the three-tier system as it exists
I also have never heard cogent support for whythe system shouldn't run based on business realities – i.e., if its profitable to use a distributor, great. If anyone has one, I'm all ears. It better be more than collecting taxes and preventing underage drinking, because both fail to hold water. Unless distributors make money for their supplier and/or their customer, they are superfluous.

Wine.com can legally do what they did. While I agree with others' moral critiques of Wine.com, it doesn't even get there. Wine.com chose to make their interests opposed to their customers. If the law needed enforcing for the general good, people might accept things that detract from their life. This is not one of those cases. So good luck with that.

Some of the major producers have, as a key part of their business models, designed themselves to be carried by the big distributors. They offer up all the varietals at all the price points, etc. that a distributor wants. Their business interests are aligned 100%. And yes, Beringer/Blass, Gallo and Diageo contribute a lot of money to these anti-shipping campaigns. Their goal is to minimize competition (ie. independent producers and distributors).

Wine.com seems to be trying to wedge themselves in as a sort of hybrid distributor.

As far as "respect for the law", how would you like it if your neighbor followed you around in his car secretly videotaping your every maneuver. Can you say you never roll a stop, never exceed the speed limit, etc.? If his goal is to, say, cost you your drivers license, and presumably free up a parking spot, is that respect for the law of a perversion of it?

I can assure you that my favorite online retailer dots every "i" and crosses every "t". They've always been that way, there's no way they would recklessly jeoparize their business the way some unsavory fly-by-night operation might. Yet, they are concerned about what wine.com is doing. Why? Because a duck is made out of wood and weighs as much as a small pepple?

quote:

Originally posted by Montsant:Atlas Society meeting....

Please! Grow up.

Here's the bottom line in terms you might understand:

1. I'm in business and have a huge amount of money invested in it.

2. I obey the law because I can't afford the consequences of not obeying.

3. I want to sell wine to buyers in other states with absurd laws.

4. I spend a great deal of money and time buying the licenses and so forth required by those states so I can do business without being fined or going to jail.

5. You go into competition with me.

6. You ignore the law of the other states and don't buy the required licenses.

7. You undersell me because your overhead is lower than mine because you ignore the law, taking away my customers.

8. Rather than suffer a loss or go bankrupt, I nail your sorry ass to the wall.

The law is unquestionably not in the best interest of the consumer or of the retailer, but until the three-tiered system is abandoned or ruled illegal by powers beyond my control, I'll be damned if I'll let you cheat.

Welcome to the REAL world.

quote:

Originally posted by yhn:
As far as "respect for the law", how would you like it if your neighbor followed you around in his car secretly videotaping your every maneuver. Can you say you never roll a stop, never exceed the speed limit, etc.? If his goal is to, say, cost you your drivers license, and presumably free up a parking spot, is that respect for the law of a perversion of it?

Not a good example because you are saying the neighbor is following you around unprovoked. Something more on point would be that your neighbor is constantly parking his boat in front of your house even though the rules of your HOA say that boats cannot be parked on the street. It bothers you because you have a boat but you follow the rules and pay money to have it stored somewhere else. You call your HOA several times and they don’t do anything about it. Finally you take a picture of the boat, take it to the HOA and your neighbor gets fined for breaking the rules!!!

Wine.com is setting up warehouses (at great expense I’m sure) so they can legally ship in those states, only to have some out of state retailer break the law and undercut them. I think we all agree that the shipping laws need to be changed as they are very anti-consumer. But I think that Wine.com has every right to take action against their competition based on the way the laws are currently set.

quote:

Originally posted by GlennK:

quote:

Originally posted by yhn:
As far as "respect for the law", how would you like it if your neighbor followed you around in his car secretly videotaping your every maneuver. Can you say you never roll a stop, never exceed the speed limit, etc.? If his goal is to, say, cost you your drivers license, and presumably free up a parking spot, is that respect for the law of a perversion of it?

Not a good example because you are saying the neighbor is following you around unprovoked. Something more on point would be that your neighbor is constantly parking his boat in front of your house even though the rules of your HOA say that boats cannot be parked on the street. It bothers you because you have a boat but you follow the rules and pay money to have it stored somewhere else. You call your HOA several times and they don’t do anything about it. Finally you take a picture of the boat, take it to the HOA and your neighbor gets fined for breaking the rules!!!

Wine.com is setting up warehouses (at great expense I’m sure) so they can legally ship in those states, only to have some out of state retailer break the law and undercut them. I think we all agree that the shipping laws need to be changed as they are very anti-consumer. But I think that Wine.com has every right to take action against their competition based on the way the laws are currently set.

Once per year, a random board member of an HOA should be dragged out of the board meeting and be beaten senseless. Nothing says totalitarianism better than activist neighbors bitching about the size of the flag you might want to fly, the color of your house, that you might want to actually work on your car in your garage, etc. etc. etc.

I would never live in an HOA community. If my neighbors piss me off I just might paint my house safety orange just to fcuk with them...

Rant concluded.....

quote:

Originally posted by GlennK:

quote:

Originally posted by yhn:
As far as "respect for the law", how would you like it if your neighbor followed you around in his car secretly videotaping your every maneuver. Can you say you never roll a stop, never exceed the speed limit, etc.? If his goal is to, say, cost you your drivers license, and presumably free up a parking spot, is that respect for the law of a perversion of it?

Not a good example because you are saying the neighbor is following you around unprovoked. Something more on point would be that your neighbor is constantly parking his boat in front of your house even though the rules of your HOA say that boats cannot be parked on the street. It bothers you because you have a boat but you follow the rules and pay money to have it stored somewhere else. You call your HOA several times and they don’t do anything about it. Finally you take a picture of the boat, take it to the HOA and your neighbor gets fined for breaking the rules!!!

Wine.com is setting up warehouses (at great expense I’m sure) so they can legally ship in those states, only to have some out of state retailer break the law and undercut them. I think we all agree that the shipping laws need to be changed as they are very anti-consumer. But I think that Wine.com has every right to take action against their competition based on the way the laws are currently set.

Enough with the lame analogies!

Wine.com blows for interfering with the rights (in some cases, not yet legal) of individuals to access wine, which we all agree they should have access to.

We (the individuals) don’t care that other retailers broke bad laws (we all agree the laws are bad remember). In fact, most of us are glad they did, we support them and hope they will continue to do so.

My HOA has banned me from their yahoo group.
They still expect me to pay their damn $80 a month though.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Tong BBP:
My HOA has banned me from their yahoo group.
They still expect me to pay their damn $80 a month though.

Dave Tong BBP & BBHOA

Anything else to add to your moniker?

quote:

Originally posted by RDCollins:

quote:

Originally posted by Montsant:Atlas Society meeting....

Please! Grow up.

Hit a nerve? Just kidding. This was gratuitous.

But I still don't think this has anything to do with free enterprise, and equating all business with free markets misunderstands the value of the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by RDCollins:

Here's the bottom line in terms you might understand:

1. I'm in business and have a huge amount of money invested in it.

2. I obey the law because I can't afford the consequences of not obeying.

3. I want to sell wine to buyers in other states with absurd laws.

4. I spend a great deal of money and time buying the licenses and so forth required by those states so I can do business without being fined or going to jail.

5. You go into competition with me.

6. You ignore the law of the other states and don't buy the required licenses.

7. You undersell me because your overhead is lower than mine because you ignore the law, taking away my customers.

8. Rather than suffer a loss or go bankrupt, I nail your sorry ass to the wall.

The law is unquestionably not in the best interest of the consumer or of the retailer, but until the three-tiered system is abandoned or ruled illegal by powers beyond my control, I'll be damned if I'll let you cheat.

Welcome to the REAL world.

Who's failing to look at the "REAL world?" The one I live in has various industries "obeying" regulations as they are interpreted and enforced, as that's the practical thing to do. Here, various regulations, between nominal penalties and lax enforcement, are practically fees/taxes in prohibitions' clothing (I mean prohibition with a small 'p'). Finally, in the REAL world I inhabit, everyone acts in their own interests unless there is a compelling reason not to.

Let me state my position in terms you can't misunderstand: I do not dispute Wine.com's right to do what they did. I'm disputing that wine buyers have to accept it or that it was a wise business move.

Wine.com acted against their customers' interests and got busted at it. This is objectively stupid. We can type til are fingers fall off, but nothing will change "the bottom line."

If there was a good reason for what they did - and their own flagging business does not count - people might accept it. There isn't. The only attempt – that "We want to affect 'positive change'" bit, was so silly that if that little nugget came from a distributor's lobbyist, I would not be surprised. The response here should have been: "We're not dumb. Go away and come back when you at least have one we'll believe."

But the REAL bottom line is when you have to decide options that are "bad" and "worse," it's still better avoid "worse" and, at least in my business, screwing your customers almost* always qualifies as worse. It's huge investment, bad business decisions and/or unfortunate business climate are not my problem nor anyone else's here.

*After rereading this, there are exceptions. As a lawyer, there are situations where if someone does not inform authorities, that person is subject not just competitive difficulties but official penalties. Still, if I had set up a sting to prove the violation, it would not go well for me.

quote:

Originally posted by GreenDrazi:

Wine.com blows for interfering with the rights (in some cases, not yet legal) of individuals to access wine......

Please educate us how something not yet legal is a "right" of individuals?

Far as I know, Granholm did not deal with retailers, therefore the 21st amendment still applies. Since rights are conveyed by the Constitution, how do you interfere with rights that have not been conveyed?

Now there is a judge in Texas that has ruled their law unconstitutional: click here

This ruling however serves only the people of Texas for the moment, and until the Supreme Court opines on the argument, we are still left with the fact that as of yet, no right as been conveyed to the American population to allow unfettered access to out-of-state wine merchants.

quote:

Originally posted by Chilepepper:

quote:

Originally posted by GreenDrazi:

Wine.com blows for interfering with the rights (in some cases, not yet legal) of individuals to access wine......

Please educate us how something not yet legal is a "right" of individuals?

As much as I don't agree with GD's position, there is, nevertheless, a distinction between legal rights versus moral rights. The argument they are trying to toss up is that when moral rights are incompatible with existing legal rights, the legality portion may be suppressed. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a primitive environment and are bound by the rules of law. Granting selected groups the ability to unilaterally determine which laws they need to obey and which they don't can only lead to chaos.

By the same token then, the opposition blows for interfering with the rights of individuals, like myself, to live in peace and not chaos. Fortunately, I don't live in the US.

I can't think of a logic that would make it an individual right under the U.S. Constitution. There are far more crucial personal interests that the Supreme and lower courts have determined, often wisely, are not recognized under the U.S. Constitution.

Granholm is really barely half the battle ...

ETA: I had posted more based in how someone in the business explained the post-Granholm reality to me, or at least how I understood them. After skimming the actual decision, I don't think this is right.

At first, I put in in italics. As I read the decision in detail, I simply had to delete it altogether.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Montsant,

quote:

Originally posted by Chilepepper:

quote:

Originally posted by GreenDrazi:

Wine.com blows for interfering with the rights (in some cases, not yet legal) of individuals to access wine......

Please educate us how something not yet legal is a "right" of individuals?

Thankfully, such a narrow view has not prevented society from progressing.

quote:

Originally posted by WEc:
As much as I don't agree with GD's position, there is, nevertheless, a distinction between legal rights versus moral rights. The argument they are trying to toss up is that when moral rights are incompatible with existing legal rights, the legality portion may be suppressed. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a primitive environment and are bound by the rules of law. Granting selected groups the ability to unilaterally determine which laws they need to obey and which they don't can only lead to chaos.

Fortunately, we don’t live in such a codified black & white environment in which enforcement and compliance are strictly adhered to. As has already been stated in this thread, there are many examples of laws ignored and woefully enforced and yet somehow, we always manage to avoid the “slippery slope” into “chaos” pundits like you suggest. Prohibition is just one such example.

Could this debate get more esoteric?

I belive that when a moral concern results in the enactment or the legislature, the law that you're left with is what's important - even more so than the original morality that you started out with which is a badthink.

When morality is driving the enactment of any law, I think it is very important to include the important part of the morality in the law. Instead of walking up to a law and saying, "this law prohibits us from doing X & Y," the law should also tell us why (and not in "the Jimmy Swaggert told me so" sense.)

An example: You're a legislator, and you are morally shocked at the treatment of minks in your district. You could be morally shocked because they kill the mink in an inhumane way, because minks are endangered, because minks are beautiful, or simply because you oppose the killing itself.

In this scenario, to make an honest and pure law, you need to state as a part of your legislative preamble, what the nature of your concerns are. Are you outlawing mink murder because they're cute,or because the current methods of minkenasia are inhumane? Your legislative honesty attacks the problem head-on and tells the world while you're doing it. But be prepared for the community backlash when the small warren of 50 minks in your district