quote:

Originally posted by RDCollins:
Good article on the subject in today's (1/7/08) Los Angeles Times Business Section entitled Putting a Cork in Internet Wine Sales:

http://tinyurl.com/39c6ne

Note that you may need to register to read the article -- registration is free.

Good article.

"But Craig Wolf, chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America Inc., the main industry trade group, defended the efforts to make all sales of alcoholic beverages move through a middle tier.

"Wholesalers think that direct shipping is a bad public policy choice," Wolf said. "We have never had an economic model for alcohol, it is a social model."

Face-to-face transactions are more likely to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors and alcoholics, he argued." "

How do distributors keep alcoholics from buying wine? THIS is their argument?

Money,Money!
here in Mich the Big News Papers did an acticle on how much money the Wholesalers had given to the local, state , an county Rep's(campaign funds)
and we the people made the call's
an shipping law's changed!
the Gov. Senators and local Rep backed off!
what was said was- WHO DO YOU WORK FOR!!!!!!!
Money, money ,money!

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:

quote:

Originally posted by SD-Wineaux:
Personally, I don't think that this issue is deserving of a moral sub-context.

Nor do I, unless morality drives the rule of law or to the extent that it is "wrong" to break a law.

Morality has nothing to do with the rule of law. Laws are made by those in power to compile others to do as they say. There is nothing moral about that. Morality is at a completly different level then laws, and as no direct corralation. Sometimes the moral thing to do is to disobey the law. Although I can see how as a lawyer you are unable to understand that. What I don't understand is how you can have to gall to call others amoral if they believe that they are not required to follow a blatantly unconstitutional law.

quote:

Originally posted by RDCollins:

quote:

Originally posted by pape du neuf:
Wow,

Hard not to get worked up about this.

I suppose if you suspect your neighbors of indulging in illegal sex acts, it might be fair to entrap them and turn them in.

Depends on whether he's banging my wife or daughter -- or some little kid from the park.

Exactly what I was getting at. If wine.com finds that another retailer is intentionally selling to minors, or selling counterfeit wine, I say, "turn them in".

The situation at hand, though, is that wine.com is entrapping and turning in other retailers for violating regulations that wine.com themselves believe are wrong.

Wine.com has a perfect right to try and maximize their profits by whatever means they see fit. Just don't try and tell me that I also do not have the right to be outraged if their tactics make my prices higher and choices less. Which is exactly what will happen if retailers are scared off from shipping to me.

quote:

Wine.com has a perfect right to try and maximize their profits by whatever means they see fit. Just don't try and tell me that I also do not have the right to be outraged if their tactics make my prices higher and choices less. Which is exactly what will happen if retailers are scared off from shipping to me.

Again, VT2IT sums it up perfectly! Thanks for continuing to bring clarity to this discussion!

I hope all of you 'holier-than-thou' folks who are supportive of wine.com's tactics don't have any problems securing that special bottle of wine you've been looking for.

wine.com still sucks *ss...

quote:

Originally posted by bez780:
Money,Money!
here in Mich the Big News Papers did an acticle on how much money the Wholesalers had given to the local, state , an county Rep's(campaign funds)
and we the people made the call's
an shipping law's changed!
the Gov. Senators and local Rep backed off!
what was said was- WHO DO YOU WORK FOR!!!!!!!
Money, money ,money!

This is how it's SUPPOSED to work! We should discuss this over a great Pinot Noir some time, bez

Congratulations Bez!

But in the age of NAFTA and globalization, it's ridiculous for every state to treat this differently.

quote:

Originally posted by Festiva:

quote:

Wine.com has a perfect right to try and maximize their profits by whatever means they see fit. Just don't try and tell me that I also do not have the right to be outraged if their tactics make my prices higher and choices less. Which is exactly what will happen if retailers are scared off from shipping to me.

Again, VT2IT sums it up perfectly! Thanks for continuing to bring clarity to this discussion!

I hope all of you 'holier-than-thou' folks who are supportive of wine.com's tactics don't have any problems securing that special bottle of wine you've been looking for.

wine.com still sucks *ss...

Hear hear!!

will do!

But something smells with Wine.com!
they must have given and given an got nothing!
learn the hard way !
the vote comes from the people!!!!!!!!!!!
think about it!
they have and still making more then the winery's
so i say just tell your friendly store's,to watch who they sell to!!!!

The one good thing about this is that it has finally got me mad enough to contribute to SWRA. I strongly encourage all who hate the shipping laws to do the same. Link

quote:

Originally posted by VT2IT:
Although I can see how as a lawyer you are unable to understand that. What I don't understand is how you can have to gall to call others amoral if they believe that they are not required to follow a blatantly unconstitutional law.

Sorry VT2IT -- if you had gone to law school and taken the oath when you were admitted to the bar, you would understand thas as a law-abiding member of society, you have no right to cherry-pick the laws that you decide to obey. It is all or nothing.

Perhaps you should read a little Shakespeare. In Henry VI, the classic line of Dick the Butler is "THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET'S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS."

That's a famous line, quoted by many lawyer haters out there. Of course if you read the play in context, you'll understand that Dick the Butler is advocating lawlessness and revolution, and his starting point for revolution is to kill all the lawyers.

So, VT2IT, are you being a Dick? Methinks so.

You're not doing anything but advocating lawlessness, and that is truly amoral. And what makes it worse is that you're cloaking it as civil disobedience which is especially abhorrent.

GPN, I think you're taking your agrument too far, but you do make me laugh!

Someone who advocates ignoring wine shipping laws has no moral standards? Why does this have to be painted in black and white colors only? I personally don't see this particular as even being that far into the gray.

it's not

quote:

Originally posted by SD-Wineaux:
GPN, I think you're taking your agrument too far, but you do make me laugh!

Someone who advocates ignoring wine shipping laws has no moral standards? Why does this have to be painted in black and white colors only? I personally don't see this particular as even being that far into the gray.

I actually agree with him as it relates to business. I hold businesses to a higher standard than individual consumers who are just trying to sell off some excess wine.

quote:

Originally posted by SD-Wineaux:
GPN, I think you're taking your agrument too far, but you do make me laugh!

Someone who advocates ignoring wine shipping laws has no moral standards? Why does this have to be painted in black and white colors only? I personally don't see this particular as even being that far into the gray.

Of course.

I'm just trying to point out the slippery slope. Today we're critical of wine.com. Tomorrow we'll advocate shipping prescriptions from Canada. The day-after-tomorrow we'll say snorting coke is a victimless offense. Next week we'll legalize prostitution. Next month we'll do away with the EPA. Next year we'll get rid of the 12-man jury. We can revoke habeas corpus next, and then do away with general elections.

I applaud VT2IT for contributing to the SWRA. That's the way to advocate change. Criticizing lawyers for being in favor of enforcing the laws on the books is a cheap shot, though, and I've got to call him on it.

whoops - I had to slide off of my high horse for a few moments to correct my spelling of "habeas" so they wouldn't revoke my JD.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Golf&Pinot Nut,

I'm laughing my ass off at all the morality arguments here.

It's shipping freakin wine, people.

quote:

Originally posted by sydthesquid:
I'm laughing my ass off at all the morality arguments here.

It's shipping freakin wine, people.

Not that I like the guy...but Don Imus got fired for less!

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:
I'm just trying to point out the slippery slope. Today we're critical of wine.com. Tomorrow we'll advocate shipping prescriptions from Canada. The day-after-tomorrow we'll say snorting coke is a victimless offense. Next week we'll legalize prostitution. Next month we'll do away with the EPA. Next year we'll get rid of the 12-man jury. We can revoke habeous corpus next, and then do away with general elections.

The idea of a slippery slope is frequently a logical fallacy.

quote:

Originally posted by Old_Winyards:

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:
I'm just trying to point out the slippery slope. Today we're critical of wine.com. Tomorrow we'll advocate shipping prescriptions from Canada. The day-after-tomorrow we'll say snorting coke is a victimless offense. Next week we'll legalize prostitution. Next month we'll do away with the EPA. Next year we'll get rid of the 12-man jury. We can revoke habeous corpus next, and then do away with general elections.

The idea of a slippery slope is frequently a logical fallacy.

Absolutely. Once we got to "legalize prositution", everyone's too busy to bother with the rest of that list.

Laws have everything to do with morality. They were always enacted and conjured as a result of codifying "community standards" on a certain issue alongside principles of equity, justice, etc.

But what Wine.com is doing is clearly taking the law into their own hands. There is nothing altruistic about wine.com's actions; it is motivated by their bottom line. If they were so concerned about these laws, they should be more vigourous in lobbying their politicians to do something about it.

But you have to admit that in today's environment, it is much better to use the laws to gain a business advantage than to gain an advantage by flouting, ignoring, or breaking the law.

I guess part of the problem I have with the whole thing is that we've got a whole cadre of people who are condemning wine.com while refusing to label the retailers who are breaking the rules as shady and/or unfair. It is as if you're turning your head on the cheating and then condemning the whistle-blowers to boot.