Corked: Popular direct-shipping bill likely a no-go
An effort to allow Marylanders to have wine shipped to their homes has more support than ever, as evidenced by the 100-plus legislators who co-signed this year's bill.
But the proposal must clear the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, and the chairwoman tells The Sun that's not going to happen. Sen. Joan Carter Conway, a Baltimore Democrat, says she is concerned about minors signing for the bottles and the potential problems enforcing state laws and tax collection when an out-of-state vendor is involved.
Still, she acknowledges that direct shipping is "conceptually... a good thing." Maryland is one of just a dozen or so states that ban direct-shipping, a Prohibition-era rule.
Affectionately known nationally as the "Free the Grapes" campaign, direct shipping is sure to draw a lively crowd when the Senate hearing is scheduled.
Comments
It is unbelievable that one person out of 9 can make a decision when 6 others support this bill. It sure shows how certain members off the legislature are corrupt- In the bed of the liquor/wholesale lobby. How dumb do they think we are. Why can't the legislature legislate something that people want. The more I live in Maryland, the more convinced that this state cannot function. Where is O'malley (he is too afraid to support the people's wishes.)
The current system does not work. People should be realistic, there are ways to get around this law. How many people work in DC or VA and have wine shipped to their offices (please note I am retired and do not have this option).
The taxes can easily be collected. Government studies show that kids get alcohol from peers or parents or steal it. No child will place an order and then wait for delivery. It is far to expensive - they want cheap booze. What child or teen will drink wine, there are so many other drinks of choice for a teenager. 35 other states do not think this is a problem
Posted by: kimbo | February 8, 2010 10:45 AM
Senator Conway's reservations have long since been debunked by the Federal Trade Commission. They were also forcefully rejected by the Supreme Court in Granholm v. Heald, 544 US 460. In that case the Court also seemed to approve the provisions of the the 's MOdel Direct Shipping Bill on which S 566 is modelled. For example: "In particular, New York could protect against lost tax revenue by requiring a permit as a condition of direct shipping." 544 U.S. at 491. And: the Model Bill "requires an adult signature on delivery and a label so instructing each package." Id. Although another argument against S 266 that has surfaced is Supreme Court law striking down a Maine law that required truckers to get signatures, the last quoted passage from Granholm suggests that the Supreme Court would have no problem with such a provision in a wine shipping bill like the Model Bill. This may well be due to the fact that states have broad authority to regulate intoxicating beverages under section 2 of the 21st amendment.
Posted by: robert berlow | February 17, 2010 7:31 PM