Will Maryland youth abuse direct wine shipping?
Myth: Minors will use direct-to-consumer wine shipping to obtain alcohol illegally.
Fact: Multiple national studies, other states’ experience and evidenced youth behavior show that this argument is baseless.
One argument against direct shipment is that it will allow wily,
internet-savvy minors to purchase wine online. Advocates of this
position claim that minors, who have easy access to credit cards and
the internet, will use direct shipment as a means to illegally obtain
wine. Multiple national studies, evidenced youth consumer behavior and
enforcement data from 37 states show that this argument is without
merit.
A study conducted by the Federal Trade Commission found that there have
been no reported problems with minors abusing direct shipment in the
states that allow it. In the 26 states that permitted direct wine
shipping at that time, the FTC found no problems with increased access
of wine to minors. The report stated:
“The states that permit interstate direct shipping generally report few
or no problems with shipments to minors. Some states have applied the
same types of safeguards to online sales that already apply to
bricks-and-mortar retailers, such as requirements that package delivery
companies obtain an adult signature at the time of delivery. Some
states also have developed penalty and enforcement systems to provide
incentives for both out-of-state suppliers and package delivery
companies to comply with the law.”
This study gives three reasons why minors don’t use direct shipment as
a source of alcohol. First, minors are less likely to consume wine, as
opposed to other beverages such as beer and hard liquor. Second,
minors have more easy and direct means of obtaining alcohol. Third,
minors as a group are more likely to desire instant gratification which
makes the time delay of direct shipment an unattractive avenue for
obtaining alcohol.
Another study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services found that the internet and direct shipment are not a source
that youth generally consider when attempting to obtain alcohol. The
most frequently cited ways minors stated they obtained alcohol were the
time-tested techniques available under our current system. (purchasing
with a fake ID, having a friend or family member purchase, asking a
stranger to purchase and taking it from someone’s home). Not a single
respondent of the almost 340,000 surveyed mentioned online or the
Internet as their source of obtaining alcohol.
Even the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected this, saying
that such arguments are made as ‘unsupported assertions’. In the
landmark 2005 Supreme Court case, Granholm v. Heald, which found that a
state may not ban out-of-state shipments while permitting direct
shipping from in-state wine producers, the Court made the following
arguments against the state’s interest in protecting minors:
“First, minors are less likely to consume wine, as opposed to beer,
wine coolers, and hard liquor. Id., at 12. Second, minors who decide to
disobey the law have more direct means of doing so. Third, direct
shipping is an imperfect avenue of obtaining alcohol for minors who, in
the words of the past president of the National Conference of State
Liquor Administrators,’ . .want instant gratification…’”
Direct-to-consumer shipping is legal in 37 states and the District of
Columbia which comprise 83% of Americans; yet none of these
jurisdictions have noticed widespread abuse of their shipping
policies. There have been at most a handful of enforcement actions
taken against common carriers (UPS, FedEx) for failure to check ID when
delivering an alcohol-labeled package – one case in New Hampshire
resulted in the FedEx driver being fired. Moreover, carriers
contractually require winery or retail stores to purchase the signature
verification feature, at additional cost, before taking on a new
alcohol shipping customer.
Although these studies look at the shipping situations in other states,
some have questioned whether the same will hold true in Maryland. To
that end, we commissioned a survey of Towson University students to
inquire about their online alcohol purchasing habits. With 234
respondents, we found that their sentiments echoed those from the
national studies referenced above. They do not buy wine online for
three reasons: it’s easier in person (“It is more convenient and
efficient to go to the store myself and purchase alcohol.”); it’s safer
in person (“Doesn't seem safe.”); and students don’t plan ahead (“I
don't want to plan what I'm drinking in advance.”). Legalizing wine
shipping does not solve any of the three underlying concerns mentioned
by Towson University students.
Maryland’s proposed direct wine shipping bill would require carriers
delivering wine to utilize a recipient-verification service that
confirms that the buyer is of legal age just like in other
jurisdictions. This service is strictly enforced by both FedEx and UPS
and provides the same, if not better, safeguards against the sale of
alcohol to minors as those employed in retail stores. The state has
every right to impose this requirement on the common carriers, whose
drivers are highly-trained and -compensated professionals. They
regularly follow complex rules and can do so with alcohol just as they
do for other controlled substances.
Tastefully yours,
Adam Borden
Executive Director
Marylanders for Better Beer & Wine Laws
4315 Underwood Road
Baltimore, MD 21218
Tel: (443) 570-8102
http://www.mbbwl.org
Facebook: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/219249/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mbbwl
MeetUp: http://www.meetup.com/Marylanders-for-Better-Beer-Wine-Laws/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1873279
Donate: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2184279
Posted by
Eve
at
3:59 AM