After ably serving his nation as a special prosecutor
(heh), Ken Starr has turned of late to even more important work -
fighting state bans on interstate wine shipments. In today's WSJ
($), he explains:
Some states have insisted that
while in-state wineries may directly ship their products to consumers,
out-of-state wineries cannot. So a Manhattanite can order wine from a
winery in Long Island, but not from one in Virginia. These states have
effectively erected a sign at their borders that says, Stop, Don't
Enter!
Why do these laws persist? Starr explains:
Who
could possibly support these discriminatory laws? Those who have the
most to lose from repeal: the liquor distributors, known in the trade as
the "booze boys." These distributors exact massive, and in many areas
oligopolistic, profits from wineries as a price for distributing their
products to retail stores -- and in some cases, refuse to distribute
wine from smaller wineries at all. Like pirates exacting a ransom, they
add no value. But they have a powerful incentive to keep the current
system in place.
The booze boys' lobbyists
contend that restrictive state laws are necessary to further the worthy
goal of reducing youth access to alcohol. But it defies common sense to
suggest that a 16-year- ld wanting to drink would settle for the delayed
gratification of ordering wine over the Internet, rather than just get a
bottle from a local store or bar. And if direct shipping promotes
underage drinking, why allow direct shipping from in-state wineries, and
prohibit merely from out of state?
Exactly. These laws
are indefensible. Sound public policy counsels their repeal forthwith.