I was interviewed on this recently:
http://www.gazette.net/stories/031308/busiflo53509_32360.shtml(a few mistakes in where I'm from, though
)
Want wine? You’ll have to head to the store
No home deliveries after committees fail to approve legislation
by Rebecca McClay | Staff Writer
E-mail this article \ Print this article
Two bills that would have allowed Maryland wine lovers to have bottles shipped to their home and permit local wineries to ship out-of-state have died in the General Assembly.
The measures would have created a direct shipper’s license, costing $100, to allow wineries to ship directly to consumers. They would have required identification for proof of age upon delivery and required wineries to pay taxes.
The Economic Matters Committee found the House version ‘‘unfavorable” last week, essentially killing it. The Senate version is also effectively dead after the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee declined to vote on it Friday, though there is a small chance the committee could revisit it.
The proposals met heavy resistance from distributors and their lobbyists, who argued the state’s three-tiered system linking producers, distributors and retailers would suffer if consumers could purchase wine directly from wineries.
Wholesalers argued that wine would be more available to minors through Internet sales, and would be less profitable for the state and less regulated.
‘‘Of course it would have a direct impact on the distribution business,” said Nicholas G. Manis, deputy director of the Maryland Beer Wholesalers Association, after a House committee meeting.
Wine aficionado Michael Mohammadi, who last year launched a blog on the regional food and wine industry — foodandwineblog.com — sat through nearly six hours of a Senate committee meeting last week to support the bill. The change would have allowed him to buy his favorite German Rieslings and California ‘‘cult” wines that are sold only in small batches to e-mail list subscribers.
‘‘Even if I flew [to California] and ordered two cases, it would be a felony for me to ship it to my house,” the Hammond resident said. ‘‘It’s our right, as consumers, to a free market.”
Hammond said it was ‘‘quite a disappointment” that neither bill advanced but acknowledged that the ‘‘amount of money that was in the lobby for the opponents was pretty substantial.” Like other proponents, Mohammadi said he doesn’t believe the distributors’ business would be greatly hurt because most consumers would still purchase wines from stores.
‘‘This is a bill that will be passed eventually,” Hammond said. ‘‘It’s just a matter of when.”
Senate Minority Leader David Brinkley (R-Dist. 4) of New Market, who sponsored similar legislation in a previous session, was among the bill’s proponents, though he is not a member of the committee in charge of it.
‘‘Direct shipping benefits wineries and promotes their success — they could do great Internet business,” Brinkley said. ‘‘It also benefits consumers.”
Since 2006, Maryland wineries have been able to ship directly to retailers or restaurants, but Maryland is one of 15 states that still do not allow interstate, winery-to-consumer shipments. While many states are reconsidering their laws, shipping wine to consumers remains a felony in Maryland, along with Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee.
