EDITORIAL – It’s state’s prerogative to regulate alcohol

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing a case regarding certain states’ laws that bar… The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing a case regarding certain states’ laws that bar people from buying wine directly from out-of-state suppliers.

The 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition in 1933, grants states authority to regulate alcohol sales. There are 24 states that ban direct interstate shipments of wine, according to the Washington-based Institute for Justice. Although the Constitution explicitly gives states the right to control the sale of alcohol, it also implicitly prohibits states from passing laws that discriminate against out-of-state businesses.

Some states have laws that require outside wineries to sell their products through licensed wholesalers in the state. Michigan and New York, along with a few other states, allow instate Internet or telephone sales of alcoholic beverages, but do not extend the privilege of direct sales to out-of-state wineries.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld state regulations in New York that restrict the sale of out-of-state wine via Internet or telephone. But the 6th Circuit struck down Michigan’s laws as unconstitutional. So some states have the same policies and other states are different. This is not a new concept: Same-sex couples cannot be legally wed in every state; cigarettes are $2 cheaper in Virginia than they are in Pennsylvania; filling up a gas tank costs more in New York than it does in New Jersey. Just because we call these 50 states united, they are not the same.

The 6th Circuit Court stated in a ruling, “Michigan wineries enjoy access to consumers who wish to have wine delivered to their homes. Out-of-state wineries, on the other hand … may be shut out of the Michigan market altogether if unable to obtain a wholesaler.”

While an attorney general from Ohio believes Internet sales of alcohol could be extremely dangerous — increasing the occurrence of underage drinking — the fact is that states don’t want to lose money. Pretending the real concern in this issue is the weekend-while-mom’s-away activities of 19-year-olds will not hide the reality that states collect millions of dollars in alcohol taxes on the $21.6 billion wine industry.

And while money may be the great motivator in this case, the Constitution has already been written. It just so happens to be the High Court’s job to uphold it. And the Constitution clearly states that the regulation of alcohol into and within a state is the state’s business. If other states suffer, it’s the other states’ problem. But there is a difference between what states should do and what states are Constitutionally allowed to do. States should play nice.