Why is Buying Wine More Complicated than Other Products in the US?

Imagine this and some of you can. You go to [insert name of favorite US wine region] on vacation. You visit wineries. You love some of the wine. You order some to be shipped to your home. 

Enser%&^$*$*!!!! 

That's the buzzer saying no you can't. So, you go online to buy the wine and have it shipped to you from some online retailes. No you can't.

In some states, you can order wine through wine clubs. But, in those states, even then, you can't have wine sent directly to you. First, it has to pass through a state-run store. In other states, however, you can ship directly from wherever you want outside the state, so long as that state will ship to you to wherever you want inside the state. Why does this make sense? Hint, it doesn't. Why should this be allowed? I'm not sure.

Way back when, I learned that buried within Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution was the statement that Congress is authorized to regulate commerce "... among the several States [no, I have no idea why the S in States is capitalized] ... ." This is commonly known as the Commerce Clause. And, it applies to lots of stuff. The guise of interstate commerce has been used over more than 200 years to both allow and prohibit certain types of interstate commerce. But, wine, somehow is different.

The difference stems from the 21st Amendment. You know, the 21st Amendment that opened up the country once again to alcohol and was ratified on December 5, 1933 (no idea why I remember that date since I wasn't around). Section 2 gives eash state the power to regulate alcohol, its sales and distribution as it sees fit.

Sorry, people, that is dumb.

Rather than having Congress open to lobbying from people who stand to make a lot of money by making you and me jump through hoops to buy wine and other less important (they all are) alcoholic beverages, this provides 50 state legislatures open to such lobbying. In particular, states such as Mississippi and Utah are very protective of consumers and not for anyone's good except the in-state distributors. 

The "normal" structure looks like this, although there are exceptions. Entities that produce wine sell to distributors and they make a profit. Distributors sell to retailers and restaurants each of whom make a profit. Retailers and restaurants sell to consumers who pay for all the profits.

Further, wineries have different distributors in every state to which they have their wine available. And, each state has a system of permits, a system of rules, a system of taxes, and often a myraid of reports to be filled out.

\Sorry, people, that is dumb.

Wine finally makes it into your state. Then the distributors control where it goes. That is why the small restaurant that really wants to get, say, 3 bottles of Really Excellent Cabernet might be forced to take 2 cases of Skunk Odor Chardonnay. And, they pay more for it than massive steakhouse with facilities all over the country that wants 50 cases of Really Good Cabernet every month. 

I found a chart at the website of the National Association of Wine Retailers showing that distributors pay as much as $30 million during an election cycle to lobby to keep the wine distribution laws favorable to them. Of course, they have to pay for those campaign contributions. And, they do so, by charging more for wine (and other less important alcoholic beverages). As the number of wine producing companies shrinks because Constellation, Gallo, and Treasury now own so many of them, this is getting worse not better.

It's time to find a better way.

Sorry, people, the current system is dumb.