<script type=”text/javascript” src=”http://embed.technorati.com/embed/8vsenwn8w8.js”></script>
I read recently that the Georgia House of Representatives has passed a bill allowing the state’s residents to order wine either on-line, or over the phone, to be shipped direct to their home. The only catch is that the consumer must have visited the winery they ordered from, and must be home to receive the package. Ostensibly the reason for having to visit the winery is to show proof that you are 21 or over. Of course, that is the same reason you must sign for the package. Huh?
The real reason behind the “visit the winery” provision is the protect the wine distributors in the state of
Georgia from the flood of wine that would be shipped to consumers from out of state wineries. If you never make your way to
California, or
Washington, or
Oregon, or any of the other states that produce wine, you can’t order their wine to be shipped direct to your home, thereby eliminating this option for a large majority of the states residents.
So the House passes a bill which it says is pro-consumer, but is actually pro-business and anti-consumer. And what business is the bill protecting? Less than 1% of wine consumed in the
U.S. is shipped direct to consumer. This loss of potential volume is going to hurt the distributors? Of course not. But the distributors pay the lobbyists, that fete the legislators, that pass the bills. And the consumer gets screwed again.
By the way, who is going to check if the consumer actually visited a winery they ordered wine from? And if someone does check, how can they prove or disprove that they visited? Is the burden of prove on the state or the consumer?
Come on
Georgia, don’t waste our time passing bills that camouflage your real intent, and have no teeth to them in any event.
Susan Schwartz
