The wine war in Massachusetts
IF YOU HAVE ever visited a winery in another state and tried to ship wine back to Massachusetts, you know what it's like: ''Sorry, we can't ship to Massachusetts. It's illegal." Now, you say, ''yes, but that is the past. The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of direct shipping, and the grape has been freed." Not so fast.
The Supreme Court ruled that states that permit direct shipping by wineries (farm wineries) within the state may not discriminate against wineries from outside that state.
Massachusetts is violating the Supreme Court's order. It may seem logical that the remedy is to permit direct shipping. However, there is a movement afoot by the Wine Wholesalers to have the Legislature repeal the central aspect of farm winery legislation, which permits farm wineries to deliver directly to retail outlets. Technically, this would make the law uniform, but it is a degenerate solution and places the burden on Massachusetts farm wineries.
For example, Turtle Creek Winery sells its wine through six retail outlets in the suburbs of Boston. If this right were made illegal we would have to increase the retail price about 35 percent to cover the wholly superfluous cost of using a wholesaler, assuming any wholesaler would have an interest in a small farm winery.
But the real effect of such a retrograde action would be the effect on the consumer who wants to try interesting wines from small wineries in many parts of this country.
It is clear that there is significant momentum across the nation to permit direct shipping. In 1980 no states allowed direct shipping; today 28 states allow it, and this trend will accelerate with the Supreme Court decision. In June, Connecticut became the first state to permit direct shipping after the ruling. Last week New York enabled legislation to permit direct shipping.
Opponents of direct shipping cite two arguments: Direct shipping will promote underage drinking, and the state will lose revenues.
The underage drinking scare tactic was refuted by the Federal Trade Commission last year and dismissed as an argument by the Supreme Court this year.
The average teenager sees the world as a giant impulse purchase and is not a candidate to plan a purchase over the Internet, use a credit card for a moderately expensive wine, and wait a week to fulfill the promise. There are so many other means to the same end that any rational person who is concerned about underage drinking would look at prohibiting direct shipping as the last place to invest resources.
The argument about lost revenues is also a nonissue. Various associations of wineries have proposed model legislation that will ensure outside wineries have to register in states they wish to sell to, limit the shipments per individual, pay a fee and submit all excise revenue to the state whose consumers they sell to. One could make the argument that state wine related revenues would increase.
Massachusetts is a state proud of its progressive policies and its respect for the rights of the individual and his ability to make choices. As someone said to me: ''In this state anyone can marry anyone; why can't we be permitted to choose which wine we drink?"
Kipton Kumler is owner of Turtle Creek Winery in Lincoln. 
