Operating government regulated businesses sure can be tricky. Here’s the process for a common winery business transaction: Visitors stop by, have an enjoyable time tasting the company’s offerings and purchase several bottles to take home. A few months later, the customer orders more wine and the business ships the bottles directly to the customer. Everyone is happy, the customer gets her wine and the winery gets the sale. This has been going on for 30 years in Indiana. End of story, right? Not when the business is government regulated. Grab a bottle of your favorite wine and read on.
The trouble started fermenting when a recent Supreme Court ruling created some confusion in Indiana. The ruling said if in-state wineries can ship directly to customers, then the state has to allow out-of-state wineries to do the same.
So fine, you say as you sip your Rose. Let the out-of-state wineries ship directly to customers. Indiana’s wineries can handle the competition, plus it would be nice to have a few more choices. Open up the market and let business and customers freely trade with one another. I totally agree this would make the most sense, but remember it’s government regulated. There are taxes to collect and special interests to serve.
I suggest you swallow that sip before you read what happened next.
Someone asked the guy in charge of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission what Indiana government is going to do about the Supreme Court ruling and he said it doesn’t affect Indiana. He said Indiana doesn’t allow in-state wineries to ship directly to customers so they will just continue to deny that choice to customers who want to purchase out-of-state wine as well. No, you haven’t had too much to drink. Yes, I did say the government official, whose job it is to know such things, did not know wine was being shipped in-state to customers for the past 30 years.
When someone pointed this out to him, he then proclaimed it to be illegal. This means one day a winery owner is happily shipping orders to his customers and the next day, he’s at risk of committing a crime.
The controversy continues because, as usual, the law isn’t clear on the issue. So now the two sides are fighting over whether it’s legal or not. Essentially the government is saying an action can’t occur unless the law specifically states it can.
Does this mean we are headed down a road where we have to have a law specifically stating every single thing a person or company may do? And if no law exists, the government can immediately declare the action illegal? Think of how many oak barrels it would take to hold the paper we would need for such laws. It would cause more confusion than figuring out the proper wine to serve with fish.
Once again, we see how complications arise when using government force to control more and more. Why can’t we just let businesses ship the product to people who want it? The recent ruling said there was little evidence that purchases by minors is a problem. It also seems less safe for all of us to make people drive a car to get alcohol when they could simply have it delivered.
Drat, your wine is almost gone. Now I can’t tell you the story of the legislature’s involvement in this mess because that will take at least another bottle and who knows when you will be able to get more delivered. Drink what you have left slowly so you can make it through the remainder of the short session. Cheers.
f you have a delivery for Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson, send it to Daharbeson@yahoo.com. Hurry though, before the government finds out and then declares it illegal.
Opinions
Related Photos
Discussion
The tipsy-turvy wine debate
Government regulation packs a hangover for columnist
- Opinions
-
-
STAWAR: I’m not exaggerating, I’m aspiring
Exaggeration is a commonplace phenomenon. For one thing, it lies at the heart of the advertising industry.
-
NASH: Holding officials to higher standards
A few weeks ago in my weekly column, I discussed a growing trend of people, mostly elected officials, who believed that they are above the law.
-
HARBESON: It’s super living in Indiana
My husband and I attend an annual Super Bowl party, which is normally a small gathering of friends, but this year our host’s home was bursting with guests.
-
OUR VIEW: Greenville town council president’s tactics inexcusable
Heading into Monday’s Greenville Town Council special meeting, the council president said he was not going to let members of the public speak on the matter of whether or not the town should hire Randal Johnes as its town manager.
-
GESENHUES: The Susan G. Komen precedent
My mom is a breast cancer survivor.
I have walked many a mile in support of the cause and raised a sizable number of dollars for breast cancer research. The Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure initiatives are not lost on me. -
LETTERS: Feb. 8, 2012
— Think of the future generation when voting
— Smoke-free advocate disappointed with senator’s stance
-
BEAM: Just smile
Whispers will soon abound outside of school as the corporation enters negotiations this summer with the teacher’s union over a new contract. Aides are not covered under the union.
- news and Tribune letters: Feb. 7, 2012
-
HOWEY: Keeping Peyton in the Hoosier pantheon
The critics of keeping Manning suggest he would return to a team struggling to contend. I’m not buying that. The Colts were decimated for a second consecutive year with injuries, particularly on defense. With the top choice in each round, they can quickly reset, as San Francisco and Cincinnati did this year.
-
CUMMINS: How to live a stable life
Then I heard Newt Gingrich say that he will establish a colony on the moon by the end of his second term. I’d vote for him if he would go.
- More Opinions Headlines
-
