Revenue over reason: A case for home distilling

By Ben Semark of CEI. 

"Want to distill spirits at home? Congress says you can’t. This ban from the Reconstruction era was not instated for health or public safety reasons. Rather, the prohibition arose from the inability to accurately tax home-produced alcohol. This reasoning does not justify such a restrictive practice. Distilling is a historically significant process with deep ties to the culture of this nation. Depriving Americans of this liberty in their own home undercuts a storied American tradition.

Creating home-brewed spirits was not a niche or commercial practice in early America; it was an everyday routine. Alcoholic beverages were a staple of the early American diet and were often much safer than local water sources. Wives were often responsible for the process and used various crops distilled into safe beverages to quench the thirst of their households. Stills were treated as ordinary kitchen appliances, like a butter churn or wood oven. In the late 18^th century, 25 percent of households in Augusta County, Virginia owned and operated home stills.

Distilling was not just a household chore; it was also a primary source of income for many farmers. Common crops, such as barley, corn, apples, and peaches, were all vulnerable to spoilage even across short distances. Where travel was especially difficult, distilling these crops provided a more resilient product and a steady source of income for many.

After the Revolutionary War, Alexander Hamilton proposed an excise tax on distilled spirits to tackle the extreme debt the country had accumulated. Excise taxes operate by taxing the manufacture of a targeted good rather than the income generated from sales. Many farmers reacted in outrage, sparking the famed Whiskey Rebellion, during which George Washington led a militia of 13,000 troops to quell the unrest.

The rebellion represented the first violent domestic challenge under the new American Constitution. Hamilton’s enforcement of the tax required every still, no matter how small, to be registered with the federal government. The upheaval underscored the importance of distilling culture in early America. Citizens felt betrayed by their newly formed government, not only due to the tax, but also government intrusion into routine household activities.

Distillation remained common in the home despite the tax, and Jefferson later repealed it, much to the delight of many Americans. Soon after the distilling culture exploded. The early 19^th century came with many advancements in distilling, making the practice accessible to non-farmers. An author at the time noted “we find men of science, men of capital, lawyers, doctors and merchants abandoning other pursuits to learn the art of extracting spirit from grain.” Distilling was no longer merely a household chore or a farmer’s practice; it had become a hobby.

The Civil War marked the second excise tax on spirits. Lincoln had to finance the war, and since stills were so common, spirits were the obvious choice for a tax. Once the war was won by the North, the tax extended to the southern states. The agriculturally dependent South hated the tax, often flouting federal collection officers. In fact, during the early days of the policy, nearly seven out of every eight distilled spirits went untaxed.

This led to a federal clampdown on spirits. In 1868, in order to “secure the revenue” of the spirit excise tax, Congress passed sweeping reforms on enforcement. Distillers were instructed by statute to turn over the keys to their distilleries, allowing inspectors to enter the premises at all times. If they were denied entry at any point, congress authorized them to use any force necessary to gain access.

Because of the obvious hurdles involved in enforcing this surveillance, home distilleries were banned outright. Taxing home distilled spirits would be nearly impossible. In order to further dissuade home distilling, Congress attached harsh penalties to the activity. From that point onward, operating a still in or near a home resulted in a felony, up to five years in federal prison, and, in some cases, forfeiture of their property. Home distilling, once the task of the homemaker and the fun of the hobbyist, was now strictly illegal.

The Treasury was not passive in its enforcement either. The 1880 annual report of Internal Revenue declared “the day of the illicit distiller” over with 4,061 illicit distilleries seized and 7,339 people arrested on account of the new enforcement techniques. Distillers were pushed into the forest under moonlight to avoid internal revenue officers, earning them the now infamous name “moonshiners.”

Around this time social perception of distilling was soured by its close association with violent criminal activity. Moonshiners would clash with enforcement officers, often leading to shootouts. The alignment of some moonshiners with the Ku Klux Klan damaged their reputation as well. Once the 18^th Amendment and Volstead Act were passed, illicit distilling, including home distilling, had firmly cemented itself as a stigmatized practice.

However, the Prohibition would not stand for long. Due to enforcement problems, the propagation of organized crime, and the loss of revenue from the excise tax, the 21^st Amendment repealed the 18^th Amendment, decriminalizing the production and sale of alcohol. However, this liberty remained limited to heavily regulated commercial breweries, wineries, and distilleries. The government was seeking an easily taxable commodity to pull itself out of the Great Depression.

1978 marked the first meaningful restoration of home production of alcoholic beverages. With extensive advocacy efforts from the hobbyist brewing lobby, H.R. 1337 was signed into law. It amended the tax code exempting home-brewed beer and wine from taxation and legalizing their production for personal use. Notably, home distilling was neither decriminalized nor exempted from the tax.

Legalizing home distilling is the next logical step. The prohibition was a step too far, and ever since the regulation of alcohol has been trending downward. For such a common practice during the founding, it is shocking that home distilling carries such steep penalties. The federal government picked this fight, not frontier farmers. The ability to produce spirits in your home for personal consumption should not be infringed. It is what George Washington, with his own home distillery, would have wanted."

Nearly a Century Later, We Are Still Fighting Alcohol Prohibition (colleges that allow alcohol sales at football games see fewer problems)

By Christian Schneider of Cato.

"Any day is good to raise a cold glass full of spirits, but enjoying a stiff drink on December 5 is especially apt, given it is the day alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933.

The benefits of ending Prohibition immediately became evident: People stopped poisoning themselves with alcohol mixed with paint thinner in their bathtubs, organized crime lost much of its clout, and breweries once again were able to provide jobs for local workers.

But even today, we are sporadically reminded of the downsides of restricting alcohol consumption. For instance, many colleges still ban the sale of alcohol at their sporting events, leading to some unintended consequences. In a National Review Online column in May of last year, I identified one of these downsides by telling the tale of two football stadiums in the state of Wisconsin:

On November 26 of last year, the Wisconsin Badgers football team played their final game of the season against their hated rivals, the Minnesota Golden Gophers. The game saw 54 people ejected (27 of whom were students), 16 people arrested, and another 16 cited (one for the overly polite-sounding charge of “disposing of human waste”).

Compare that crowd to the one that gathered the previous weekend at Lambeau Field, home of the Green Bay Packers and the mecca of professional drinking in America. Despite the doctoral levels of inebriation among fans watching the Packers defeat the Dallas Cowboys, there were only five arrests and eleven ejections. (If you are designated “the drunk” at a Packers game, you have achieved bacchanalian immortality.)

These are two stadiums, around the same size, in the same state, with the same drinking culture. And yet, according to numbers provided to me by UW-Madison police, more arrests and ejections occur among the Badgers devotees than among the seasoned NFL crowd. When the college team played Washington State, 45 people were ejected, 36 of whom were students. During the game against New Mexico, 66 people were ejected, 24 of whom were students. By contrast, the numbers for Packers games hovered in the single digits—during the final game of the year against the Detroit Lions, there were only four arrests and eight ejections.

These stats may confuse people, considering that alcohol is actually served at Packers games. How is it that a college crowd can be so much more sauced despite the lack of beer flowing at the concession stands?

The answer is simple. Knowing there’ll be no chance to get their hands on a cold one during the game, under-21s pound as much as they can outside the stadium before the game begins. The kids get themselves good and hammered, knowing the buzz is going to have to last three hours.

This is all perfectly evident to anyone who has ever attended a sporting event—if you know you won’t be able to drink while sitting in the stands for the length of a football game, you are going to do one of two things: You’ll either drink as much as humanly possible before the game, or you’ll sneak in hard alcohol somewhere on your person.

In the piece, I point out that at Lambeau Field, home to both a professional football team and stands full of professional drinkers, arrests were a small fraction of what they were at the college stadium down the road in Madison. That isn’t in spite of beer being sold in the stadium, it is because of it.

Before this season, the University of Wisconsin–Madison took my advice and decided to start selling beer during its football games.

“The option to purchase alcohol is common at collegiate athletic venues all over the country and we’re glad that we can now offer it as part of the fan experience at Camp Randall,” said Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin at the time, adding that the plan combined “opportunity with public safety.”

Well, the numbers are in, and they are entirely predictable. This year at Badger football games, beer and wine consumption was up and arrests were down.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

According to University of Wisconsin–Madison Police Department interim police chief Brent Plisch, alcohol-related police contacts decreased by about 25%, from 118 incidents in 2021 to 89 incidents this year.

Although it might seem counterintuitive, Plisch said this is a phenomenon across college athletics in general: After allowing alcohol to be served inside the stadiums, universities tend to see a reduction in police contacts for alcohol-related offenses.

Except that it’s not counterintuitive at all. Allowing people the opportunity to drink freely in public teaches them to be more responsible and spread their drinking out rather than getting hammered before the game. The school shouldn’t be taking credit for the drop in arrests; it should be taking the blame for waiting too long to see what was plainly obvious.

So enjoy a pleasant beverage today. And if you do so at a sporting event, even better."

Alcohol-Related Deaths Soared During the First Year of the Pandemic, CDC Study Says

Experts say isolation, financial stress and therapy disruptions may have contributed to jump in alcohol deaths

By Talal Ansari of The WSJ.

"Alcohol-related deaths in the U.S. rose during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a new federal report. 

The report, published Friday by the National Center for Health Statistics, examined deaths caused by alcohol by sex and age groups for 2020, when the spread of Covid-19 upended everyday life. Studies have shown the level of binge drinking increased during this period. 

The rate of alcohol-related deaths has steadily increased over the past two decades, with increases of up to 7% each year between 2000 and 2018. That figure jumped 26% between 2019 and 2020, from 39,043 to 49,061 deaths. 

Alcohol use increased over the year, which may have affected alcohol-induced mortality rates, according to the study.

“It was a confluence of lots of negativity happening at the same time,” said Margie Skeer, a professor at Tufts University School of Medicine who studies addiction.

Dr. Skeer, who wasn’t part of the NCHS report, said isolation, uncertainty, financial strains and higher chances of job loss may have contributed to people’s stress levels, which led to an increase in mental-health problems and an increase in drinking. 

Liquor stores were considered an essential business at the time in many states, and were kept open when other places weren’t, Dr. Skeer said of the possible reasons for the increase in consumption. To-go alcohol was also allowed, to help keep a stream of income for struggling businesses. And those who were already struggling with addiction before the pandemic saw a severe disruption in their recovery or therapy, she said, which may have contributed to an increase in deaths. 

Several studies conducted in the fall of 2020 found that binge drinking increased during the pandemic. A study of more than 1,500 adults published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in September 2020 found that the frequency of alcohol consumption increased 14% over the previous year for all adults. For women, binge drinking went up 41%.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines binge drinking as consuming five or more drinks on one occasion for men or four or more drinks for women.

“On top of all the stress and uncertainty, you also have boredom. Everyone was just bored,” Dr. Skeer said of the general increase in alcohol use. 

NCHS researchers found that for both men and women, the rates of alcohol-induced deaths in 2020 increased with age and peaked for those aged 55–64. 

For women, alcohol-induced deaths increased across all age groups after 25 between 2019 and 2020. For men, alcohol-induced deaths increased in all age categories for those aged 85 and under. 

Men were more likely to have alcohol-related deaths overall, with rates two to four times higher than those for women in all age groups, the study said. 

“Men are way more likely to binge drink than women,” Dr. Skeer said, adding that men historically have higher rates of alcoholism. 

Alcoholic liver disease and mental and behavioral disorders from alcohol were responsible for most alcohol-related deaths, according to the report from the NCHS, a part of the CDC.

It found the rate of deaths from alcoholic liver disease increased 23% from 2019 to 2020 and 33% for mental and behavioral disorders due to alcohol use.

The NCHS study considered alcoholic liver disease to include alcoholic fatty liver, alcoholic hepatitis, alcoholic fibrosis and sclerosis of the liver, among other conditions. Mental and behavioral disorders due to alcohol use include acute intoxication, harmful use, dependence syndrome, withdrawal and psychotic disorders.

Other common causes of death related to alcohol were accidental poisoning by alcohol, alcoholic cardiomyopathy and alcohol-induced pancreatitis."

Here’s how it’s going since Texas lifted a ban on Sunday morning beer and wine sales

By Maria Halkias of The Dallas Morning News. Excerpt:

"A year ago, the law changed in Texas to allow stores to sell beer and wine before noon on Sundays. People who moved to the state never quite understood why grocery stores’ big, elaborate wine and beer sections were out of bounds because of the time on the clock.

The idea of customer convenience was cited most often by the grocery and convenience stores that pushed the Texas Legislature to change the law that banned beer and wine sales on Sunday mornings.

One year later, it looks like everyone is behaving. According to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, no enforcement issues have come up at stores in Dallas since the law changed.

Stores say they’re no longer losing incremental beer and wine sales, which now start at 10 a.m. on Sundays instead of noon. Since the law changed, total monthly Dallas sales tax collections from grocery and convenience stores are up from a year ago. Groceries aren’t taxed in Texas, but alcoholic beverages are.

Data compiled by the Texas comptroller doesn’t separate sales tax collections by merchandise category. So it’s difficult to say with certainty whether the law change boosted sales."

New Study Finds To-Go Alcohol Did Not Increase Drunk Driving Deaths

Many states allowed restaurants to sell to-go cocktails during COVID-19. Research shows that change is not linked to an increase in drunk driving deaths

By C. Jarrett Dieterle of Reason.

"It is no secret that COVID-19 and the resulting lockdowns had unpredictable impacts on our economy. Policy makers were forced to adapt on the fly to keep the country moving. One of the best examples of this was the humble to-go cocktail, which served as a lifeline for struggling neighborhood restaurants.

Now lawmakers are starting to ask: Should this temporary lifeline become a business staple? Should we always be able to order margaritas with our pizza? Some former alcohol regulators, as well interest groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, have voiced concerns that to-go alcohol might increase drunk driving. New evidence shows this concern is misplaced.

After reviewing state-level data on alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2020 recently released by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), and overlaying it with an analysis of states that allowed to-go drinks during the pandemic versus those that did not, the R Street Institute, where I am a resident senior fellow, found that to-go alcohol was not correlated to an increase in drunk driving deaths.

Numerous states that permitted to-go drinks—such as Idaho, Hawaii and Massachusetts—saw a noticeable decrease in alcohol-impaired traffic deaths from 2019 to 2020. Meanwhile, some of the most stringent states when it came to forbidding to-go alcohol endured some of the highest increases in alcohol-impaired traffic fatalities. South Dakota and Utah, both of which prohibited to-go and delivery alcohol, saw increases in alcohol-impaired driving deaths of 75 percent and 52.6 percent, respectively.

On average, states that allowed to-go drinks saw an increase of 12.55 percent in alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2020, but states that did not allow to-go drinks at all during COVID-19 saw an average rise of 53.63 percent in alcohol-impaired driving deaths. Data for other forms of takeout and delivery alcohol, such as delivery from grocery stores, showed a similar lack of correlation with alcohol-impaired traffic fatalities.

There was an overall rise in the number of alcohol-impaired driving deaths from 2019 to 2020. Exactly what caused this sad trend continues to be debated, with some academics and researchers citing reduced seat belt usage, greater substance abuse, and more drivers speeding during the pandemic. Given this new analysis of to-go laws in various states, however, it does not appear to be traceable to to-go alcohol. This doesn't mean local authorities won't attempt to pin blame on these altered laws, though. 

After significant back-and-forth, New York state recently included a three-year extension of to-go cocktail privileges for restaurants as part of its 2023 state budget. Although 86 percent of New Yorkers supported extending to-go drinks, the issue did not pass without controversy: The Police Benevolent Association of the New York State Troopers issued a legislative memo warning that to-go alcohol sales could lead to a spike in drunk driving. The memo vaguely referred to "numerous incidents" in which to-go drinks were consumed in a vehicle as well as citing "disturbing trends" in drunk driving rates during the pandemic.

But New York, which temporarily allowed to-go drinks during much of the pandemic, experienced an increase of 11.7 percent in alcohol-impaired traffic fatalities—a rate significantly lower than the average for states which forbid to-go alcohol throughout the pandemic.

Importantly, this data does not suggest that to-go drinks reduced drunk driving deaths in certain states; the small sample size of only 50 states in America makes it difficult to statistically demonstrate any type of causation one way or the other. But the data does show that to-go alcohol was not correlated with more drunk driving deaths.

It is understandable why lawmakers would want to avoid any policy changes that could jeopardize public safety. But the fact that to-go alcohol reforms are not correlated with more drunk driving deaths, as some had feared, is something we should all raise our glasses to."

We Just Got Proof That Uber Has Saved Thousands of Lives

The ride-sharing service is more than just convenient, a new study finds

By Brad Polumbo of FEE. Excerpts:

"new research illustrates that ride-sharing services like Uber are more than just convenient—they have literally saved thousands of lives. 

A study by two economists at the University of California, Berkeley examined the impact that Uber, specifically, has had on alcohol-related traffic deaths and total traffic deaths in the US. They sought to investigate a simple question. By providing people with a safe, convenient, and relatively inexpensive alternative means of transportation, would Uber reduce drunk driving and traffic deaths? 

According to their findings, the answer is a resounding yes.

Uber has reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities by 6.1 percent, the study finds, which equates to roughly 214 lives in 2019. Similarly, Uber reduced overall traffic deaths by 4 percent, likely by reducing other forms of dangerous driving such as driving while very tired. This equates to 494 lives saved in 2019. (And that’s just Uber: To understand the full life-saving impact of ride-sharing technology, we would have to factor in competitors like Lyft, too). 

Extrapolating this data across multiple years, we’re left with the inescapable conclusion that Uber has saved thousands of American lives. This life-saving effect translates to $2.3 to $5.4 billion in economic benefits for consumers. 

However, there’s a bigger takeaway here than the simple fact that ride-sharing services are awesome. These heart-warming results are another reminder that the lawful pursuit of profit in a free market is not actually a bad thing, but rather, leads profit-seekers to help all of society.

Progressive politicians and left-leaning critics have routinely bashed Uber as a “greedy” and “exploitative” company, and otherwise campaigned for its regulation and restriction. It is, of course, true that the people who run Uber and other ride-sharing services want to make money. That’s why they went into business. But pursuing profit doesn’t mean a company is working against the public’s interest.  

The reality of Uber offers a stark contrast. It shows us how a company desiring large profits in a free market must meet a pressing societal need and uplift millions of others. Indeed, this new study finds that the life-sharing benefits Uber has achieved for society alone likely match the profits the company has received through its enterprise. 

And Uber is hardly an exception on this front. As economist Donald J. Boudreaux explained, studies show that “producers, on average, capture a mere 2.2 percent of the total benefits of their successful introduction into markets of technological advances. A whopping 97.8 percent of those benefits are enjoyed by [consumers].”"

After Pennsylvania Closed All Liquor Stores, Residents Crossed State Borders To Buy Booze. Now Ohio Is Shutting Down Out-of-State Sales.

Border counties are now prohibited from selling to anyone without proof of residency.

By Peter Suderman of Reason.

"No state has done a worse job regulating the sale of alcohol during the pandemic than Pennsylvania. 

When the state closed all of its liquor stores in March, officials cited health and safety concerns stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. (Liquor stores in Pennsylvania are all state-run; the government has a monopoly.)

"The health and safety of our consumers and employees is our top priority, and we take our responsibility very seriously," reads a notice on the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) website. State liquor regulators were aware of the disruption the closure would cause. But "mitigation of the public health crisis must take priority over the sale of wine and spirits, as the health and safety of our employees, customers and communities is paramount."

The liquor store closures have certainly been disruptive. But, if anything, they have exacerbated the public health crisis, even in other states. 

With few legal options for purchasing spirits inside state borders, residents have flooded liquor stores in other states, with one in New Jersey choosing to temporarily shut down last month because the influx of customers made social distancing impossible. 

The boom in out-of-state business has been so large, and so dangerous to public health, that out-of-state governments are now prohibiting purchases by Pennsylvania residents. 

Yesterday, Ohio's Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed an order requiring six Ohio counties near the Pennsylvania border to require proof of local residency for the purchase of alcohol. "This is necessary because of repeated instances of persons from Pennsylvania coming into these counties for the sole or main purpose of purchasing liquor," he said, according to a local Fox affiliate. "Any other time, we'd love to have visitors from Pennsylvania, but right now this creates an unacceptable public health issue." 

DeWine's order follows a similar closure in a West Virginia county, which specifically prohibited the sale of liquor to anyone presenting a Pennsylvania ID. In that instance, as well, local health officials specifically cited health and safety concerns resulting from an  increase in cross-border purchases due to liquor store closures. 

Pennsylvanians who wanted to purchase spirits had essentially no other place to go. Not even online. 
The state's online liquor sales portal, which reopened this month, has proven barely functional. Even with a reduced selection, a limit on the number of bottles per order, and a cap of one order per day, the site has been unable to cope with demand. Two weeks after reopening, most customers are greeted with a message saying the site is down. 


During the first week of online sales, PennLive reports, about 7,800 people successfully placed online orders—out of 1.9 million people who tried. By the following week, sales data showed 16,825 sales from roughly 2.9 million active users. 

"Consumer interest and site traffic far exceeded our ability to accept orders," a spokesperson said earlier this month, following initial reports of crashes. 

In response to the demand spike, the liquor board has instituted an inscrutable system by which successful access to the site is randomized, and the number of orders it fills each day is not disclosed. Presumably, it did not occur to the state's liquor regulators that a completely opaque system in which it's unclear how many orders can be filled, or at what times, would lead to an increase in users checking the site throughout the day, further overloading the system's capacity. 

One way of looking at Pennsylvania's liquor sales travails is as a failure of bureaucratic competence: Other states that control liquor sales have managed the pandemic lockdowns with far less disruption or danger. 

Another way of looking at it, however, is as a failure of the state control model. The fundamental reason why Pennsylvania has so thoroughly botched its liquor sale management is that the state has a near-monopoly on liquor sales within its borders. That means residents can't order out-of-state spirits to their homes. It means that private alternatives cannot fill in the gaps created by the state's poor decision making and technological incompetence. It means that liquor sales are almost entirely dependent on the whims of the state, and threatened by its foibles, which have been plainly evident over the past month.

I say "almost," because the best option for Pennsylvania residents who want to purchase spirits right now is probably to purchase liquor from one of the state's many craft distilleries. (I recommend Dad's Hat, which makes a delicious rye now available online for direct delivery.) Craft producers won't sell you your favorite national brand, but they will safely and conveniently do what private producers typically do—and what the state, despite its financial interest in the sale of liquor, seems determined not to do: sell you booze when you want it."

Fatally Flawed Research Asserts Alcohol Taxes Save Lives

From Michelle Minton of CEI. Excerpt:

"Last month, researchers at the University of Florida published a study in the American Journal of Public Health that concluded, “Increases in alcohol excise taxes, such as the 2009 Illinois act, could save thousands of lives yearly across the United States as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce alcohol-impaired driving.” Their study presented the case that the 2009 tax increase resulted in a statistically significant reduction in alcohol-related deaths in Illinois. However, as I pointed out in a blog post, there only appears to be a reduction in fatalities because of the authors’ selective inclusion and exclusion of data. Rebecca Goldin, Director of STATS.org and Professor of Mathematical Sciences at George Mason University, found even more flaws in the research.

In her post, Rebecca takes a bird’s eye view of the crash data in Illinois between 1999 and 2013. She finds a steady decline during this 10-year period with “hardly anything special at all going on at the end of 2009.” Looking closer at the data, she noted (as did I) the curious exclusion of data after 2011. “Results should be resilient to changes in choices, such as whether to use data published 2011-2013,” Goldin notes. When added to the evaluation, this 2011-2013 data shows a small decrease immediately after 2009, but then shows a steady increase in alcohol-related traffic deaths in Illinois. She also found that as a proportion of total traffic fatalities, alcohol-related fatalities on the road have been increasing since 2009 (though only by 2 percent—a statistically insignificant amount).

Of course, the real story here is that breaking the data at year 2009 may not be an appropriate way of measuring the trends, and certainly it’s not appropriate to “blame” the excise tax for the proportionally increased alcohol deaths in the context of decreasing deaths associated to alcohol. But by the same logic neither is it appropriate to conclude that the excise tax has been saving lives."

The Wholesale Liquor Cartel Harms Consumers

See this great post by Mark Perry at Carpe Diem.

"NY Times -- "Imagine if Texas lawmakers, in a bid to protect mom-and-pop bookstores, barred Amazon.com from shipping into the state. Or if Massachusetts legislators, worried about Boston’s shoe boutiques, prohibited residents from ordering from Zappos.com. Such moves would infuriate consumers. They might also breach the Constitution’s commerce clause, which limits states from erecting trade barriers against one another. But wine consumers, producers and retailers face such restrictions daily.

The wholesaling industry’s survival depends on maintaining today’s highly regulated system. It is estimated that because of wholesalers, consumers pay 18 percent to 25 percent more at retail than they otherwise would.

Last month, Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, introduced a bill in the House that would allow states to cement such protectionist laws. It should appall wine snobs, beer swillers and even teetotalers. In this case, the law would protect not small stores and liquor producers, but the wholesale liquor lobby.""