Maryland Direct Shipping Bill (Part 3)

The Maryland legislators who are opposed to the proposed direct shipping bills are really missing the point. The wholesalers have testified that their main objection to the bills is that it will make it easy for Maryland minors to obtain alcohol and their (the wholesalers') main purpose in life is to protect minors. Yet 35 other states, including bordering states West Virginia and Virginia, and the District of Columbia, have successfully implemented direct shipping while very effectively preventing minors from obtaining alcohol through direct shipping. The legislators who buy into the Maryland wholesalers' arguments are effectively saying to their constituency that they cannot be trusted to be responsible. Only the wholesalers and retailers are responsible enough and care enough about the minors in Maryland to make sure that they do not have access to alcohol. The legislators in 35 other states feel that their constituents are responsible enough to have the legal right to have wine shipped directly to their homes.

Maryland voters who are 21 years or older are just as responsible and concerned about under-age drinking as voters in the 35 states that currently allow direct shipping. Frankly I find it insulting and patronizing of the Maryland wholesalers, retailers and other interests that argue that I am not responsible enough to be trusted with the right to have wine shipped directly to my home. And I am outraged that Maryland legislators buy into this specious argument.

I would like to hope that my next post in this series will be in celebration of passage of the direct shipping law in Maryland. But alas, that is not likely. Stay tuned...

Maryland Direct Shipping Bill (Part 2)

One of the arguments put forth by the Maryland wholesalers against direct shipping is that there is a direct shipping law currently on the books, so the proposed law is not needed. What they fail to say is that the law is cumbersome and onerous for all concerned, and it is designed to protect the three-tier system. Under the current law, all three tiers are involved and there is no value added by these extra layers of involvement. It is designed, according to the wholesalers, to ensure that a minor cannot get access to the wine, and to ensure that the sales tax is paid. The first part is controlled by requiring that the wine be shipped by the winery to a state-designated wholesaler, which then delivers the wine to a wholesaler-designated licensed retailer, where the consumer is permitted to pick up the wine. The second part is controlled by requiring the winery to pay the sales tax to the state. The proposed law addresses these concerns and is used successfully in 35 other states.

In the four years since the current law has been in effect, only two consumers have successfully purchased wine from out of state using this process. This has netted the state an estimated $100 in excise tax, sales tax, and the permit fees paid by the two wineries. Other consumers may have tried to use the current process, but they probably gave up when the wineries balked at the cumbersome process.

One of the wholesalers' lobbyist magnanimously proposed that the state-designated wholesalers would waive their per-bottle service charge of $2 to $4 per bottle which is permitted under this law. There is an additional $5 to $10 per bottle service charge permitted by the wholesaler-designated retailer. It is doubtful that the retailer would be so magnanimous as to waive this service charge. But beyond these extra charges for using this process, I think Maryland consumers (er, I mean Maryland voters) don't bother to use it because it is neither "direct" nor convenient.

In my next installment, I'll talk about the patronizing, prohibitionist wholesalers and their arguments for why Maryland can't be like the 35 other states that have successfully adopted direct shipping laws.

Maryland Direct Shipping Bill (Part 1)

[Note: this is the first in a series of rants against the Maryland wine retailers, wholesalers and others who oppose this bill]

My first rant is against Chuck Ferrar, owner of Bay Ridge Wine & Spirits, who testified against the bill at the Senate committee hearing yesterday in Annapolis. Is it any coincidence that Chuck's application to expand his store was approved in May by the City of Annapolis Beverage Control Board, or that Steve Wise, the attorney who represented Chuck at the board hearing, also testified against the bill? I think not. It is clear that all of those who testified in opposition to the bill are just circling the wagons and protecting their own interests. They do not care about Maryland consumers and what we want. Their only interest is in maintaining the status quo of the antiquated, neo-prohibitionist, protectionist three-tier regulatory control system in Maryland. One of those who spoke in opposition to the bill said something very telling, to the effect that passage of this bill will be just the first step in attempts to dismantle the three-tier system. Is there any wine consumer in Maryland who thinks that the current system is a good one? When I tell fellow wine lovers from out of state or from another country about Maryland's ABC laws, their responses are always expressions of incredulity. They simply cannot believe that every county in Maryland has its own liquor control board, or that some towns, like Annapolis, also have their own liquor control board. So yes, I hope that the bill gets passed, and that this is just the first step in getting rid of the corrupt, rotten-to-the-core, three-tier system in Maryland.

I have to stop now and have a glass of wine to calm down. The next installment will be focused on the current direct shipping law and why it doesn't work. I leave you now with this thought: it's time for Maryland consumers to change our self-image. We are not merely consumers, we are citizens and VOTERS and we have the power to CHANGE the laws of this state.

For further reading, I recommend this excellent article by Philip Rucker in the Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/ AR2008021802131.html

Overpriced, over-sold, and over-hyped!

I'm talking about the Grand Cru Lounge at the Washington, DC International Wine & Food Festival held on February 14 and 15. The Grand Cru Lounge is billed as an exclusive part of the festival: " - Pamper yourself by visiting the ultra-special Grand Cru Wine Lounge. Sample the best of the best and taste creations from the area's top chefs." What I experienced yesterday was nothing of the sort.

I attended the Grand Cru Lounge last year and in 2007, the year it debuted as part of the festival. I attended because the Grand Tasting part of the festival had become so popular and overcrowded that even the trade hours were too much. In both of the two previous years, the Grand Cru Lounge was as it was billed: "Reserve level wines will be featured in this separate and sophisticated setting for the most serious wine enthusiast. All wines have been hand-selected and will be presented at specific times throughout the day. Several top winemakers will be on hand to discuss their wines as they are poured. A limited number of tickets are available in order to maintain a high-quality tasting experience..." Each year, the tasting was held in a very large, circular room called the Pavilion, with the Pavillion Prefunction room also being used. Many restaurants were represented, serving tastes of some of their signature dishes. The wines were for the most part the ultra-premium selections from excellent wineries, known and obscure, from all over the world. A live jazz band played, and some of the guests even danced. Overall, the Grand Cru Lounge events in 2007 and 2008 were a good value and an excellent experience.

Not so this year! At 2 p.m. those of us with tickets were admitted to a long, narrow, tomb-like room. As is my habit, I proceeded through the room to the back, to scope out what the offerings were and to avoid the crush of people at Table #1. Maybe I didn't read the description of this year's event properly, I'm thinking. I got to the back of the room, and the only chef I saw was from the Occidental Restaurant, and he was arranging pastries on a display. There was also a table set up with Capitol Chocolate Fountains. A cheese display was in the middle of the center of the room, near the back. It had a nice selection of cheeses, fruits, breads and the like. But it was so large it made the already-cramped room seem more cramped. Walking back up towards the front of the room, I saw a beautiful display of colorful crudite, with some bowls of dressing on the side. By the time I got back to the very front, the room was completely full and there was very little room to move, let alone approach the tables to try to get a taste of wine. The room was more crowded than the Grand Tasting, and the selection of wines was certainly not up to par with the previous years'. Where was Hunt Cellars? Chateau Julien? Where was Nage and all of the other great restaurants from before? So I paid $125 to eat raw vegetables and cheese and crackers with my samples of wine? That was the only savory food being offered. As for the desserts, well, I did not pay $125 to enjoy a sample of Jadot Puligny-Montrachet 2006 with a chocolate-covered strawberry marshmallow. I didn't sample the desserts because I don't eat chocolate and I'm not a big fan of sweets. By 4:30 p.m., a full hour and a half before the event was scheduled to end, several of the wines were gone, and so was I.

I'd love to hear comments from those of you who attended this year's Grand Cru Lounge, especially if you attended in previous years. I will be contacting ResourcePlus Shows & Events to express my dissatisfaction with this event. I hope you will, too. Just click on this link: http://www.wine-expos.com/Wine/DC/contact-us.asp?SHID=47699716.04953754.