http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2010/01/03/copy/Wine_Limit.ART_ART_01-03-10_A1_67G6AUO.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
The Ohio statehouse is always fun.
QuoteWine law untested in early going
Sunday, January 3, 2010 3:43 AM
By Doug Caruso
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
As laws go, Ohio's limit on wine purchases appears to be simple:
"No family household shall purchase more than 24 cases of 12 bottles of 750 milliliters of wine in one year."
That's 288 bottles per year -- plenty for most people. But it raises questions if you're a collector, entertain a lot or just prickle at the thought of another government regulation.
How do they know how much wine I buy? Why do they care? How many cases have I purchased this year?
The bottom line is this: Government agents will not break down your door if you bring home that 25th case of Two Buck Chuck. But if you order more than 24 cases of wine in a year and have it delivered directly to your door from a winery, you could face a fine.
State legislators added the purchase limit in 2007 (and amended it in 2008 to clarify the size of the bottles) when they were trying to figure out how to regulate wineries shipping directly to Ohioans.
"This was to prevent massive shipments to individuals," said Donniella Winchell, executive director of the Ohio Wine Producers Association. "The level was set to establish what would seem to be a reasonable amount for personal use."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that states can't block direct sales from out-of-state wineries if they allow them for in-state wineries. Ohio had blocked sales from out-of-state wineries if their products were available in retail stores here.
So, legislators approved the S (for supplier) license: All wineries or importers for wineries that produce fewer than 250,000 gallons per year pay the state $25 for a license that allows them to ship directly to customers here. They have to pay the state's alcohol and sales taxes. They also have to tell the state who received the wine -- and how much that person got.
The Ohio Division of Liquor Control, which receives the reports on wine sales from the S permit holders, uses the reports to determine whether someone might be violating the purchase limit, said Matt Mullins, a spokesman for the division. "It's the division's interpretation that it's related to the amount of wine shipped from an S permit holder. That's what we believe the intent (of the law) was."
The reports are due each year in March, he said, and the first came last year. No one was flagged as a violator.
If the reports did show that someone had purchased too much wine by mail, Mullins said, the information would be turned over to the Ohio Department of Public Safety Investigative Unit, which enforces state alcohol laws. The law allows a fine of up to $100 if someone is found guilty.
People who buy most of their wine at a supermarket or wine shop have nothing to fear, said Chris Paparodis, a Columbus lawyer who specializes in liquor regulations.
"No. 1, they don't know how much you buy from a local retailer," he said of the state.
"Second, if you're a nonpermit premises -- a residential home -- they need a search warrant to come into your premises. I'm not sure they would know to do that if you're buying three cases of wine a month from the local grocery store."
Is there a particular reason for this law? Are you guys afraid that parts of the populace are turning European?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2010, 06:37:59 PM
Is there a particular reason for this law? Are you guys afraid that parts of the populace are turning European?
I'd assume it is a revenue thing, as the state is trying to grab everything not nailed down.
But I stopped trying to read the mind of the governor and the legislature, as they are both insane.
edit: And the state is trying to rebuild the local booze industry.
Want to see a real civil war, do that shit in Ohio for beer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2010, 06:48:20 PM
Want to see a real civil war, do that shit in Ohio for beer.
Spicy would be first on the barricades. He loves his beer.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 03, 2010, 06:53:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2010, 06:48:20 PM
Want to see a real civil war, do that shit in Ohio for beer.
Spicy would be first on the barricades. He loves his beer.
That fucker should have to blow into a tube to start his car.
:lol:
He might as well wear that beer helmet at sports events.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 03, 2010, 06:43:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2010, 06:37:59 PM
Is there a particular reason for this law? Are you guys afraid that parts of the populace are turning European?
I'd assume it is a revenue thing, as the state is trying to grab everything not nailed down.
But I stopped trying to read the mind of the governor and the legislature, as they are both insane.
edit: And the state is trying to rebuild the local booze industry.
Ahh. Protectionism. Missouri has a pretty strong booze industry. Don't know for how much longer though since the Belgians bought up Anheuser Busch. <_< We do have a fairly strong wine industry though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2010, 06:56:11 PM
That fucker should have to blow into a tube to start his car.
I don't get to drink as much as I used to :(
QuoteHe might as well wear that beer helmet at sports events.
IT'S CONVENIENT
How odd and silly.
There's a similar restriction on the total amount of beer, wine, and cider you can homebrew per the legislation from the late 70s that made homebrewing legal again. IIRC it's either 300 or 600 gallons. :lol:
Under Mississippi law, it's illegal to moonshine, it's semi-illegal to brew beer, but you can make as much wine as you want without restriction for your own use.
The federal restriction is not so much a ban on making more but rather if you exceed that limit you have to apply for a commercial brewery license.
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2010, 09:41:42 AM
The federal restriction is not so much a ban on making more but rather if you exceed that limit you have to apply for a commercial brewery license.
:yes: And change your name to Ancketill Brewer.
The Australians get called raciss when they limit people to buying only one sixpack or one bottle of wine/spirits per day.
Quote from: Viking on January 04, 2010, 10:19:10 AM
The Australians get called raciss when they limit people to buying only one sixpack or one bottle of wine/spirits per day.
What's the point? Australians don't actually buy anything; they just steal what they want.
;)
I assume the purpose is not to regulate personal consumption, but rather importing/wholesaling hiding as personal consumption.
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2010, 12:54:18 PM
importing/wholesaling hiding as personal consumption.
Do people do that? Is it profitable? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on January 04, 2010, 01:40:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2010, 12:54:18 PM
importing/wholesaling hiding as personal consumption.
Do people do that? Is it profitable? :unsure:
If there is a major price differential caused by tax or other local policies, I imagine it would be.
High taxation of booze is notorious. If taxes were higher in one state than another, one could easily make money importing directly from the manufacturer for "personal consumption" and then selling, if purchases for personal consumption were taxed at point of purchase.
Point is that attempting to tax such under the counter sales may be impossible (as is any attempt to count the number of bottles one buys per year). The real target is the seller/importer, as any large shipment is now in and of itself an offense.
I imagine this just makes it a bit harder, rather than making it impossible.
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2010, 02:52:11 PM
High taxation of booze is notorious. If taxes were higher in one state than another, one could easily make money importing directly from the manufacturer for "personal consumption" and then selling, if purchases for personal consumption were taxed at point of purchase.
Selling to whom?