Don't ban wine shipments

Abill that sailed through a state House committee last week would bottle up business for Michigan wineries, and could force some down the drain.

That should have every Michigan resident -- wine lover or not -- asking what lawmakers have been drinking.

The measure, which would ban all direct-to-consumer wine shipments in the state, is more a gift to the powerful Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association than smart, commerce-conscious legislation. Lawmakers need to put a stop to it and move in the opposite direction, opening the direct-sales market to vintners both in and outside Michigan.

The proposal followed a May decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled Michigan's law on wine shipments unconstitutional. The law prohibited direct shipment of wine -- via catalogues or the Internet, for instance -- into Michigan by out-of-state retailers. Those wineries had to sell through wholesalers. Michigan vineyards, however, could sell directly to in-state consumers, restaurants and retailers without going through wholesalers.

The court reached the reasonable conclusion that the law violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Michigan must now even the playing field.

Lawmakers propose accomplishing that goal by prohibiting both in-state and out-of-state direct sales. The bill, passed last week by the House Regulatory Reform Committee, would even outlaw wineries selling directly to customers who visit their tasting rooms.

Those who favor the ban say it would prevent sale of alcohol to minors. That concern, however, has no basis in reality. Shipment of wine through the mail is already prevalent. Thirty-nine states allow in-state wineries to ship directly to citizens. Michigan has allowed those shipments for 35 years. Has this practice caused widespread problems?

A Federal Trade Commission study in 2003 showed that states that already allow interstate wine shipments have little or no problems with sales to minors. No Michigan vineyard has ever been cited for selling to a minor. The same can't be said of retailers.

Precautions should be taken, of course. Requiring the signature of somebody over 21 years old for any received shipment of wine makes sense. The number of bottles of wine per shipment could be limited.

West Michigan lawmakers, in particular, should be sensitive to these small, in many cases family-owned businesses that are concentrated in the Southwest and Northwest parts of the state -- in their communities. Some have accepted the unsupported argument about minors. State Rep. William Van Regenmorter, R-Georgetown Township, voted for the ban in committee.

Senate Majority Leader Kenneth Sikkema, R-Wyoming, is taking a more cautious stance, saying the measure will wait until the fall. Mr. Sikkema is right to put the brakes on this fast-moving bill.

A blanket prohibition on all direct wine sales would be disastrous for the state's 42 wineries. About a third of their business is direct-to-consumer sales. The state's vineyards have difficulty getting their wines distributed through wholesalers. Black Star Farms outside Suttons Bay, for instance, bottles 22 varieties of wine. Wholesalers will carry only the four top-selling kinds.

Wine makers wouldn't be the only ones hurt. Vintner visitors stay at hotels, eat at local restaurants, shop at area stores. A Michigan State University study three years ago estimated that the wine industry contributes $75 million to the state's economy.

In other words, this wine bill would be too big a tab for Michigan. Lawmakers and the governor should sit down and order something different -- something that won't be hemlock for Michigan businesses.