Good Wine New, Bad Wine News and Male Hair Buns

What do you want first? The good news or the bad news?

OK.

The good news is that Kentucky wine lovers may be on their way to getting their hands on the good stuff. The Kentucky Senate Licensing, Occupations and Administrative Regulations Committee yesterday approved a bill that would allow shipments to Kentucky from out of state wineries. This is legislation that the Wine Institute and Free the Grapes has been working on for a long time. Kentucky is one of only five states that still does not allow wine shipments from out-of-state wineries. Unfortunately, the bill doesn’t allow Kentucky consumers to receive any shipments of imported wines since it doesn’t include shipping privileges from out-of-state retailers. But all in good time. I don’t want to jinx anything, but chances of passage look good.

More good news: The first release of the Oregon Solidarity Wines will come in March and feature a 2018 Rosé of Pinot Noir. You may recall that when California’s Copper Cane Winery rejected Rogue Valley grapes back in September claiming smoke taint, a collection of Oregon wineries stepped up to buy the grapes and make wine from them. Magnanimous and Generous and Oregonian, it was. Oregon Governor Kate Brown released a statement on Monday saying, “The Oregon Solidarity wines exemplify the Oregonian spirit, bringing forth our best values by helping others during their time of need.” Indeed.

Finally, the bad news. At the urging of the state’s wholesalers, New Mexico lawmakers are trying to pass a bill that would forbid New Mexico wine consumers from having wine shipped to them from out-of-state wine retailers, a privilege consumers in the state have enjoyed for many years. The reciprocal shipping law for retailers in New Mexico. Is being described as “bootlegging”. But of course, it isn’t. Back in 2011 when the state changed its laws for winery shipping to a permit system it specifically chose to leave retailer shipping as a reciprocal system. Any New Mexican wine lovers who would like to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee where to stick SB 127 can do so here.

One of these days I’m going to report nothing but a series of good news on this blog. That said, two out of three ain’t bad. I wrote this today while my wife, Kathy Berez, was attending the first day of the Oregon Wine Symposium. She had good news to report also. Not only is the Symposium very well attended and sporting lots of great info and exhibitors, but she also reported that the trend among Oregon men to wear their hair in buns is still going strong.

Tags:


6 Responses

  1. VVP - February 14, 2019

    Are you totally illiterate?

    The liberty of American citizens in their choice in New Mexico stays unchanged in Section 3, Subsection E of the SB 127, and Subsection E is excepted from common carrier registration and reporting requirements.

    The Subsection F of the same Section 3.is also excepted registrations and adds ability of any individual to ship wine to individual in New Mexico with a common carrier.

    You really better stop to spread fake bad news!

  2. Pete - February 15, 2019

    I think these guys are hit by paranoia or they have terrible memory disorder. The right to send liquors from one state into another, and the act of sending the same, is interstate commerce, the regulation whereof has been committed by the Constitution of the United States to Congress, and, hence, that a state law which denies such a right, or substantially interferes with or hampers the same, is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, once famous Justice White said in Supreme Court. The transportation is not complete until delivery to the consignee is also settled. Any exercise of state authority, in whatever form manifested, which directly regulates interstate commerce, is repugnant to the commerce clause of the Constitution. While this all was ruled long ago, the jurisdiction of Supreme Court court is not open to dispute. The Amendment XXI which in modern times regulates that same interstate commerce of alcohol may be enforced only after transportation is complete. The Supreme Court ones already pointed to the same Kentucky that the package, containing a gallon of whisky, which was shipped from Cincinnati, Ohio, to George Meece, at East Bernstadt, Kentucky was therefore one of interstate commerce, and is within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. The Kentucky statute prohibiting such transaction was obviously an attempt to regulate such interstate commerce. This is beyond dispute under the decisions of this court that such state statute has no right to survive.

  3. Laurie - February 25, 2019

    Hey, I think your blog might be having browser compatibility
    issues. When I look at your website in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer,
    it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up!
    Other then that, wonderful blog!

  4. Lucy Orloski - March 15, 2019

    The blog is written well and providing depth information on the topic

  5. Rock George - March 15, 2019

    The blog post is really written well. Thanks for sharing.

  6. John - March 15, 2019

    Terribly incompetent author specially on the first and last news in the post. Would never recommend this blog.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


Click to access the login or register cheese