In an era when:

• Unemployment is at historical high levels and has remained high for over two years,
• The lynchpin of consumer wealth (housing) for the American middle class is in a prolonged slump with over 22% of home owners under water,
• The top 1% of the population garners 40% of the wealth – the middle class is shrinking while those in poverty substantially increased,
• Debt continues to spiral out of control,
• It is getting harder and harder for Americans to afford or access quality healthcare,
• Infrastructure across the country is crumbling,
• Trading partner currencies are being manipulated,
• The banking industry continues to exercise policies that could easily cause another worldwide recession,
• We continue to engage in two wars, and …
• Fossil fuel based energy continues to hold long term economic growth hostage,

What does 109 of our fine representatives in congress focus on? You guess it!

The Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act of 2011 (HR 1161)  – introduced by Representative Jason Chavetz (R) of Utah as a follow on to HR 5034 – a piece of legisation that will not solve, rectify or mitigate any of the above.

According to the Statemans Journal, the special interests supporting this bill (the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America), depict this as “an attempt to rescue state and local control over alcohol sale from online alcohol sellers, big box retailers, international alcohol suppliers and professional plaintiffs that want federal courts to allow them to sell ever-larger volumes of alcohol at low or below-cost prices – a trend they see as leading to social ills such as more underage drinking.

Why an oxymoron? An oxymoron is defined as “a figure of speech in which incongruous or contradictory terms appear side by side”. In this case, the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America don’t have a problem in increasing the volume of sales of alcohol or providing pricing promotions where it serves their interests, they simply want to ensure that if volumes and revenues are going to increase it has to flow through them.

The intent of this bill is to unravel the Granholm vs. Heald Supreme Court decision that disallowed state laws that thrash the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution in favor of special in-state treatment of wineries. This bill would ensure that when unfair, special interest state laws are enacted, they cannot be challenged, keeping that the current 3-tired monopoly remains in tact.

One thing this bill would do is decimate the small wine producers who do not produce sufficient volume to get the attention of large distributors and instead depend very heavily on tasting room and wine club sales. This would effectively eliminate out of state wine club sales. So at the very least this bill would increase unemployment for small producers.

I am not going to restate all the facts about this bill – this has already been done on countless sites such as Free the Grapes,  Vinography, Stop1161, Fermentation, as well as countless other sites.

• But I will state the obvious:
  This is a special interest bill that serves a small minority that are desperate to keep a monopoly in place
  It has nothing to do with states rights .. they already have them courtesy of the 21st amendment
  It has nothing to do with keeping alcohol out of the reach of minors
  It has nothing to do with ensuring sales taxes are paid

And just to let you know I am not focusing on any particular party, of the 109 co-sponsors approximately 42% are Democrat and 58% Republican.

My question to the 109 co-sponsors would be:

• Did you read the bill or simply sign based on contributions and/or quid pro quo favors?
• Do you understand the special interest provisions and the harm it can cause to small wineries and consumer choice?

If you haven’t read the bill, dah … read it!

Finally, how about focusing on the real problems facing this nation that are in the best interest of all Americans?

So it is not surprising that opposing views were solidified – those whose life style included alcohol and those that strongly opposed it, all culminating in a failed  ”noble experiment” (Prohibition - 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act).

Although repealed in 1933, the results of Prohibition are clearly still felt today as these “Blue Laws” continue to regulate State by State, the purchase, distribution, and consumption of alcohol including wine.

Its with this backdrop that today’s social issues, social media and wine become interwined. How so? With regulations that often are State by State or even County by County, social media and networking bring these regulations to the fore, without which wine lovers might never be aware of the sometimes outlandlish patchwork of regulations that govern the industry.

For instance, laws that require sales of alcohol to not be within some particular distance from a church or school say in Texas, or laws that regulate the days and times of days alcohol can be sold, say somewhere in Alabama. One recently in the State of Maine allows  stores to offer a wine tasting, but requires that no children can be present.

Specifically, “An amendment to L.D. 498 by Rep. David Webster, D-Freeport, states, “Taste-testing activities must be conducted in a manner that precludes the possibility of observation by children.”

Dah, that’s about as logical as suggesting that if we refrain from all sex education in the schools as well as refrain from speaking about it in the home  that there will be no experimental sex before marriage. Yeah … right!

Well, if the sight of an adult tasting wine is detramental to our children, should it be that all restaurants need to have a special room for patrons to have their wine, beer, or mixed drinks.. from which they can run back and forth while eating. Or, maybe we ban all consumption in the home if a couple has children until the kids reach the age of 18 in fear that our children will become alcoholics as a result. (Funny that not all French,Italian and Spanish adults are alcoholics – after all, they grew up watching parents drink wine with dinner.)

Point of all of this: Social media brings social issues such as the purchase, distribution and shipping of wine  to the forefront as never before. It also highlights legislation that seems ignorant at best.

Beyond Google alerts, platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Wine2.0, as well as many others, provide insights into a constant barrage of wine related issues. Its not hard to stay informed today.

With the advent of online access and subsequent participation in various social media and networking platforms, I can only hope that the citizens of this Nation will educate themselves on the issues, and by doing so, focus more on laws that seek accountability for ones actions rather than trying to regulate behavior that of and by itself has no adverse consequence to others.