On its face, a recent effort to restrict online liquor sales looks like the latest in a series of Net-related blunders for Congress.
The bill, approved by the House on Aug. 3 after being passed by the Senate last month, seems hopelessly out of touch with the realities of electronic commerce. It will protect market inefficiencies and frustrate consumers while ultimately failing to achieve its stated goal of reducing teen-agers’ access to alcohol.
Despite all that, it’s a step in the right direction. Congress usually addresses perceived problems on the Net by singling out the medium for special treatment or more often, mistreatment. This time, though, it’s merely making sure that existing laws aren’t undermined by new technology.
State and local statutes shouldn’t be ignored just because the Internet makes it easier to get around them. Even though the Net is growing bigger by the second, it can’t be allowed to overshadow democracy.
The bill in question would allow state prosecutors to enforce local liquor restrictions against out-of-state vendors by filing their cases in federal court. It was introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, and Rep. Joe Scarborough, a Florida Republican, after Mothers Against Drunk Drivers asked for legislation cracking down on the sale of alcohol to minors over the Net.
Of course, there’s not much evidence that this is happening. A number of small wineries and breweries have set up shop online in hopes of expanding their market. But they all say they won’t sell to minors. And while the potential for abuse exists, I don’t think too many teens are searching the Web for a cheap buzz.
Imagine the scenario this bill supposedly prevents: A kid who wants to impress his friends steals his parents’ credit card, logs onto a site like Virtual Vineyards and orders up a nice Cabernet with some legs, as that’s what all the underage sommeliers are recommending these days. He then waits a week or so for the bottle to arrive, making sure to skip school so he’ll be there to intercept the illegal shipment. Then it’s time to break out the stemware and party down, dude!
Not likely. Even the most Net-savvy teens get alcohol the old-fashioned way: by stealing it from parents, buying it through an older friend or using a fake ID. Restricting online liquor sales to protect children makes about as much sense as trying to reduce teen smoking by outlawing the sale of corn-cob pipes.
In truth, the bill is more about protecting the state-sanctioned monopolies enjoyed by liquor wholesalers. Most states restrict the direct delivery of alcohol to customers from out-of-state vendors, meaning Web purchases must pass through the hands and pocketbooks of licensed distributors.
Online alcohol retailers complain that these Prohibition-era restrictions prevent them from reaching many customers. Since other Internet sellers don’t face such restrictions, they reason, why should they?
Here’s why: The law says so. Our elected leaders in state and local government have seen fit to impose restrictions on the sale of alcohol. The Supreme Court has allowed these rules to stand, and small retailers have been forced to live with them.
Why should the Internet change any of this? While the Web might make it clear that state liquor monopolies are outdated, that doesn’t mean online stores should be exempt from rules that their offline peers have to follow. If the Web’s liquor stores and their would-be customers want to change the laws, they should lobby legislatures to change them. Indeed, I’d wish them luck they’d need it. Until then, though, they’ll have to obey the law just like everyone else.
Congress, meanwhile, should learn a lesson from this bill. If they took this same reserved approach to other issues raised by the Net, their laws might actually reach a typesetter before being overturned by federal judges.
Bills targeting online pornography have been undone by courts because they impose restrictions greater than exist in the offline world. Another bill designed to ban online gambling, meanwhile, would actually legalize new forms of interactive betting on horse races.
In these cases and others like them, Congress would be better off merely tweaking existing laws to make sure they can accommodate the Internet. Just as liquor laws should be applicable online, Net users shouldn’t be subjected to restrictions that don’t exist offline.
That’s not to say existing statutes can address every concern that has accompanied the Internet’s spectacular growth. But unlike most of what Congress does about the Net, at least those old laws won’t cause any new problems.
To contact syndicated columnist Joe Salkowski, you can e-mail him at [email protected] or write to him c/o Tribune Media Services Inc., 435 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60611.
