Wine Doggy Bag Law in US (anything similar in Ontario?)

Salut/Hi Zed,

le/on Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:05:34 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

For what it's worth, in France this has never been an issue. In fact I find it utterly bizarre that anyone should seek to prevent you doing so.

Here in NYC you can sometimes purchase a hard-to-find bottle below retail. For example, I bought the 1994 Bryant Family for $200 at a downtown restaurant. The price was well in excess of the mailing list, but below retail/auction. Some restaurants are afraid to sell wine to you for take-out (liquor laws), but I found that a $20 bill slipped to a bartender or waiter works wonders.

Agreed, but here in the U.S., our liquor laws are a draconian holdover of prohibition and were influenced by the mob-turned-distributors (Joseph P. Kennedy for one). We claim to be a "free country," but as you know we are definitely not.

Though certainly no apologist, I shall attempt to illustrate the "logic," such as it is. In every state I've lived in, liquor licenses are subdivided into several different categories. Typically, there is one type for restaurants and bars (with a further division based on the serving of hard alcohol) and another type for liquor stores. The distinction lies in whether the customer can consume the beverage on the premises and/or whether the customer can remove the beverage from the place of purchase. In some states, you'll see signs for "bar/package store" or the like, which indicates that the owners have both types of license. Thus, it's in the economic interest of the government to forbid the removal of alcohol from a restaurant unless the restaurant invests in a second (and typically far more expensive) liquor license. As in all matters alcoholic, it's a tangle of the puritanical blue laws and the greed of those who've found profitable niches in the "three-tier" system. We'll see how much opposition this proposed law encounters in the NY legislature...

Mark Lipton

Mark, I am sure that most of us reading your detailed and excellent explanation (some what like a chemistry professor might do) were skipping ahead to think about places we have been with both On and Off licenses. And of course the idea that that would make it legal to take the bottle home. But wait, most of the southern states have a law that prohibits transporting alcohol unless the tax stamp is intact and the bottle has not been opened in any way. All this goes back to moonshine days and that was the law they charged them with.

I have lived in Florida, Ga, Ms and currently North Carolina. There is usually a max like 2 cases in NC that you can travel with.

I usually go to South Carolina and buy 2 cases of wine at least 2x per year. I have seen officers watch people leave the wine/ liquor store just over the border and confiscate wine/liquor.

So I buy 2 cases for me, 2 cases for wife and have her with me.

Good point, Bill! BTW, wrong identity in Netscape or are you going incognito? ;-)

Mark Lipton

Ian, i hear you! the alcohol laws are arcane in this country. If you go to a provincial park, put up a tent on teh beach, have beer or wine with you, you have zny of it in your car, they can confiscate your car, fine you thousands of dollars. You can even go to jail. And all that without being drunk and disorderly. I wish they woudl update our laws to reflect that we live in the 21th century, freedom and all... Zed

Can't happen here in the USA....first you let people drink at a Public Beach and then they want to behave European and go naked.

Damn...lets get the petition started here.

Salut/Hi Dale Williams,

I'm following up here, but with ref to comments generally. Firstly, please don't take this as in any way anti anything sensitive (though I _can't_ find it in my heart to approve of the USA's legal treatment of alcoholic beverages in many states).

le/on 10 Feb 2004 23:08:20 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

It may not be particularly common, but it's perfectly legal. If I have a smidgen left in the bottom of a bottle, I usually leave it for the restaurant to cook with (or the waiter to drink!!) However, if - as all too often happens - I can't find any interesting wine in halves, and I'm out just with Jacquie, I _really_ don't want to drink two whole bottles (a white for the fish and a red for the main) between us. If I can persuade them to offer a decent white by the glass, I'll often have one glass each as aperitive and with the fish course, and then buy a bottle of red. Even then there's often half a bottle left, and at restaurant prices, I _really_ don't want to leave it. So I ask for a cork and out of politeness ask if I can take it home. I don't know what others here do, Emery? Mike?

So recork it and put it in the boot, for the love of heaven. In any case I find it hard to understand the logic that presumes that having an opened bottle in the main body of the car is an automatic proof of being some kind of alcohol fiend. Mark and Andrew will confirm that when we were in New Zealand, we were able to drive around all day with various openened and unopened bottles in the car, without instantly swigging the contents. _I'm_ against drunk driving, as is any sensible human being, but that doesn't make me lose sight of common sense.

I feel that anyone living in the USA who reads this NG should do the same. The logic is entirely clear, IMO. If you CAN'T take leftovers home, then the temptation MUST be to "just finish it off" and thus go over the limit.

Agreed, Ian. France never had prohibition though, and there are some misguided zealots here in the US who would like to bring it _back_! If I'm not mistaken, the county that the Jack Daniels distillery resides in is "dry", as is the entire State of Kansas.

I must admit that Europeans are much more enlightened in some respects - and not just with regards to alcohol consumption. For example, the Superbowl show where Janet Jackson's breast was bared for a couple of seconds would hardly have raised an eyebrow in Europe - but it was considered absolutely _scandalous_ here in the US.

Tom S

I have been accused, in the past, of expressing "anti-Americanisms" whilst in reality simply "taking-the-piss" out of what I consider unbelievably stupid and restrictive laws and restrictions in respect to the purchase and interstate trans-shipment of our favourite beverage; and have read (and actually understand) some of the reasons for this archaic legislation which can turn ordinary law abiding citizens into criminals.

Lately, I note that most accept that I am laughing (crying) with and not

*at* my American friends - over what Mr. Hoare correctly describes as an emotive lack of common sense.

This very small, but enlightened country, boasts few restrictions. Oh sure, we are very anti drinking and driving, and blatant "drunken partying in the streets" can be controlled by local legislators, but we are not going to be arrested for enjoying a glass of wine with a picnic lunch in the park or beach, or driving the length and breadth of the country with any number of opened or unopened bottles inside the vehicle.

I fully concur with my learned friend - surely there are more "enlightened" wine drinkers than puritanical Madd mothers who can mount a campaign in favour of sanity.

OK - maybe not - it is election year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ian, (and St. Helier)

I didn't take any of your comments as anti-US or anti-anything else

I actually do carry opened (but recorked) wines on many occasions. I take the risk that I could get a summons if stopped for unrelated traffic offense (on these occasions I'm never drinking, usually driving to train station with double-decanted bottles to take train to city for offline). Can't put in boot(trunk) in Betsy's SUV, there isn't one. Or this week I had a bottle of Loire white in car as I returned it - corked! I don't worry much about it, more judges are reasonable than one might think :(

While I am not a supporter of prohibitionists, I think the reason that drunk driving is such a hot button topic in US is the fact that Americans spend so much more time in their cars than Europeans. The open container laws came about due to many occasions of people (usually young) involved in (often fatal) accidents after spending the day or night driving around while drinking. That's why to me the slight compromise of offering a seal seems like a reasonable way to placate those fears.

So, Ian, when are you coming to US so we can talk about this over wine?

Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply

Perhaps I could throw this into the discussion as a possible explanation.

The US, Australia and the NZ share the fact that they were colonised from England.

Australia was a prison colony, where mostly lower class English prisoners were sent to a land where the indigenous peoples were few and far between, and those that were around the major towns "ran before the beast". Jailers were regarded as the upper class - and when lower class prisoners had served their time, they were not allowed to return "home" but became the traders, brewers, wheeler-dealers and general entrepreneurs in their new world.

There is a spirit which exists in Australia to this day; of pride and passion and a "to hell with authority" attitude (don't try any laws which restricts this free will downunder.)

To New Zealand were sent "the remittance men" - second (or third) sons of wealthy land owners who were gamblers, drunkards and trouble-makers of the English upper-classes (remittance men because all they did was wait for the next arriving ship which carried their cheque from "home").

The Law of the time was English Common Law - quite a few older NZers still refer to the UK as "the home country" even though they have never ventured out of NZ.

We are a little more conservative than Australians, we tried prohibition, but, at heart are still a country of drinkers, without a strong Christian (or other) influence and were able to throw off those shackles; nowadays only very small pockets of the populace still cling to "alcho-free" areas - in fact, I know that some tiny areas exist where one cannot buy alcoholic drinks, but I cannot actually name one!!!

The US settler was a god fearing puritan, who was never able to see hypocrisy even if it bit him on the bum.

Then came "the business man" who was able to corner the market (oh yes, with the help of a friendly elected official or two) and secure, evidently forever, the right to legally control the distribution and sale of these products of sin.

Thus, it was quite OK to kill, and steal off the indigenous peoples - or indeed inflict any rort upon the unsuspecting who was stupid enough to expect that a Christian country should actually respect "truth"; notwithstanding biblical teachings to the contrary.

Strangely, it is OK for dozens of US citizens to go around clad in nothing except a g-string on some Hawaiian or Western beach (Floridian too I suspect!!) - and it is alright for modern singers to express themselves by promoting mother raping and father raping; murder; racism and/or drug taking etc. It is more than acceptable for a Hollywood hopeful to arrive at the Oscars wearing the sheerest of tops, clearly showing *both* breasts - but, do not corrupt our children by momentarily displaying a breast during a football game - even though some of these "children" themselves are bearing hand-guns to your schools.

In one of my trips to the US I entered thru LAX with a case of NZ wine - duly declaring my booty, Chuck at customs didn't want to know me and waved me thru. Days later flew through Colorado, Nebraska to Iowa - and return (having consumed a couple of bottles in the intervening week) - returned to LA - then picked up a rental car and drove through to Arizona and New Mexico and back - sharing our kiwi vinosity along the way.

I now know that it is a felony to trans-ship wine from Ca to Az - and God knows how may other statutes I broke along the way - escaping the alcho-police along the way.

In conclusion my US friends, just ignore these musings - but I reserve the right to continually being amazed that the worlds pre-eminent super-power can be brought to it's knees by a half filled bottle of wine - or a beautiful black breast.

Oh the horror - oh the hypocrisy.

Tom S wrote in part: "If I'm not mistaken, the county that the Jack Daniels distillery resides in is "dry", as is the entire State of Kansas."

I believe you are right in respect to the Jack Daniels distillery. However the entire State of Kansas is far from dry. The last fully dry state in the region including Kansas was Oklahoma which allowed package stores in 1958. Actually Oklahoma was not absolutely dry before that as they allowed sales of 3.2 beer. The one other completely dry state located in the deep South - I forget which one - finaly allowed sales a few years after that. Before 1958 package stores in Kansas just across the border from Oklahoma sold a huge amount of wine and spirits to people who drove up from Oklahoma. Close by in this area, Missouri has always been quite liberal in most respects. Arkansas has allowed sales a long time. However they have an extreme form of local option law. A county may vote dry. However, in a wet county, a division as small as a township can vote dry. Texas has some rather restrictive local laws also. However Louisiana is much more liberal than most states near it. What most of the mentioned states have in common is a 3-tier system. Wholesale and importing companies are some of the strongest supporters of restrictive laws concerning shipment across state lines, for obvious reasons.

Salut/Hi Dale Williams,

le/on 11 Feb 2004 07:35:20 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

Thanks very much Dale.

I presume that it's an absolute offence (as is driving without _displaying_ a car tax sticker in the UK), rather than being drunkenness related. if not, then it seems to me that a solution _might_ just be to insist on being alcotested, to prove that one's under the limit.

chuckle! I hadn't imagined you were!

fact that Americans spend so

Hmm. Yes, you do, that's true, but drunk driving is a pretty hot subject in all the developed world nowadays. I've not noticed much tolerance anywhere towards it. IMO (for what it's worth) this isn't so much about tolerance for wandering about the countryside in charge of a lethal weapon and in a state of inebriation, as it is to try to brand anyone who drinks as some kind of antisocial halfwit, from whom all rightminded people need protection.

I DO understand the heartsearchings that followed the repeal of the Volstead Act, and I DO understand that some fundamentalist churches still believe that all consumption of anything alcoholic is sinful. But for me there's a fundamental difference between holding ones own beliefs dear - on the one hand, and seeking to impose the consequences of such a belief on those who may not share them - on the other.

young) involved in (often fatal)

Again I can understand the "how", but like so much _reactive_ legislation, it seems to me that it has lost sight of any common sense. The fault is not in _having_ the open container, as being drunk while driving. If driving with over so many gms blood alcohol/litre automatically carried a revocation (for ever) of the driving license, and if this were an absolute offence, with NO exceptions and NO possibility of plea bargaining, you'd see a reduction in drink driving extremely fast (to take an extreme solution).

We're looking at leaving here in the week of the 10th to 17th October, stopping off a day or so in the UK, flying out to one of the NY airports, probably around the 12th or 13th. You would be our first port of call, and we'd then go on up to Enfield for the fall colours for a couple of days, before flying across to Seattle and thence up to Vancouver - probably arriving the following week. We've got the first $7k on deposit, so that will comfortably pay the air fares and the car hire.

(Well, you DID ask, Dale!)

I have been known to decant a bottle of red in a grape juice bottle and take it to a picnic in the park, happily drinking it from a plastic glass. oh well , you gotta do what you gotta do.

have you guys ever open a bottle of wine in the parking lot of a liqueur store? I have done that a couple times. Sometimes, after reading a particularly good review of some wine I'd like to taste it before I make a final decision and sometimes ther is not much time left, if I hesitate, all the wines will be sold. So I open the bottle in the car, take a sip, recork it and make my decision. :-) Once I though I'll buy 3 bottles of some red, ended up buying 2 cases. I probably broke all the laws that exist here :-) Zed

I sit corrected. :^)

I'll say! It's a little known fact that Missouri has quite a few wineries (not to mention the main Budweiser brewery in St. Louis).

Tom S

However there is a county in Tennessee that is try and that is where Jack Daniels is produced. They can make it there but can't buy it there.

Interesting.