Why does the bureau need to “approve” wine tastings at all?

Also, it’s sort of a screwed up logic that says “if the state doesn’t have time to approve your activity, you can’t be allowed to do it.”

If the state doesn’t have time for all this paperwork, perhaps they should cut some of the red tape, instead of preventing people from running their businesses.

As to the Bureau’s supposed burden if unlimited tastings are allowed, the person from the agency who testified said their projections showed that if unlimited tastings were allowed, there would be as many as 500 tastings a month(!!), and they couldn’t possibly keep up with having to approve each one. One legislator was totally skeptical; he asked the person testifying that if once they approve a shop for tasting the first time, after having inspected the premises, isn’t each subsequent approval a formality as long as nothing changes.

The irresponsible passing of bills “in concurrence” is becoming a very bad habit in our legislature, the Beverage Tax being a prime example (later repealed by a people’s veto). They are a group wearing blinders with no thought of the unintended consequences. It is time, as you say, for Maine to enter the 21st century. The tax burdens and obstacles created by our legislature are steps backwards.

That brings us to this year. One legislator introduced a very simple bill that would just delete the provision limiting tastings to once-a-month. That’s the bill I testified in favor of before the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee. The legislators seemed somewhat receptive. But besides the concerns of the substance abuse counselor, the head of the agency in charge of enforcing these laws testified that it would create too much of a burden on them if there were unlimited tastings.

At the same time, another bill was introduced that would allow hard liquor tastings, which was later amended to include beer tastings, both of which have not been allowed at shops. The bill I testified for was then killed. I believe the technical explanation is that it received a unanimous “Ought Not to Pass” vote in Committee, which effectively kills it. I was told by someone at the State House that it was considered superfluous because the second bill was more comprehensive, and would also rewrite the wine tasting statute. That bill eventually passed the Committee with an almost unanimous “Ought to Pass.” All it did as to the number of tastings was to allow up to 3 in a month, but still limited to 12 total in a year. I guess this is to allow coastal tourist towns to bunch their tastings into the Summer months. Up to this point, at least the bill did no harm to wine tastings. But then it just sat there for weeks (it is easy to track the progress of a bill on the legislature’s web site). All of a sudden, there was a amendment offered that would eliminate the beer and hard liquor part, which would essentially moot the whole bill. Then, shortly afterwards, that same legislator offered an amendment that added the “no child” provision to the wine, beer, and hard liquor statutes. That came near the end of the session. Then, in rapid succession the bill made it through both the Senate and House, without a vote (I think it’s called being passed “in concurrence”), passing just before the legislature adjourned for the session (and the year).

I’ve since been told that the legislator who sponsored the amendment is concerned about substance abuse issues, and didn’t like the idea of children watching adults taste alcohol at grocery stores. Putting aside the validity of such an argument, the law says nothing about grocery stores versus small shops. Now it seems that it was only supposed to cover “big box” stores, but someone supposedly made an error in drafting, and no one noticed it (probably because no one read it). Part of the problem is the way the legislative system operates. After a bill makes it through committee, it can be amended by floor amendments, and if they’re not too major, it doesn’t have to go back to committee for review. That’s what happened here.

As to why this kind of thing has happened in Maine, I’m not sure I’m qualified to answer that, especially since I’ve only lived here for 8 years. Maine was apparently the first state to enact Prohibition and the last to repeal it, and had a very early Temperance/Prohibition movement. But how and why that has carried into the 21st century, I don’t really know. As you probably know, most states have very quirky alcohol distribution and sales laws, with some states being very liberal in some respects but very restrictive in others. It apparently took years for Maine to even allow wine tastings at shops, and the laws have remained pretty rigid. My argument back 2 years ago was: by law, shop tastings must be free; shop owners are not in the business of giving away wine, have no incentive to over-pour, and only really want to pour enough so that people can appreciate the wine and hopefully buy it; so why worry about how often tastings are allowed. Yet allowing more than one tasting a month seems difficult to achieve (one shop owner who testified when I did said a sympathetic legislator who approached him in the corridor said: “You’re never going to get unlimited tastings; how many do you really want to conduct?”). Maine is very unusual in some ways. For example, it is basically a Democratic state, yet both its US Senators are Republicans. And there is a huge dichtomy here between the wealthier urban/coastal Maine and poorer rural Maine. And throw into the mix the throngs of wealthy tourists who swarm here in the Summer.

Well, Alastair, I hope this answered some of your questions. And I hope I haven’t put everyone else to sleep.

Yes, I too would be interested to learn more. So if you’re up for providing some more details, please feel free to post them here. Also, could you let us know who you are and in what capacity you were called to testify.

Leslie, if you feel comfortable airing your thoughts about distributors, I think that could be an important part of the story.

Alastair, Perhaps Leslie or Bob’s comments about distributors will clarify?

And on a lighter note, a reader sent in a comment that this must be the UK equivalent of the new Maine wine law http://imgur.com/Yq9Si.jpg

Since moving to New England I could not be more confused by the disconnect here between self perceived sophistication and troglodyte attitudes towards wine. And while I understand SOME of the history or puritan influences and prohibition’s history in the area, New England has mostly moved away culturally from their traditional church views, and the local church away from a negative view of wine, so why is this old, “cultured,” highly populated, seemingly progressive, geographic location so bizarrely at odds with wine? I would love to understand more, and if you have insight starting with Maine I’d love to hear it, here, or you can email me here: forums at vicoms.com