Your thoughts on Alpine's decision?

How is it "self-distribution" if Bev 4 less is the intermediary between the brewery and the consumer?

 

i'm only pointing out that a license is needed to resell. you certainly run into some interesting gray areas with the " collectible bottle " argument, but there's a whole other can of worms with transport across state lines. for someone to make a bald statement that " it is not illegal " when there are laws on the books (enforceable or no) is overreaching.

 

http://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/court-of-appeals-criminal/1941/53015.html

The sale of alcohol without a license was prosecuted here and led to a conviction. I am not up on my law but I do not see how selling alcohol online would change the law.

 

huh? self-distribution as in selling directly to bev4less and not having a wholesaler in the middle. that's explicitly permitted in the code. there are other regulations governing bev4less selling to the consumer.

 

I'm pretty sure ebay wasn't around in 1941. Nor did OK jurisdiction apply to CA.

 

I am pretty confident that there have been prosecutions for selling of alcoholic beverages without a license. I would be absolutely shocked if that had not occurred at some point. That someone hasn't been prosecuted for selling over eBay is pretty immaterial, since if it's illegal for me to sell you beer without a license, then it's illegal regardless of the means by which we exchange beer and money. I'm not sure what part of this you're objecting to.

 

Unless you can show me where someone has been convicted of selling beer on ebay, I'm going to say that its just an opinion that its illegal. I'm gonna stay on the side of: 1) thousands of transactions w/o prosecution 2) billion dollar industry supporting this practice 3) no prohibition on collectible bottle sales = legal

 

Agreed, but selling alcohol without a license is what is being questioned is it not? I think we could both agree that it would not be hard to find a more relevant case if we wanted.

 

Sounds like the exceptions have proverbially swallowed the rule (three tier distribution) thereby giving more inclination as to why there have been no cited prosecutions of ebay sellers or ebay itself.

 

Rationalizing is making an excuse basically and people here are trying to argue its not illegal on the basis of their rationalizations. Not caring that it's illegal and being willing to take the risk since no one seems to be prosecuting these illegalities is another thing. If the cops come knocking on my door tomorrow for having bought beer online I'm not gonna try and explain to them how what I did wasn't illegal. The idiots arguing that its not illegal on here probably would try convincing the cops.

 

that's an argument of semantics. i'm sure you understood full well what i meant by " illegal " in that there are laws prohibiting sale of alcohol without a license and laws prohibiting transport of alcohol into certain states.

 

The very thing you allege to be illegal (beer/ebay), the fact that nobody can even provide a citation to a single prosecution, much less a conviction for such a thing, or a specific reference in a statute/regulation to ebay/collectible bottles, you find that immaterial?

Follow the rule of lenity much?

 

the exceptions are still licensed manufacturer to licensed reseller. ebay is a separate argument and cannot be grouped under this relationship.

 

It's a state making it's own rules and the federal gov't turning a blind eye toward it if its a federal law like with the whole california and pot decriminalization thing and I think MA and another state or 2 may be added to the list now but I'm not sure.

eBay also ships from every state to every state, you're not talking about it being a store in some state that can change the state's laws

 

perhaps not beer related nor something as miniscule as a growler but there was in the last few years a pretty serious bust in Tennessee for a ton of collectible Jack Daniels related merchandise. i'm sure someone from region remembers that one? the truth is if they can figure a way you're skirting taxation - you're fucked - just ask Al Capone.

 

Semantics results in dismissals for criminal defense attorneys. I'm not disputing its illegal to sell alcohol w/o license if there is a license req.

What I'm saying is it is not illegal for people to sell collectible bottles on ebay. There simply is no such regulation, statute, prosecution or conviction that I'm aware of based on that allegation.

 

It ha

The fact is it is illegal, we're not just saying it is. Another fact is it hasn't attracted any attention or enough attention from the law for it to be something they would prosecute. If a minor ever buys beer on there, gets drunk with it and gets into a crash and the cops figure out it could've been prevented if eBay didn't sell beer I'll bet you anything you will never see a beer listed on eBay again. That being said, the chances of that happening are very slim.

 

I'm not really sure what you're arguing. Are you saying that if some DA decided to try prosecuting an eBay seller (where the facts of the case, that they sold beer, weren't in doubt) that the seller would be found innocent? Or are you saying that because this hasn't happened we can't know and therefore can't say what the outcome would be?

What I'm saying is I don't see any reason for it to be illegal for me to sell alcohol out of a van, but then be legal for me to sell it over eBay. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if there's a reason for that, but if there is I'm going to say there shouldn't be.

But everyone knows that the "collectible bottle" thing is just a ruse. If I were to sell "collectible bottles" of cheap vodka on craigslist (let's say to non-minors just to skirt that) I'm pretty sure I'd get arrested. Why wouldn't I?

 

Talking to the cops at all would be idiotic. Believing cops would be investigating this is even more idiotic.

I still think you rationalize it to yourself that its all good, just like I do. I don't see a difference, unless you let other man's convictions (i.e. laws they pass largely based on lobbying $'s) guide you more than your own, which clearly, neither of us do.

 

But you're not selling them as collectible, you're selling them under the pretense of it. I bet any good lawyer could prove you sold it knowing the buyer would drink it and the buyer bought it with the intent of drinking it despite the bullshit clause that goes with the listing. All it takes is a conversation via eBay messages asking if it's good or has gone downhill etc etc and a review on BA or RB of the buyer reviewing the bottle he bought.