State Senator Bo Watson, Politician

Sorry to go bustin’ out the calculator, but a bottle of Bella Serra pinot grigio retails for $7.99. Regardless of any other charitable reasons for the event, Bo Watson and his wife paid, in essence, $180 to drink mediocre wine. Paying roughly 22.5 times the retail price for mediocre wine is, by definition, a little “inconvenient.”

As odd as it may seem, he’s kinda walking his talk. And he’s only getting to taste the wine. (If my memory of other similar events serves.) Poor folks would only be out $7.99, and would get to drink the whole bottle.

In terms of legislation, last time I checked, Americans – rich and poor alike – were not having ANY trouble getting their hands on alcohol. Or doing damage with it. In my opinion, the ability to obtain a substance that can impair your ability to do, well, EVERYTHING – including not accidentally killing yourself and/or others – warrants a little extra restriction.

I don't trust people named Bo... except for that dude from Sutherlands, he was cool, but all other Bo's... no way.

Bo knows wine

There's another reason many state politicians are opposed to alcohol sales over the internet: taxes. Alcohol taxation is a huge source of revenue for state and local governments. Allowing sales over the internet effectively eliminates that funding source, because states still haven't really figured out how to impose sales tax on online sales.

But you can't actually make that argument in public. "Yeah, we can't let you do that, because we'd lose money on taxes," doesn't really fly. But moralizing about making alcohol sales inconvenient does, especially in the Bible Belt.

I think a charitable reading of Sen. Watson's actions is that it's pretty unremarkable and not really reprehensible. Sure, the lobbying connections are a bit sketchy, but this is Tennessee we're talking about. The elephant in the room is that Tennessee--like every other state--needs the revenue it gets from alcohol excise taxes, and if you can find an argument that preserves those taxes without making it sound like you're arguing for taxes, most politicians will probably go for it.

Good point.

Alcohol control is actually not bad economic policy. Not just for the tax revenue argument that Ryan makes, but more importantly, the best evidence we have shows massive external costs associated with alcohol consumption. Not just with "problem drinkers" either. As much as it hurts to admit, the current price for beer, wine and liquor is probably way below the optimal price and more taxes, not fewer, is likely welfare enhancing for society.