Almost four years ago, I noted that a Michigan law, the effect of which was to essentially ban mail-order wine to in-state residents from out-of-state vendors, had been struck down. The special interests were, of course, Michigan’s vinyards — heaven forbid they have to compete with California, and Michigan’s alcohol distributors — heaven forbid someone challenge their brontosaur of a business model.

All was well and good, apparently, until yesterday, when in the interest of preserving “fairness”, the Governor signed House Bill 6644, which by amending Section 436.1203 of Public Act 58 of 1998

[P]prohibits stores from sending wine directly to customers.

The wine law comes after a federal court ruling saying Michigan’s old law was unfair to out-of-state stores.

The law was, as are most laws governing commerce between “free” individuals, about protecting vested special interests. In this case, Michigan’s liquor control board, and their three-tiered distribution model.

Now, if your local liquor distributor doesn’t stock that particular label from Napa that you love, you’re out of luck, without recourse. Now, if your local liquor distributor doesn’t stock that particular label from Traverse City (MI) that you love, you’re out of luck. That is, unless a road trip to Napa (CA) or Traverse City (MI) is in your future.

The Supreme Court ruling which struck down the previous law on account of it being “unfair” to out-of-state producers was only half right, and because it was only half right, it was wrong enough to be challenged. Now, the State will prevent Michigan residents from buying any liquor, from any producer, in any State via mail order.

But hey, it’s fair, right?

A correct ruling would’ve also noted that the old law was also “unfair” to consumers, because there was not then, nor is there now, a compelling reason for the government to prevent grown men and women, from purchasing a particular brand of beer or wine merely on the basis of where it happens to have been produced, distilled or bottled.