Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

More accurately the Supreme court is hearing arguments in a case about the control the states have over the shipping of Beer and Wine as defined in the 21st amendment (end of prohibition).

Beer and Wine vendors conclude that the states laws are nothing more than "protectionism" for large liquor distributors. They argue that claims that direct sales over the Internet would lead to more minors getting alcohol and an impedance to enforcing laws are nonsense. The states of course argue that more sales to minors would occur and that an unrelgulated "channel" would be created that would indeed make enforcing laws more difficult.

My take (which of course as always is painfully irrelevant ;)) would be that the states need to enforce laws for crimes COMMITTED and not make laws and rules that affect crimes not yet committed. Meaning the online sales should not be regulated, but a kid caught with alcohol (no matter how they got it) should be charged with a crime (if alcohol should be illegal under a certain age, another matter). I think its dangerous territory to make laws and rules about crimes that MIGHT happen (although we do do this in many other areas already, and some cases it makes sense, its just very problematic and subjective to decide when that is, thus we are better off to not do it). New Yorks Elliot Spitzer makes the argument that Internet shipping "by its nature eliminates a face-to-face sale and thereby increases the risk that minors will be able to obtain alcohol through Internet sales or otherwise". As I see it the argument the states are making is basically if the online sales are allowed more crimes are LIKELY to occur and what is LIKELY should not be a basis for laws (IMHO).

See the news.com article for more.   The uncorking of online alcohol sales