Do you remember the gods-awful editorial in The Roanoke Times in October? Well, Jim Vascik has a great rebuttal. Read the whole thing, but this passage struck me as particularly good:

Who wins here? Not Virginia wineries that get a lower price for their products. Not the retail shops and restaurants that have to pay a higher price for the wine, and certainly not Virginia consumers who have to pay a significantly higher price for the same wine.

Only the distributors win by involving themselves in a system that did not want their help nor require it. We collect and pay taxes too.

Archer says that "this bill would have had devastating consequences for wine distributors and their nearly 3,500 employees." This is far from true.

The distributors were doing just fine without controlling the small- to medium-sized Virginia winery, or for that matter the small out-of-state winery.

Small out-of-state wineries have too little wine to try to sell in other states' retail stores to any significant degree. However, should a Virginia restaurant desire to offer its customers a fine wine from an out-of-state winery, where is the wrong in being able to buy that wine directly from that winery?

And while you are at it, support Valhalla by buying some wine :).