Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Shipping alcohol?


mr beauxjangles

Recommended Posts

So after years of not being distributed in the United States, I finally located a distributor in New Jersey that carries the best damn belnded scotch on the planet (Usquaebach Flagon 86). I immediately purchased five bottles and had them shipped to my place in Georgia. It's legal for authorized merchants to ship alcohol to most states (with the exception of about 10). Howevah, it is illegal to ship alcohol for private use with USPS, and UPS and FedEX both refuse to ship alcohol (I've tried). I was suppsoed to meet my father in Charlotte this weekend and was going to give him a bottle for Father's Day, but our plans fell through. I still want to get it to him soon but am unsure about the risks of shipping it personally.

I did my share of google searches and lots of people have suggested that you just lie about the contents and say it's a collectible or antique or some shiz. I don't want to lose this sucker (it is damn fine scotch, not that cheap, but not absurdly expensive) but I don't really know what UPS or FedEx could do if they find out. Refuse shipment after already accepting it?

So with all that said, here are my choices:

  1. Ship it, lie about the contents, and take the risk.
  2. Wait two months until I can give it to him in person.
  3. Buy a new bottle (for $90) fand have it shipped to him from an authorized online merchant.

EDIT: forgot to check the "create poll" box...can I append a poll after the fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys I forgot to type the most important part. I edited my original post. I bought the scotch online and had it delivered to me no problem. Authorized merchants can ship to most states no problem. The problem is that FedEx and UPS have both refused to ship alcohol for personal use if you aren't an authorized merchant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a couple things I found.

24Alcoholic beverages containing more than 70 percent alcohol by volume must be transported as materials in Packing Group II. Alcoholic beverages containing more than 24 percent but not more than 70 percent alcohol by volume must be transported as materials in Packing Group III.

Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/172-102-special-provisions-19941868#ixzz0ruGD1M79

149When transported as a limited quantity or a consumer commodity, the maximum net capacity specified in 173.150(B)(2) of this subchapter for inner packagings may be increased to 5 L (1.3 gallons).

Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/172-102-special-provisions-19941868#ixzz0ruGMvw1I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys I forgot to type the most important part. I edited my original post. I bought the scotch online and had it delivered to me no problem. Authorized merchants can ship to most states no problem. The problem is that FedEx and UPS have both refused to ship alcohol for personal use if you aren't an authorized merchant.

Just covering their butts so they dont deliver to underage drinkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...