I’ve never believed in the Prohibitionist theory that if you forbid people from ingesting certain substances you think cause them to behave badly, they’ll become perfect little angels. That was the thinking behind America’s disastrous and stupid flirtation with the 18th Amendment to the Constitution (happily repealed by the 21st Amendment). Prohibitionists thought that “likker” was responsible for everything from crime and adultery to out-of-wedlock births, and that if they simply outlawed it, America would be a more moral, better-behaved country. Didn’t work, because it was based on a flawed concept that can best be expressed by the old saying, You can’t legislate morality.

That same muddled thinking characterizes this country’s failed “war on drugs.” Marijuana, at the very least, ought to be legalized and controlled (like alcohol and tobacco). This would not only pour money into the government’s empty coffers, it would reduce the number of non-violent prisoners in our states’ over-stuffed jails.

For many years there’s been an analog to all this with inexpensive fortified alcoholic beverages. Some holier-than-thou types are outraged that inner city liquor stores sell things like Night Train or Cisco which deranged people occasionally get drunk on and then go out and commit acts of mayhem. I myself live in the innermost parts of a violent city, so I, too, would like to see this kind of bad behavior disappear. But getting rid of inner city liquor stores isn’t going to solve anything. It’s a simplistic, knee-jerk response to a complicated problem that deserves much more careful analysis than just prohibiting stuff.

I was thinking of this because I just read how a Scottish Episcopal bishop, the Rev. Bob Gillies, is accusing the local Benedictine abbey of a “moral double-take” and anti-Christian behavior by producing a fortified drink, Buckfast, that’s said to be popular with “drinkers who are prone to committing anti-social behaviour when drunk, especially drinkers under 18 years.” Buckfast, also known in the Emerald Isle as “Commotion Lotion” and “Mrs. Brown,” is said to have “been mentioned in 5,000 crime reports by Scotland’s biggest police force in the last three years.”

It thus becomes a prime candidate for prohibition by people who mistakenly believe that, if you just outlaw it, those 5,000 criminals will realize the error of their ways, find religion, enter upon the true path of righteousness and morality, and become ideal citizens.

Can’t people see how dumb that is? Life doesn’t work that way. Young teenage hoodlums (and we have plenty of them here in Oakland) do the stupid things they do not because alcoholic beverages are available to them, but because their personalities are deranged. If Oakland outlawed Cisco, they’d drive over to Berkeley to buy it. If California outlawed Colt 45, they’d bring in truckloads from Nevada or Oregon. If the U.S. outlawed Colt 45 — well, we’d be back to Prohibition, wouldn’t we? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

So, Rev. Gillies, if you’re really concerned about crime, look to address its real causes, which usually concern schooling, parenting and peer pressures in the neighborhood. Banning Buckfast might make you feel better, but it will solve nothing. Prohibition never does.

“This coming March marks the date of the most unique, relevant and extraordinary wine assessment and awards event – ever.” Ever! Since the Big Bang! Nothing like it in the frigging history of the universe!!!!!

With this breathless hyperventilation, the producers of the latest get-rich-quick “wine awards” gimmick announce yet another effort to “democratize” wine assessment by taking it away from — gasp! — evil experts like me and handing it over to that ever-popular bastion of populism — the Consumer!

We’re seeing these “consumer-judged wine competitions” multiply like e coli in a petrie dish in this post-recessionary day and age. It’s kind of like the People’s Choice Awards, which lets the great unwashed booboisie (thank you, H.L. Mencken) give the bird to the elitists at the Oscars, Emmies, Tonies, Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild by letting “The People” choose their own favorites, thank you, instead of having it crammed down their throats (interesting metaphor) by “experts.”

Irruptions (as opposed to eruptions) of democratic populism usually arise when democracy is being taken away by the powers who decide how much democracy the American people ought to be allowed. It’s understandable that people should want a say over things; hence the new crop of “democratic” wine competitions. It’s equally understandable that, when there’s a demand for something, entrepreneurs will seek to supply it. In fact, the smartest entrepreneur will convince the public they need something they didn’t even know they lacked. (Which is why hair conditioner was invented.)

Do you think most wine consumers missed being able to vote for wine? I don’t. They didn’t think about it one way or the other. That was before Social Media arose and told everyone far and wide that the age of “the people” had finally arrived. At long last, humankind will shake off the oppression of authority and govern itself through pure, unbridled democracy. Why take the word of a parlauzeroffrob (neologism: ParkerLaubeTanzerHeimoffRobinson) when “the people” can collectively make its own determinations? It’s especially good when a businessman can make a few bucks by organizing the circus.

So I am announcing my new “Voice of the People Worldwide Wine Awards Competition” via this site. It will be the greatest, most comprehensive, trustworthy, fabulous, most objective, fairest, most amazing, glorious, spectacular, praiseworthy, etc. etc. event in History. (Well, with the possible exception of the invention of bacon.) And you, The People, can star! Just send me a check for $10 and on the back of the check write down your favorite wine. I will personally tally the results and announce them here. One check per nomination, please. If you wish to nominate a magnum it’s $20. But a half-bottle will only cost you $5.

Brave new world! Who cares if print is dead? Long live The People! I’ll be laughing all the way to the bank!

Over the weekend, I finished a story on Cabernet Sauvignon that will appear in an upcoming issue of Wine Enthusiast. I found myself typing these words: Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon is pretty much as good as it can get — at least, it’s hard to see where it goes from here.

It’s not a thought I’ve entertained consciously before, at least, not in those precise terms. As so often happens with writers, when you’re on roll, pecking away at the keyboard (or even using a rustic old pen and paper), the thoughts just seem to come from outer space, and you sometimes find yourself writing the damndest things. Of course, every reporter has (or should have) a built-in alarm system warning him if he’s written something unsupportable or just plain stupid. So when I wrote this, I sat back, re-read it, re-re-read it again, and wondered:

1. What prompted me to write that in the first place?
2. Should I allow it to live and see the published light of day?

Because, let’s face it, it’s a controversial statement.

Napa Valley is royalty. It’s America’s Bordeaux and Burgundy, rolled into one. And a commoner doesn’t criticize royalty, not unless he’s prepared to be taken to the Tower of London and have his head chopped off. So what do I mean by saying that Napa Cabernet is as good as it can get?

Background: When I first started interviewing winemakers whose wines I had given very high scores to, one of my favorite questions was, “How much better can your [fill in the blank wine] get?” I mean, if a Cabernet earns a 95 or higher, it is, more or less by definition, a perfect wine, and there’s nothing more perfect than perfection, is there?

And yet the entire premise of Napa Valley Cabernet is, and always has been, better and better.

Well, these certainly are wines that have become spectacular in recent years. You really do have to wonder where their evolution will take them. I know some people who don’t like the Napa cult style, which is based on super-mature grapes (with consequent low acidity) and generous dollops of new oak. They’re entitled to their opinion; I happen to like it.

But when you’re on top, you never dare stay still, for fear of being shoved aside by a competitor. Mercedes-Benz doesn’t rest on its laurels but builds better cars all the time. The New York Yankees don’t rest on their laurels. The United States of America doesn’t rest on its laurels, but endeavors to become “a more perfect union” with each passing day. So if you’re Harlan, Shafer, Joseph Phelps, Spotteswoode, you have to be thinking ahead.

These extraordinary wines don’t seem to have a way to get better, only worse (say, from a bad vintage or some hideous mistake in the winery). I guess some people might say the way to make them better is to achieve ripeness at lower brix levels, which is a magic bullet that could be resolved with new strains of yeast and, I suppose, better clone-rootstock matching. Still, the theoretical destination of “ripeness with moderate alcohol” is a bit of an illusion. California isn’t Bordeaux and never will be. These are always going to be big, rich, juicy wines.

So to my second question: Should I allow this statement to live? Well, I just did, didn’t I, by publishing it here. If anybody in Napa gets all sniffy poo about this, I hope they’ll enlighten me, because I really am not seeing where these wines go from here. Is Bordeaux better than it was in 1961 or 1928 or 1874? It’s probably less tannic but an argument can be made that, no, it’s not “better,” just different. Somehow the Bordealais have managed to keep their image vital and coveted even though their product hasn’t really changed much over the years. That’s Napa’s challenge: As things stay the same there, but improve in other regions, they’re going to have to constantly re-persuade the public that they’re special and different and still worth the premium they request. No easy task, especially in this economy.

SH: What kind of year was 2009 for E&J Gallo?

GG: We came through it, thank goodness, due to the planning of my father [Bob] and [Uncle] Joe. Obviously, international is having a tough time, but when you look at domestic, we’ve never lost focus. So the portfolio being diverse [helped]. Maybe someone wasn’t willing [to spend] on a higher priced wine, but was for Gallo of Sonoma at $14. We certainly saw the high-priced wines slow down. Also, it goes back to the structure of the company. We’re at a good place, and that’s helped tremendously.

What were your strongest performing brands last year?

Louis M. Martini is rocking — the Sonoma [County] you can get for $14. Barefoot on fire. Alamos Malbec [Mendoza]. And Frei Bros. is hot.

Weakest performing brands of 2009?

Some of the hardest sells were the international — Red Bicyclette, Europe, because of the exchange [rate]. McWilliams [Australia]. And our top end Australian, Clarendon Hills Syrah. It gets fabulous ratings, but at $100, tough tough tough.

Any information on whether 2010 will bring improvement?

Before it gets worse, or stays the same? [laughs] That’s the big question. Nothing educated, but we’re going to be riding it a little longer. We’ve seen the percentage of per capita drinking wine [in America] is still growing, so in that regard, we’re supposed to be up 9% this year, speaking in general for the industry. That’s a positive thing. So we’re anticipating good growth in 2010.

Is it a seller’s market or a buyer’s market for bulk wine and grapes?

It’s more of a buyer’s market, although it’s complex with different varietals and regions. In general, there’s more grapes than mouths to feed — that’s just basic supply and demand. Not necessarily in Napa-Sonoma, but in Central Coast you can get decent prices.

Gallo hasn’t purchased any wineries for a while. Anything going on?

There’s nothing to announce. We’re always looking, as you know. William Hill was the last one. So nothing new.

How come the company never went public and will it ever?

Our biggest strength is staying private. We can move faster and invest in the long term, and we’re not accountable to paying back money to elsewhere.

As the family gets bigger, is everyone assured of a decent job?

Well, not everyone wants to work for the business. You’re always looking at who’s the best person for the job, and if it’s someone who’s not a family member, they get it. That’s been drilled into our heads. That’s what we believe and how we work. But it does get more challenging as family gets larger. It takes more planning.

The company has largely depended on MacMurray Ranch for Pinot Noir, in addition to a little from Gallo Family, Frei Bros. and maybe a few others. With Pinot so hot in the market, do you have plans to launch new brands or regions?

Well, MacMurray Pinot could be [about] finding the best pinot in Oregon or Santa Rita, so we want to expand into different areas. Frei is, as you know, about Sonoma County. And we have some small production from Gallo Family.

What wine did you drink last night?

One was [Gallo of Sonoma] Laguna Chardonnay, 1998 …awesome! Russian River ages extremely well. More of that terroir, the acid was still great. And the other one was an old Bordeaux, 1972, Pichon Lalande.

How’s married life? [Ms. Gallo married J.C. Boisset last September]

Awesome! Still smiling.

Wilfred Wong’s blind tasting at BevMo (I think his title is e-cellarmaster) was a first of its kind, and quite an interesting affair, as it brought together an impressive range of industry types, most of whom came not only for the tasting but out of respect for Wilfred. Over a long career (longer, even, than mine!) Wilfred has stored up a deep repository of goodwill.

The purpose of the tasting was to measure some of BevMo’s bottlings (wines made for the chain) against others of their type and price. All four flights were blind. As is always the case, a group blind tasting is fascinating and frustrating. On the plus side of course is tasting the wines themselves. If they have been well-chosen (and Wilfred did a good job) it’s an interesting exercise in judgment. Then too, it’s always of academic interest to see what the group does. A group is a nebulous creature with no mind of its own, except a statistical one. On the debit side is that a group ranking is simply a mathematical number crunch. The fact that wine “A” came in first means only that more people preferred it than the others. It does not mean that nobody detested it.

There were four flights. The first was three Sauvignon Blancs. The group favorite was Husch 2008 (Mendocino), while mine was Vigilance 2008, from Lake County. I always did like those Lake County Sauvs that are so rich and savory. Last place was “75” Sauvignon Blanc (Napa Valley). But in truth, all these wines were pretty much of a piece.

The second flight was red table wines. Here again my first, Kumbaya non-vintage, was the group’s second, while their first, Red Truck 2008, was my second. And once again we agreed on the last place finisher, Folie a Deux 2008 Menage a Trois. This was a boring flight, but such wines are useful in the market. (Average price: about $10)

The third flight consisted of three Mendoza Malbecs. All I had to say was that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between them. Here, the group and I were of accord, in this order (all 2008s): Alta Vista Classic, Zolo Gaucho Select and Crios de Susana Balbo.

Things got interesting in the fourth flight, which was ultra-premium Pinot Noir. The quality of these wines, as opposed to the first three flights, was instantly obvious. You knew you were dealing with wines of substance. From the discussion that followed — even before the results were announced — it was clear that there was widespread discrepancy between people’s impressions. Why would there not be? One person raves about something; another loathes it. Still others, one imagines, are not sure how they feel. In this instance, you have to wonder whether a group score possesses any credibility at all. That’s why I wonder about some of these online sites that purport to aggregate many different critical reviews, or to add them all up and calculate some kind of average. I noticed also during the discussion something that struck me, which I’ve been dimly aware of for some time, until this tasting really brought it home to me. That concerns how some professional tasters are so eager to discover what they fancy are technical flaws in the wines, and then announce them to the group. Somebody will find TCA, or brett, or some other kind of mold or imbalance. It’s a kind of gamesmanship. I recall very high level tastings with some very famous names in which, as soon as the wines were poured, there was a race to sniff through them all to be the first to cry out, “Corked!” It’s like playing Bingo.

Anyway, in the Pinot Noir tasting my scores and the group’s were wildly divergent. All the wines were 2007s. Here are my preferences, from first to last, with group rankings in parentheses, followed by my Wine Enthusiast rating, if applicable.

1. Dutton-Goldfield 2007 Devil’s Gulch, Marin County (Group 6th) (I scored this 90 points in Wine Enthusiast.)
2. Roar Garys’ Vineyard, Santa Lucia Highlands (Group 1st) (WE: 94 points.)
3. Patz & Hall Hyde Vineyard, Carneros (Group 4th) (unreviewed)
4. De Ponte Baldwin Reserve, Dundee Hills (Group 12th) (unreviewed)
5 (tie). Beau Freres Ribbon Ridge (Group 8th) (unreviewed)
5 (tie). Peay Scallop Shelf, Sonoma Coast (Group 11th) (unreviewed)
6. Failla Hirsch Vineyard, Sonoma Coast (Group 9th) (WE: 94 points)
7. Kosta Browne, Sonoma Coast (Group 3rd) (unreviewed)
8. Navarro Deep End, Anderson Valley (Group 7th) (unreviewed)
9. Testarossa Sierra Madre Vineyard, Santa Maria Valley (Group 2nd) (unreviewed)
10. Dahlia Reserve, Monterey County (Group 5th) (unreviewed)

The fact is that all these wines, with the possible exception of the Dahlia (which was pretty simple) were quite good. Their order of ranking would easily shift if you repeated this tasting the next day.