problem not that hard to solve. . .Wild Oats/Whole Foods Tulsa. . .right around the corner is a great liquor/wine store. . . don't even have to move your car!!

I think they locate in those places because they are large cities with a lot of wealth, so they can make up the loss of not having beer/wine sales. The profit margins in a smaller market like OKC or Tulsa would probably have to be bolstered by selling high-margin wine/beer which is not allowed in Oklahoma. That could keep Trader Joe's away, especially now that both cities will have Whole Foods.

I agree. We certainly won't be able to provide the volume of customers or foot traffic as a place like those mentioned in other states who have non-beer/wine markets.

and @Delcamino: You're right, it can't help.

problem not that hard to solve. . .Wild Oats/Whole Foods Tulsa. . .right around the corner is a great liquor/wine store. . . don't even have to move your car!!

This is how they usually do it in cities that prohibit wine/beer sales in grocery stores. All of the Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Wegmans, other nice grocery stores, in fact most grocery stores in NJ are right next to a liquor store. Sometimes they own it, sometimes they don't. Its not a make or break deal, although having cheese and wine pairings in a grocery store is definitely awesome.

I agree. We certainly won't be able to provide the volume of customers or foot traffic as a place like those mentioned in other states who have non-beer/wine markets.

and @Delcamino: You're right, it can't help.


I guess we'll find out around July 2011. I think we'll provide MORE than their average store, because our market is vastly underserved and there is a lot of pent up demand compared to a city that might have 5 WF's.

problem not that hard to solve. . .Wild Oats/Whole Foods Tulsa. . .right around the corner is a great liquor/wine store. . . don't even have to move your car!!

There you can go to Food Pyramid (old Albertsons similar to Homeland), Old Village Wine & Liquor, and Whole Foods at the same time as all three are next to each other. That liquor store is one of the busier ones in Tulsa, and probably for that reason.

Next door liquor sales is not the same as getting it all at the same time. 1 basket of goods to be purchased, 1 line, 1 cashier, 1 WF or TJ experience and then out to my car for a hasty getaway.

It is a minor inconvenience, but an inconvenience nonetheless.

By having to go next door to get it there is still a message being sent that says what is being bought inside the liquor store is underhanded and different than the goods bought in the market. It all goes in our bodies, it's all legal, there's no reason we shouldn't try to make the upgrade.

Also, I'm sick of having to buy good beer, warm. That's an inconvenience that I could easily live without. At the WF in Austin they have this amazing walk in cooler with so many different wonderful beers. It felt sad that I could never have that in the place that I call home. That was my part of my first WF experience. And a WF without such amenities would feel incomplete. I can safely say I would feel less compelled to shop there without beer/wine. And I am not the only one. I can go to other places for fresh bread and awesome cheese selections, like Forward Foods. I prefer supporting the local shops anyway. (I feel it's necessary to voice my opinion as I am friends with others who feel the same way)


I want to see a change in our laws and I think people who are resistant to change are anti-growth, that is ... true growth for Oklahoma.

I wonder how crow tastes to all the naysayers

Next door liquor sales is not the same as getting it all at the same time. 1 basket of goods to be purchased, 1 line, 1 cashier, 1 WF or TJ experience and then out to my car for a hasty getaway.

It is a minor inconvenience, but an inconvenience nonetheless.

I want to see a change in our laws and I think people who are resistant to change are anti-growth, that is ... true growth for Oklahoma.

I'm not against a change in the law at all but this sounds like the Walmart Syndrome. Europeans have survived very well by going to different stores for different types of items.

I wonder how crow tastes to all the naysayers

like chicken, sans a convenient real beer to warsh it down?

I'm not against a change in the law at all but this sounds like the Walmart Syndrome. Europeans have survived very well by going to different stores for different types of items.

That's laughable. I hate Wal-mart. I do love the first Whole Foods experience I had. Read more.

I may have to go by WF when it opens just to take pictures of all the hippies there. :D

OU, there will be more yuppies than hippies, you want hippies go shoot pics in Paseo or Plaza District.

Lubbock, TX had no problem having very high quality (not quite WF, but significantly better than Homeland) grocers (United's Market Street) before they allowed ANY booze sales in their city, at all.

Clearly, the laws are an impediment to WF and others coming to OKC generally. How could they not be, right? But it's not the ONLY reason we don't have stores coming into town, because here comes WF! (Finally.)

Looking forward to WF. I'd kill for even just a Market Street at this point- someting to bridge the gap between Walmart and run-down Homelands to the high end.

Just something DECENT.

To me this goes way beyond alcohol and our ability to recruit upscale grocery stores. It is just a dumb, pointless law.

To me this goes way beyond alcohol and our ability to recruit upscale grocery stores. It is just a dumb, pointless law.

Couldn't agree more.

And the worst part is, the status quo is maintained by this fake neo-conservative "don't we want to protect the liquor store owners from big, mean retail?" line. :beaten_fi

Couldn't agree more.

And the worst part is, the status quo is maintained by this fake neo-conservative "don't we want to protect the liquor store owners from big, mean retail?" line. :beaten_fi

neo-conservative??!!! You've got that totally bass-ackwards.

I suspect it has more to do with one specific special interest group and neither party's representatives are immune to their "logic".

neo-conservative??!!! You've got that totally bass-ackwards.

Not in my experience discussing this issue.

I have a feeling this thread will still be alive in 2015

I suspect it has more to do with one specific special interest group and neither party's representatives are immune to their "logic".

:bright_id betts, FTW!

"don't we want to protect the liquor store owners from big, mean retail?" line. :beaten_fi

... so sayeth the folks who also happen to shop at Wal-Mart, seeing no hypocrisy.

Hey, if SOME market protections for mom 'n pop stores and wholesaler oligopolies exist and that's good, wouldn't more be better? We should have vegetable stores and protected vegetable wholesalers... butcher shops need to be protected too. Think of all the people we could protect!

That's laughable. I hate Wal-mart. I do love the first Whole Foods experience I had. Read more.

I never said you liked Walmart, I said Walmart Syndrome meaning that you like to get everything at the same store.

To me this goes way beyond alcohol and our ability to recruit upscale grocery stores. It is just a dumb, pointless law.

If you owned a Liquor Store and depended on it to make a living, you would feel differently.

Back to the topic. I just want to say that our state's liquor laws is NOT holding back Grocers from opening here. It is very simple to establish their stores here WITHOUT selling liquor. The special space for selling liquor can be used to sell whatever random while lobbying for a change in the laws. If successful, then sell hardcore liquor.

If you owned a Liquor Store and depended on it to make a living, you would feel differently.I see your point, however, we are a capitalistic society that engages in a free enterprise system. "Competition" is good because it keeps businesses on their toes. The liquor laws in Oklahoma are antiquated and if the small liquor store owners do not want the competition then they need to be prepared for a fight. If the people of Oklahoma vote for change and it passes then the "will" of the people have spoken.

I see your point, however, we are a capitalistic society that engages in a free enterprise system. "Competition" is good because it keeps businesses on their toes. The liquor laws in Oklahoma are antiquated and if the small liquor store owners do not want the competition then they need to be prepared for a fight. If the people of Oklahoma vote for change and it passes then the "will" of the people have spoken.

I am not convinced that the issue with grocers has that much to do with liquor. You can't go to a grocery in Dallas and buy strong beer, wine or liquor. You can't go to a grocer in Colorado (with the exception of one "flagship" store per grocer brand) and buy strong beer, wine or liquor. Yet in both of these states you have far more grocery choices than in OKC. Liquor might be one consideration but I think its more the overall customer willingness to buy higher margin items in the grocery vs. Wal Mart such as charcoal, patio furniture, OTC medicines or higher cost meats.

I think we've established in this thread it's not ONLY the liquor laws. Case-in-point: Lubbock, TX.

If you owned a Liquor Store and depended on it to make a living, you would feel differently.

Sure I would. Does that mean we shouldn't let grocery stores sell flowers so flowers stops stay in business?

Truth be told, I'm less worried about buying my beer at a grocery than some of the other factors. At least let the liquor stores sell cold beer.

If you owned a Liquor Store and depended on it to make a living, you would feel differently.

Horrible argument. Not even an argument really. An appeal to emotion.

My understanding is that the current liquor laws are very popular in the country. In the city, people are more ready to reform them. But overall, I think the last numbers I saw showed that reform of this sort is unpopular with the majority of the population. Too bad, really.

My understanding is that people want to keep whining about this issue until the end of time, even though we just landed a upscale grocery many swore wouldn't come here until we changed our "antiquated" liquor laws, that many other states have, including the progressive ones like (Colorado, New York, Texas, Penn, etc.).

oklahoma doesnt even need national retail grocery chains, regardless of what our liqour laws indicate. even if hard liquor was legalized for sale in grocery stores, national chains would still have a hard time keeping up with low-cost stores, namely crest foods, which has low overhead and buys directs from many manufacturers.

You can't go to a grocery in Dallas and buy strong beer, wine or liquor.

Incorrect. While there are dry areas, you can walk into many, many grocery stores and get strong beer and wine all over Dallas and the surrounding areas.

Incorrect. While there are dry areas, you can walk into many, many grocery stores and get strong beer and wine all over Dallas and the surrounding areas.

If you can, that is a new development and not available in most areas. When I lived there for 13 years all you could get was weak beer, just like here. In fact, you couldn't even get strong beer in many communities, period. You had to drive to Dallas, Hickory Creek or Ft. Worth proper to find a liquor store.

If you can, that is a new development and not available in most areas. When I lived there for 13 years all you could get was weak beer, just like here. In fact, you couldn't even get strong beer in many communities, period. You had to drive to Dallas, Hickory Creek or Ft. Worth proper to find a liquor store.
I lived there in 91-93 and could buy strong beer or wine at the Simon David at Skillman & Abrams, there was also a liquor store in the parking lot at Sigel's. I lived on Forest Lane just east of 635 and it was "dry", the wet/dry line was the creek that crossed Greenville just south of Royal Lane and flowed into White Rock Lake, that is why there are all the liquor stores just south of the Royal Oaks Golf Course, also the Sam's at Park Lane had beer/wine and was relocated from Garland which was dry. Also the "town" of Buckingham in Richardson was wet and had about as many liquor stores visitors as residents (here is the Wikipedia entry of Buckingham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham,_Richardson,_Texas)).

Dallas County is by voting district, so you can have three "dry" corners and one "wet" corner but yet still have "private clubs" and Uni-Card sales in bars/restaurants. Dallas County has some of the most screwed up liquor laws.

I lived in N. Dallas, Irving, Grapevine and Lewisville and never had one near me except Hickory Creek near Lewisville. No grocery sales in any location.

I just knew of how it was around my area, I knew most of Richardson and Garland were dry but the Sam's in Plano on Coit had beer/wine so I always thought Collin County was wet. The mid-cities/Fort Worth areas I knew nothing about.

Sorry for the delay in posting. I am well aware that anyone can "plan ahead" and make their purchases before 9pm on a Saturday. However, if we are going to mess with our laws concerning strong beer & wine sales in grocery stores - we are missing an oppertunity to rid ourselves of a blue law that needs to go.

I will have a difficult time voting in favor of a measure that deals strictly with strong beer & wine that doesn't address liqour store hours. Besides, if people can buy wine at a grocery store, one would assume that liqour stores would hurt from this, somewhat. Might as well let them stay open later and on Sunday to help them make up for a loss in revenue if they have to compete with grocery stores.

If you can't make it past Sunday without a drink after running out of alcohol, then you need to find an AA meeting.

If you can't make it past Sunday without a drink after running out of alcohol, then you need to find an AA meeting.

You're better than this, Mid.

How about this: If you can't make it past Sunday without a tank of gas for your car, you're an idiot.

Midtowner: If someone is desperate for a drink after 9pm, or on a Sunday they will goto a bar. Makes no sense that you can do that, yet making a purchase to take home is prohibited.

It is not the role of government to interfere with freedom, simply because it occurs on a day that Christians regard as the sabbath. Perhaps we should show respect to jews and add Friday at sundown until Saturday at sundown as times liqour stores should close.

You're better than this, Mid.

How about this: If you can't make it past Sunday without a tank of gas for your car, you're an idiot.

That's a terrible comparison. If I needed alcohol in order to get back from the lake in order to be able to make it to work on Monday, again, I'd bee needing to check myself into rehab.

Incorrect. While there are dry areas, you can walk into many, many grocery stores and get strong beer and wine all over Dallas and the surrounding areas. This is going to change...see below. At least in Texas they allow the people to vote on the issue. Democracy is alive and well in the Lone Star State. What happened in Oklahoma?????



Group to announce successful completion of alcohol sales petition | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052010dnmetprogress.1fe46720.html)

This is going to change...see below. At least in Texas they allow the people to vote on the issue. Democracy is alive and well in the Lone Star State. What happened in Oklahoma?????

Group to announce successful completion of alcohol sales petition | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052010dnmetprogress.1fe46720.html)

Apparently, not enough people think its important enough. I wonder how many it takes to get something put on the ballot in Texas vs. OK considering they have like 6 times the population?

That's a terrible comparison. If I needed alcohol in order to get back from the lake in order to be able to make it to work on Monday, again, I'd bee needing to check myself into rehab.

It's a GREAT comparison because they're both goods consumers are free to buy, except one you're not allowed to buy for NO good legal reason. Regardless of your myopic opinion that "well, you can't have it on Sunday, and you're an addict if you want it on Sunday."

I think you were just making a joke. But still, it didn't hold water as to the actual discussion.

It's a GREAT comparison because they're both goods consumers are free to buy, except one you're not allowed to buy for NO good legal reason.

Good legal reason or valid logical reason? There's a difference. If there was no good legal reason, someone would challenge these laws and they'd be held to be unconstitutional. As I see it, the police powers reserved to the states in the 10th Amendment allow laws to be passed to protect our morals, this being one of those laws, I think we're fine.

We might even have a fun conversation about the oft-cited [I keed] dormant 21st Amendment (with respect to a state's ability to have nearly unfettered power to regulate alcohol within the state borders).


Regardless of your myopic opinion that "well, you can't have it on Sunday, and you're an addict if you want it on Sunday."

If you can't go for a day without liquor, I really can think of no better way to describe you. Have I ever wanted to have some wine with dinner or some [good] beer on a Sunday? Hell yes. Did I survive? I'm here to tell the tale, aren't I?

The state clearly has the legal power to do what it does. That's been hashed and rehashed. Do I find its exercise of power here to be ill advised? Even backward and delusional? I do.

The solution is through the political process. Maybe someone will form a PAC to push for more freedoms for consumers and fewer protections for retailers in the alcohol arena. That's all that needs to happen. I'll even chip in if someone wants to do that. Maybe even volunteer time and services.

I think you were just making a joke. But still, it didn't hold water as to the actual discussion.[/QUOTE]

This is going to change...see below. At least in Texas they allow the people to vote on the issue. Democracy is alive and well in the Lone Star State. What happened in Oklahoma?????


1. Looks like it's for Dallas only, not the entire state of Texas.

2. It was a petition, not Texas lawmakers shooting down a joint resolution. So it looks like Dallas residents had to make the effort themselves.

Did you seriously not read the contents of the article?

Good legal reason or valid logical reason? There's a difference. If there was no good legal reason, someone would challenge these laws and they'd be held to be unconstitutional. As I see it, the police powers reserved to the states in the 10th Amendment allow laws to be passed to protect our morals, this being one of those laws, I think we're fine.

We might even have a fun conversation about the oft-cited [I keed] dormant 21st Amendment (with respect to a state's ability to have nearly unfettered power to regulate alcohol within the state borders).



If you can't go for a day without liquor, I really can think of no better way to describe you. Have I ever wanted to have some wine with dinner or some [good] beer on a Sunday? Hell yes. Did I survive? I'm here to tell the tale, aren't I?

The state clearly has the legal power to do what it does. That's been hashed and rehashed. Do I find its exercise of power here to be ill advised? Even backward and delusional? I do.

The solution is through the political process. Maybe someone will form a PAC to push for more freedoms for consumers and fewer protections for retailers in the alcohol arena. That's all that needs to happen. I'll even chip in if someone wants to do that. Maybe even volunteer time and services.

I think you were just making a joke. But still, it didn't hold water as to the actual discussion.[/QUOTE]

Your position is that- it's already in place, you can't off-hand think of compelling constitutional reasons to strike it, so it's OK?

Tell me there's a good legal reason to not be able to buy alcohol on Sundays. PLEASE tell me there's a legally sound "moral" reason not to be able to do so, so much that the state needs to protect us in this manner. I would LOVE to hear it. Especially considering you can purchase low-point beer on Sundays and you can drink any amount of alcohol in a bar on any Sunday. PLEASE tell me the compelling moral reason the state should be allowed to do so that holds ANY legal water. I'd be frickin' floored if you could do so.

Here's the trick: if we COULD buy it on Sundays now, and someone tried to pass a law restricting us from buying on Sundays, do you think there would be a legal, morally compelling reason to allow the state to restrict the sale? What's the actual moral argument? That Christians go to church on Sundays?! If not that, why not just stop sales on Tuesdays instead? I can only imagine the booze lobby going nuts requiring them to stay closed on a Wednesday for no apparent reason. You know this is simply a relic of puritanical hangover and nothing more.

Mid, you're smart. You write well. You have a very good grasp of legal concepts. You LOVE arguing (that will calm down the further you get from law school). But sometimes you gotta just say: this is bunk and it's not worth playing devil's advocate.

Your position strikes me as silly- because you don't need alcohol to survive, then the state is somehow justified in restricting sales on an arbitrary day? Actually, I shouldn't say arbitrary, because, again, we all know it's based on the Christian religion. But anyway, maybe I'm just too gosh-darned progressive or something here. But it's none of your beeswax what, how, and why people want to buy champagne for brunch on a Sunday, or a homewrecker of gin to support their habit on a Sunday. Workers could get by without mandated breaks, too.

I've given the case law supporting this before. If you want to argue the case law is wrong, I'll be glad to help you out with your lawsuit and even chip in on the filing fees.

The state of the law is what it is. The only way to change it is to change it (as Yogi Berra might say).

As far as morality being tied to the Christian religion, I don't think that's necessarily a problem (by that I am referring to the Establishment clause), the case current case law (written probably 50 years ago if memory serves) supports that. Again, if you want to change that, I'm more than willing to help. As you know though, it'd be an uphill battle.

I really wouldn't mind picking a fight with the A.G.'s office. Not sure how the boss'd feel. If you want to have an academic conversation about what the law is, you can get on Westlaw same as me. If you want to change things, PM me and we can try that too.

1. Looks like it's for Dallas only, not the entire state of Texas.

2. It was a petition, not Texas lawmakers shooting down a joint resolution. So it looks like Dallas residents had to make the effort themselves.

Did you seriously not read the contents of the article? The point I was making is that Dallas (which is in the State of Texas) is petitioning to get ride of all of it's dry areas. Dallas (which is in the State of Texas) took the "effort" on themselves to start the change. It was a petition to get it on the ballot which today's news stated will likely be on November's ballot. There was "no" controversy involved unlike Oklahoma. It seems when Oklahoma submitted the required signatures the lawmakers just automatically sabotaged the item and would not allow a vote of the people. To me this is a very "undemocratic" way of dealing with the issue. The lawmakers in Oklahoma "would not even allow it's citizens" (Socialistic IMO) to decide the issue by voting. I think you were confused OKC pulse in thinking I did not know that this was a city of Dallas issue? To me this shows that Oklahoma is run by a bunch of self serving, inempt state legislators and really makes Oklahoma look bad, but then again OKC pulse since you took offense with your snide condenscending remark at the end maybe you and Oklahoma deserve each other?

The point I was making is that Dallas (which is in the State of Texas) is petitioning to get ride of all of it's dry areas. Dallas (which is in the State of Texas) took the "effort" on themselves to start the change. It was a petition to get it on the ballot which today's news stated will likely be on November's ballot. There was "no" controversy involved unlike Oklahoma. It seems when Oklahoma submitted the required signatures the lawmakers just automatically sabotaged the item and would not allow a vote of the people. To me this is a very "undemocratic" way of dealing with the issue. The lawmakers in Oklahoma "would not even allow it's citizens" (Socialistic IMO) to decide the issue by voting. I think you were confused OKC pulse in thinking I did not know that this was a city of Dallas issue? To me this shows that Oklahoma is run by a bunch of self serving, inempt state legislators and really makes Oklahoma look bad, but then again OKC pulse since you took offense with your snide condenscending remark at the end maybe you and Oklahoma deserve each other?
Liquor-by-the-drink was voted for in the mid-80's in Oklahoma and the "wet/dry" in Oklahoma is by county option, just like it is in Texas. There have been traditionally dry counties in Oklahoma that have "gone wet" by a vote of the residents of the county. For the most part the urban counties have always been wet while rural counties have been more of the dry ones. I think there was a county liquor election in an Oklahoma county recently. Also, Texas has some of the same restrictions on liquor that Oklahoma does. Liquor store hours are regulated by the state, they are not open on Sundays. You cannot buy beer or wine in a grocery store on Sunday before noon, that is a state law and not a city/county one. I have seen these same type of rules in even "progressive" places like Chicago or Boston where they are still on the package store concept for everything with alcohol.

Look at the petition requirements to get an independent on the ballot in Texas, the two parties want to retain their duopoly of power so the standards are much higher for an independent to get on the ballot than it is for a city/county petition to get on the ballot. Politicians all like democracy when it serves their goals.

Here's today's Dallas Morning NEws article on what they are doing in Dallas.

Dallas shopping centers could be more desirable for tenants if beer, wine sales are allowed | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Dallas Business News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-Alcohol_21bus.ART0.State.Edition1.df582b8.html)

The point I was making is that Dallas (which is in the State of Texas) is petitioning to get ride of all of it's dry areas. Dallas (which is in the State of Texas) took the "effort" on themselves to start the change. It was a petition to get it on the ballot which today's news stated will likely be on November's ballot. There was "no" controversy involved unlike Oklahoma. It seems when Oklahoma submitted the required signatures the lawmakers just automatically sabotaged the item and would not allow a vote of the people. To me this is a very "undemocratic" way of dealing with the issue. The lawmakers in Oklahoma "would not even allow it's citizens" (Socialistic IMO) to decide the issue by voting. I think you were confused OKC pulse in thinking I did not know that this was a city of Dallas issue? To me this shows that Oklahoma is run by a bunch of self serving, inempt state legislators and really makes Oklahoma look bad, but then again OKC pulse since you took offense with your snide condenscending remark at the end maybe you and Oklahoma deserve each other?

No, I didn't take offense, just asked a simple question because you gave me the impression that you skimmed over the article. I know you are very knowledgeable and thorough, so my remark was made out of surprise, not condescendance. I do apologize if that is the impression that you were left with.

I agree, it was stupid that lawmakers didn't even allow Oklahoma voters to vote on the issue. It stings me that lawmakers in Oklahoma keep trying to pull the father-knows-best act on the public, and for that I wish nothing but failure for them in their next election... including Deb Leftbitch.

However, I will say this... Texas is no utopia when in comes to democracy. They pass stupid laws in every one of their once-every-two-year sessions that end up overturned in court. What's odd is that it rarely makes the Houston news. One example is a law that was overturned in 2007 that allowed police to arrest intoxicated patrons at a bar, which DID get enforced but was overturned in courts. Another required IT Security Analysts like myself to obtain a P.I. license or face criminal charges for conducting investigations on computer hard drives without the license. Even though I develop software for our department and do not do computer forensics, I still would have been required to get a license. That law, too, was overturned in court.

The law proposed to sell wine and beer in Oklahoma grocery stores didn't draw controversy, it just hacked off a lot of voters who wanted to vote on the issue. Do you know why the bill was killed? It was killed because the Business and Labor Committee that killed the bill knew that if send to voters, it would have passed. "Just Say No" is so eighties.

I never said you liked Walmart, I said Walmart Syndrome meaning that you like to get everything at the same store.


Well I do not. When I need a bicycle tire I go to Al's. When I need a flowers I go to the flower shop on S. Penn. If I need fabric, Hancock. Music, Guestroom. Cake, tailor, light bulbs, tools, I go to all sorts of specialty shops for these things and always buy local when I can.

My favorite separation is going to the locksmith to have a key made. It's cheap and they always do a phenomenal job, in a timely manner. I want these guys who have been making keys for over 30 years to make my spare key. But I digress.

Do I like having the option of having a key made at Ace while buying some paint? Absolutely. And I take advantage of it from time to time too. It sure is nice having a choice.

Well I do not. When I need a bicycle tire I go to Al's. When I need a flowers I go to the flower shop on S. Penn. If I need fabric, Hancock. Music, Guestroom. Cake, tailor, light bulbs, tools, I go to all sorts of specialty shops for these things and always buy local when I can.

My favorite separation is going to the locksmith to have a key made. It's cheap and they always do a phenomenal job, in a timely manner. I want these guys who have been making keys for over 30 years to make my spare key. But I digress.

Do I like having the option of having a key made at Ace while buying some paint? Absolutely. And I take advantage of it from time to time too. It sure is nice having a choice.

So it's only with liquor sales that you want to be able to buy in one location? Forgive me if I mischaracterized what you want but it just sounded like you wanted everything together so you could grab it and run to get in your car to go home.