http://www.thirstybeaglebeerblog.com/2016/07/liquor-store-association-sues-to-block.html?m=1

Apparently the RLAO isn't confident the public will vote the way they want them to so they are attempting to get SQ792 thrown out altogether. If that happens and SQ791 doesn't get enough signatures to get on the ballot we won't be voting on any alcohol reform in November.

At this point I'd wish they'd let it go. That being said, without knowing why the judge ruled against the almost identical state question, it will be interesting to see what happens here.

So after reading this:


There's also the chance we could end up with both alcohol state questions on the ballot. I did some research on that eventuality, and found out that if there are two competing state questions, the one that garners the better percentage of support would be the one that goes into effect.

Just let them battle it out and see who wins. I would sign the SQ 791 petition if I knew where to do so.

I would sign the SQ 791 petition if I knew where to do so.

They're still waiting on the SOS to give them a start date to start collecting signatures.

They're still waiting on the SOS to give them a start date to start collecting signatures.

SQ 791 began Aug. 2. Ends Oct. 31. Differences: http://www.791vs792.com/

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5514978?access=433811b3a188cb10f0e8232672fbca17

SQ 791 began Aug. 2. Ends Oct. 31. Differences: http://www.791vs792.com/

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5514978?access=433811b3a188cb10f0e8232672fbca17

Yeah, I signed it a few days ago. Then yesterday had 792 folks come by my house, and tell me 791 was completely dead. Classy.

Yeah, I signed it a few days ago. Then yesterday had 792 folks come by my house, and tell me 791 was completely dead. Classy.
Did you sign it at a liquor store? If they don't have paid signature takers, it will be interesting to see, if they can get enough signatures via that route and other volunteer ways.

Did you sign it at a liquor store? If they don't have paid signature takers, it will be interesting to see, if they can get enough signatures via that route and other volunteer ways.

I did. I don't have high hopes for them getting enough. I've made no secret I prefer 791, but I'd be happy with the progress either offers.

I did. I don't have high hopes for them getting enough. I've made no secret I prefer 791, but I'd be happy with the progress either offers.

Personally, I just want refrigerated beer and wine available at retail. Whether that's in grocery stores or only at liquor stores, I don't care. So, whatever measure get us that the quickest with as little legal challenges as possible is the one I'll vote for. Sounds like that may be 791 if the pitch is accurate.

Personally, I just want refrigerated beer and wine available at retail. Whether that's in grocery stores or only at liquor stores, I don't care. So, whatever measure get us that the quickest with as little legal challenges as possible is the one I'll vote for. Sounds like that may be 791 if the pitch is accurate.

Good point!

We don't want to be inconvenienced with driving to two or three stores to get refrigerated beer, wine & mixes because 'Mother Hen' wrote the law to discourage drinking while driving.

One characteristic about alcoholics; they will drink it hot or cold, full strength or mixed.

The only patrons the law inconvenienced were responsible drinkers and gave the retail liquor stores more business that they do not want to relinquish or share with the grocery stores--which would make some products you purchase at Liquor stores accessible to customers through the grocery stores.

Personally, I just want refrigerated beer and wine available at retail. Whether that's in grocery stores or only at liquor stores, I don't care. So, whatever measure get us that the quickest with as little legal challenges as possible is the one I'll vote for. Sounds like that may be 791 if the pitch is accurate.

791 is quicker theoretically, and there's no limit on licenses, so every grocery and liquor and convenience store could potentially carry beer. From a legal challenge standpoint, I think 791 may be on slightly shaky ground, although it has survived some tests already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7Gmk3Pos4&index=11&list=PLjgAov7ihNDJ-JOp1q5_Yv0mW_wn-XFwZ

Good point!

We don't want to be inconvenienced with driving to two or three stores to get refrigerated beer, wine & mixes because 'Mother Hen' wrote the law to discourage drinking while driving.

One characteristic about alcoholics; they will drink it hot or cold, full strength or mixed.

The only patrons the law inconvenienced were responsible drinkers and gave the retail liquor stores more business that they do not want to relinquish or share with the grocery stores--which would make some products you purchase at Liquor stores accessible to customers through the grocery stores.

I honestly don't mind some limited accessibility, especially if it appeases the over zealous among us a bit. I just don't like not having ANY access to cold beer or wine at retail. Some say it affects our choices as well. I'm not sure if that's true, but I'd certainly be willing to give up the convenience of getting it at grocery stores, if that was the easiest way to get something that's impossible to get right now. If they can get it all done, then more power to them, but it will be a bummer if we lose out on the chance to change the refrigeration law because of legal challenges and licensing disputes that surround the other proposed changes.

I read somewhere that 792 on the ballot is different than what was originally proposed. It is weaker. Anyone know what the difference is, if any?

I read somewhere that 792 on the ballot is different than what was originally proposed. It is weaker. Anyone know what the difference is, if any?

Ask Stephanie Bice on twitter. She's pretty good at responding quickly.

I read somewhere that 792 on the ballot is different than what was originally proposed. It is weaker. Anyone know what the difference is, if any?

You'll need to clarify what you mean. There were about 200 different proposals and it's impossible to determine which one was "original," unless you're referring to Bice's first attempt 2 years ago. If that's what you're referring to, then it's not weaker at all--it's just much more comprehensive.

If you're simply asking if 792 is weaker or changed from what the legislature passed to put on the ballot, then, no, it isn't weaker.

Also, vote "Yes," please.

You'll need to clarify what you mean. There were about 200 different proposals and it's impossible to determine which one was "original," unless you're referring to Bice's first attempt 2 years ago. If that's what you're referring to, then it's not weaker at all--it's just much more comprehensive.

If you're simply asking if 792 is weaker or changed from what the legislature passed to put on the ballot, then, no, it isn't weaker.

Also, vote "Yes," please.

I meant than what was proposed a few months ago. Thank you for clarifying it. Wasn't there two initiatives? Did they get merged? Coming from Denver and living in St Pete Fl for 10 years, of course I am voting yes. I want Fat Tire here.

It should be mentioned that Fat Tire has been in Utah for a while, so there's something more keeping them out of Oklahoma.

Meh. There are a number of locals in the same wheelhouse as Fat Tire that have better flavor. Off the top of my mind: COOP Native Amber, Roughtail 12th Round, Dead Armadillo Amber. And Fat Tire ain't what it used to be.

Meh. There are a number of locals in the same wheelhouse as Fat Tire that have better flavor. Off the top of my mind: COOP Native Amber, Roughtail 12th Round, Dead Armadillo Amber. And Fat Tire ain't what it used to be.

Ya, you have said this before. It is memories of my young adulthood, being born and raised and living in Denver until my mid 20s.

And there's nothing wrong with favorites, even if other people don't like them. I grew up with PBR and while I still drank it was my go to of choice.

I meant than what was proposed a few months ago. Thank you for clarifying it. Wasn't there two initiatives? Did they get merged? Coming from Denver and living in St Pete Fl for 10 years, of course I am voting yes. I want Fat Tire here.
There were several petitions but the only one that really mattered was 791, the petition RLAO wrote. They're still collecting signatures until the 31st in hopes of getting it on a ballot in the next year (or two), especially if they're successful getting 792 voted unconstitutional, which is really their only play left.


Meh. There are a number of locals in the same wheelhouse as Fat Tire that have better flavor. Off the top of my mind: COOP Native Amber, Roughtail 12th Round, Dead Armadillo Amber. And Fat Tire ain't what it used to be.

If you're a fan of 12th round you better stock up, they're discontinuing it.

I meant than what was proposed a few months ago. Thank you for clarifying it. Wasn't there two initiatives? Did they get merged? Coming from Denver and living in St Pete Fl for 10 years, of course I am voting yes. I want Fat Tire here.
There were several petitions but the only one that really mattered was 791, the petition RLAO wrote. They're still collecting signatures until the 31st in hopes of getting it on a ballot in the next year (or two), especially if they're successful getting 792 voted unconstitutional, which is really their only play left.


Meh. There are a number of locals in the same wheelhouse as Fat Tire that have better flavor. Off the top of my mind: COOP Native Amber, Roughtail 12th Round, Dead Armadillo Amber. And Fat Tire ain't what it used to be.

If you're a fan of 12th round you better stock up, they're discontinuing it.

If you're a fan of 12th round you better stock up, they're discontinuing it.

No wonder I have trouble finding it.

Well that sucks.

My wife asked me this and I have no idea, so I thought I would ask on here: If SQ 792 passes, will CVS and Walgreen's be able to sell wine and high point beer? I said no because I didn't think they were technically grocery stores, not then I got to thinking about it and wasn't 100% sure.

FROM THE TULSA WORLD, OCT. 30:

OKLAHOMA CITY — The Retail Liquor Association of Oklahoma has abandoned efforts to get its version of a liquor modernization state question on a future ballot.

The group was unable to obtain the 123,725 signatures needed by the deadline to get State Question 791 on a ballot, Bryan Kerr, president, said Friday.

“We were not going to get the required signatures in time,” Kerr said. “We had thousands and thousands that signed that wanted the alcohol laws changed in a different way than what State Question 792 provides.”

Kerr said he didn’t know specifically how many signatures the organization lacked.

“We decided to suspend the campaign and try to defeat State Question 792 and come back with a bigger and better plan afterwards,” he said.

In a message to members, Kerr said it was a good trial run for any initiatives that they may put forth in the future to get consumers what they want and to create a more equitable marketplace for retail package stores.

The measure would not have been placed on the Nov. 8 ballot, but could have been on a future ballot had circulators been successful and any challenges been unsuccessful.

State Question 792 will be the only liquor modernization measure on the Nov. 8 ballot. It is among seven state questions voters will decide.

State Question 792, if approved by voters, would allow grocery and convenience stores to sell cold, strong beer and wine. State Question 791 would have done the same thing, but had different limitations.

State Question 792, which lawmakers put on the ballot, would also allow package stores to sell items that are currently prohibited, such as mixers and ice.

Kerr and his organization have vowed to pursue a legal challenge should State Question 792 pass.

Alex Weintz, a spokesman for the campaign supporting State Question 792, said he is confident it would withstand a legal challenge.

Many if not all of the changes have already been adopted across the rest of the nation, Weintz said.

“I am confident all of these proposals are constitutional and the courts will see it that way,” he said.

He said State Question 792 has been polling well, but the group is continuing to get its message out.“State Question 792 is the only wine and beer modernization effort on the ballot,” Weintz said. “It is the only chance we have to update the state’s prohibition-era laws. But I also think State Question 792 was always the better plan. It was a more comprehensive modernization proposal. And I think voters realized that and that is why State Question 791 never got off the ground.”

Kerr and his organization have vowed to pursue a legal challenge should State Question 792 pass.

We REALLY need 'loser pays' to put an end to these nuisance suits.

We REALLY need 'loser pays' to put an end to these nuisance suits.

Why not let a judge and jury decide if these are nuisance suits?

And winning party usually can go after money from the losing side anyways.

My wife asked me this and I have no idea, so I thought I would ask on here: If SQ 792 passes, will CVS and Walgreen's be able to sell wine and high point beer? I said no because I didn't think they were technically grocery stores, not then I got to thinking about it and wasn't 100% sure.

Probably. I would assume any retailer of any type can apply and get an unlimited number of beer and wine licenses. Yay. More money flowing out of state to low wage employers.

Why not let a judge and jury decide if these are nuisance suits?

And winning party usually can go after money from the losing side anyways.

Better idea, why not let the voters?

Probably. I would assume any retailer of any type can apply and get an unlimited number of beer and wine licenses. Yay. More money flowing out of state to low wage employers.

I am not a lawyer; that said, to the best of my knowledge any place that is currently allowed to sell low-point beer would be eligible for the new licenses for regular beer and wine. I'm not certain on that, however, and my Google-fu is not strong enough today to find that text in SB383/SJR68... and every Google result I've found so far emphasizes "Grocery and Convenience Stores" as the target for the new beer and wine expansion.

Better idea, why not let the voters?

They are. But it doesnt mean us voters get to pass unconstitutional things. Very similar to the whole Sharia Law ban state question from a few years back.

Im beginning to like 792 less and less. Partly based on these potential unconstitutional aspects of treating two groups differently. I also believe we are going to see increased prices on many items if this passes.

They are. But it doesnt mean us voters get to pass unconstitutional things. Very similar to the whole Sharia Law ban state question from a few years back.

Im beginning to like 792 less and less. Partly based on these potential unconstitutional aspects of treating two groups differently. I also believe we are going to see increased prices on many items if this passes.

Treating two groups differently? What do you think the current system has always done? It's hilarious to hear--all of sudden--some are concerned with treating all sides equally, while arguing to preserve the status quo or supporting an alternative (791) that also creates different rules for the relevant groups. Particularly hilarious is the objection raised by liquor stores about the license limitations when they are the ones who demanded the limitations in the first place to keep out of state liquor stores from coming into Oklahoma! Now, they've changed their tune because it makes a useful anti-792 talking point.

792 creates a fairer system. In fact, it will be the most fair this state has ever had.

Also, it is highly unlikely we will see increased prices. Point to one other state that went from the system we have to a system that allows more entrants into the market and saw prices increase as a result of that action. You won't be able to do it because it hasn't happened--and it won't in Oklahoma.

It really is mind-boggling to see some of these arguments as if 792 is some revolutionary path being forged by Oklahoma with unknown and unpredictable consequences, when this has already been done in 35 states (with more this year and next). We can see reasonably predict what will happen based on the experience out there, and many of the scare tactics thrown out by 792 opponents are directly contradicted by those experiences.

My wife asked me this and I have no idea, so I thought I would ask on here: If SQ 792 passes, will CVS and Walgreen's be able to sell wine and high point beer? I said no because I didn't think they were technically grocery stores, not then I got to thinking about it and wasn't 100% sure.

Yes, 792--through SB383-- allows convenience stores to sell wine and high point beer.

Treating two groups differently? What do you think the current system has always done? It's hilarious to hear--all of sudden--some are concerned with treating all sides equally, while arguing to preserve the status quo or supporting an alternative (791) that also creates different rules for the relevant groups. Particularly hilarious is the objection raised by liquor stores about the license limitations when they are the ones who demanded the limitations in the first place to keep out of state liquor stores from coming into Oklahoma! Now, they've changed their tune because it makes a useful anti-792 talking point.

792 creates a fairer system. In fact, it will be the most fair this state has ever had.

Also, it is highly unlikely we will see increased prices. Point to one other state that went from the system we have to a system that allows more entrants into the market and saw prices increase as a result of that action. You won't be able to do it because it hasn't happened--and it won't in Oklahoma.

It really is mind-boggling to see some of these arguments as if 792 is some revolutionary path being forged by Oklahoma with unknown and unpredictable consequences, when this has already been done in 35 states (with more this year and next). We can see reasonably predict what will happen based on the experience out there, and many of the scare tactics thrown out by 792 opponents are directly contradicted by those experiences.

I don't know of a state that switched, but Texas is about 10% or more higher on liquor. Distributors don't have to compete there and under this law it's the same. Sorry, but I don't see lack of competition helping prices. Plus, you move the highest margin items out of the liquor stores, what do you expect them to adjust?

I don't know of a state that switched, but Texas is about 10% or more higher on liquor. Distributors don't have to compete there and under this law it's the same. Sorry, but I don't see lack of competition helping prices. Plus, you move the highest margin items out of the liquor stores, what do you expect them to adjust?

As a wine buff there is more selection at cheaper prices in Texas, New Mexico, and Missouri. Part of that is history, but part of that are the liquor laws. Liquor stores will have to a better job with more wine selections and cold wine and beer to go. State controlled capitalism....I agree with king183 100%

792 creates a fairer system. In fact, it will be the most fair this state has ever had.

Also, it is highly unlikely we will see increased prices. Point to one other state that went from the system we have to a system that allows more entrants into the market and saw prices increase as a result of that action. You won't be able to do it because it hasn't happened--and it won't in Oklahoma.



But I thought if 792 passes and makes 3.2% beer go away, then the remaining beer is higher point, subject to the higher alcohol tax in which 3.2% beer was not subject to. Why do you think beer in bars costs more in Dallas than in Oklahoma City? If 792 passes, then how can there be any more 95 cent draws for happy hour? Or a dollar for a can of beer?

Plus, you move the highest margin items out of the liquor stores, what do you expect them to adjust?

I was unaware that all liqour stores would stop stocking wine and high point beer.

I was unaware that all liqour stores would stop stocking wine and high point beer.

OK, the sales of the highest profit items, if we need to be pedantic about it. The milk eggs and bread of liquor stores. They subsidise the slim margins on liquor.

But I thought if 792 passes and makes 3.2% beer go away, then the remaining beer is higher point, subject to the higher alcohol tax in which 3.2% beer was not subject to. Why do you think beer in bars costs more in Dallas than in Oklahoma City? If 792 passes, then how can there be any more 95 cent draws for happy hour? Or a dollar for a can of beer?

TBH part of the intent of the two year implementation is to work out some of those details. Rules blocking happy hours and beer specials are ABLE rules and can be changed without a vote of the people. A lot of 792 is clearing the slate and making room for a rewrite of much of our rules.

OK. Wait. I might have missed something. Is there a possibility that my Coors Original special pricing at my two favorite haunts will go away with passing of 792. If so that might change my vote.

^^^^^^^
It won't go away, but it will likely eventually be strong beer rather than watered-down 3.2, which is likely to be eliminated altogether in the state. While most people - myself included - think that's a good thing, strong beer is subject to an additional 13% liquor tax that does not apply to 3.2 beer. So, it won't go away, but it will be (plus side) a better product and at the same time (minus side) cost a little bit more.

They are. But it doesnt mean us voters get to pass unconstitutional things. Very similar to the whole Sharia Law ban state question from a few years back.

Im beginning to like 792 less and less. Partly based on these potential unconstitutional aspects of treating two groups differently. I also believe we are going to see increased prices on many items if this passes.

You bet, You're going to see increased prices on everything from insurance (auto/home/health), gasoline, food and basic services (utilities, tv etc.,).

It's called FEED THE GREEDY CEOS . . .

Take extra caution when you purchase or update/upgrade these items especially insurance. It'll be tough times for all; retirees won't see revenue increases to the tune that you will see expenses skyrocket. Save what you can now--it's not extra income because you will need it later.

Reminder: Lock you vehicle; don't leave anything of value visible to be a temptation for thieves.

OK. Wait. I might have missed something. Is there a possibility that my Coors Original special pricing at my two favorite haunts will go away with passing of 792. If so that might change my vote.

Currently, you're not allowed (as a bar) to have coin beer, dollar beer, happy hour, or any sort of drink specials on full strength (over 3.2) alcohol beverage. That doesn't mean some don't (although I don't know of any), but if they do, they're not allowed to. Basically, they have to keep pricing consistent all the time. Now, like I mentioned, there is an opportunity for the legislature or ABLE to change that, I believe. So it's not a sure thing either way.

Currently, you're not allowed (as a bar) to have coin beer, dollar beer, happy hour, or any sort of drink specials on full strength (over 3.2) alcohol beverage. That doesn't mean some don't (although I don't know of any), but if they do, they're not allowed to. Basically, they have to keep pricing consistent all the time. Now, like I mentioned, there is an opportunity for the legislature or ABLE to change that, I believe. So it's not a sure thing either way.So for my regular beer, Coors Original, I'm definately going to pay 13.5% more and possibly more, possibly double, at certain times. All for 1% more alcohol. I'm getting wishy-washy on this one.

13.5% is honestly not much. A $2 beer would then cost $2.25. A $4 beer would be $4.50. That additional tax money should help state revenues though. And keep in mind that 792 is about much more than just more alcohol content in the beer.

So for my regular beer, Coors Original, I'm definately going to pay 13.5% more and possibly more, possibly double, at certain times. All for 1% more alcohol. I'm getting wishy-washy on this one.

Also you won't have to drink as much to get that buzz on. So it will prob. save you money.05 - 06 point is much better than .3.2 real beer taste so much better than the water down 3.2

And keep in mind that 792 is about much more than just more alcohol content in the beer.

Exactly. Softail's post seems a little short-sighted considering the other things that 792 addresses.

Also you won't have to drink as much to get that buzz on. So it will prob. save you money.05 - 06 point is much better than .3.2 real beer taste so much better than the water down 3.2

3.2 ABW (Oklahoma low-point beer) is equivalent to 4.0 ABV. "High point" light domestics sold in other states and such are 4.2 ABV (i.e. Bud Light, Coors Light, Miller Lite, and the stuff you'd actually see for coin beers and cheap specials). A 12 oz. "high point" bottle of light beer sold in another state is essentially equivalent to 14 oz. of "low point" light beer sold in Oklahoma. Put another way, 7 "Oklahoma light beers" have an equivalent amount of alcohol to 6 "high-point light beers". Taste is another matter, of course, and is highly subjective. But in terms of the amount of alcohol involved or the "buzz" you get, the difference between low-point and high-point beers when discussing light domestics is fairly trivial.

Exactly. Softail's post seems a little short-sighted considering the other things that 792 addresses.

Yeah. We wouldn't want to forget giving the ability for out of state corporations to buy into the distributors. And the ability of manufacturers to sign exclusivity agreements with distributers removing the low pricing posting with ABLE, and the movement of Budweiser into liquor stores pushing craft beers to the back, and of course, all the money that will shift from local owners to Wal-Mart et al. Oh, and the reducing of the penalties for selling to a minor, and the fact that the corporations will have no personal liability for such illegal actions. Also the elimination of the availability of beer at street events and festivals such as Heard on Hurd in Edmond.

I know there are positives like cold beer and the ability to buy wine at the back of a grocery store (although I've never find walking 10 feet into a liquor store that much of a convenience), but there are tons of consequences.

Exactly. Softail's post seems a little short-sighted considering the other things that 792 addresses.
It is shortsighted. But I believe most people look at how something affects their pocketbook first and how it affects other things second. I'm all for modernizing OKs laws but not when it costs me hard earned cash. Besides, I said I'm wishy-washy not that I'm voting against it.

Yeah. We wouldn't want to forget giving the ability for out of state corporations to buy into the distributors. And the ability of manufacturers to sign exclusivity agreements with distributers removing the low pricing posting with ABLE, and the movement of Budweiser into liquor stores pushing craft beers to the back, and of course, all the money that will shift from local owners to Wal-Mart et al. Oh, and the reducing of the penalties for selling to a minor, and the fact that the corporations will have no personal liability for such illegal actions. Also the elimination of the availability of beer at street events and festivals such as Heard on Hurd in Edmond.

I know there are positives like cold beer and the ability to buy wine at the back of a grocery store (although I've never find walking 10 feet into a liquor store that much of a convenience), but there are tons of consequences.

Jerry, can you please show me where you got that?

There is nothing whatsoever in 792 or SB383 that eliminates beer at street events and festivals such as Heard on Hurd.

It is shortsighted. But I believe most people look at how something affects their pocketbook first and how it affects other things second. I'm all for modernizing OKs laws but not when it costs me hard earned cash. Besides, I said I'm wishy-washy not that I'm voting against it.
Delete

Jerry, can you please show me where you got that?

There is nothing whatsoever in 792 or SB383 that eliminates beer at street events and festivals such as Heard on Hurd.

Because only 3.2% beer is legal at most of those events. The only way they could do it with liquor is if one of the owners of the parking lots in downtown Edmond obtained a liquor license and roped off the area, designated it as a bar (and possibly limited it to over 21), and required all drinks to be consumed in that private space.

So like, in Bricktown, on St. Patricks, what Tapworks does in the lot next to their building.

Because only 3.2% beer is legal at most of those events. The only way they could do it with liquor is if one of the owners of the parking lots in downtown Edmond obtained a liquor license and roped off the area, designated it as a bar (and possibly limited it to over 21), and required all drinks to be consumed in that private space.

So like, in Bricktown, on St. Patricks, what Tapworks does in the lot next to their building.

That might be true if SB383 didn't provide for a process to serve beer at these festivals. But it does, so to say there can't be beer ("eliminated") at festivals is simply not true.

That might be true if SB383 didn't provide for a process to serve beer at these festivals. But it does, so to say there can't be beer ("eliminated") at festivals is simply not true.

I'd love to have someone point out that language to me. The only thing I found is "Sell beer at public events such as trade shows or festivals;" which isn't really any different than the laws now regarding wine. I see nothing repealing the laws prohibiting public consumption of alcoholic beverages.

I'd love to have someone point out that language to me. The only thing I found is "Sell beer at public events such as trade shows or festivals;" which isn't really any different than the laws now regarding wine. I see nothing repealing the laws prohibiting public consumption of alcoholic beverages.I agree. It sounds to me like "allowing" sales would mean like the Festival Of The Arts does now. It has to be consumed within the confines of the tent or roped off area.

Also, alcohol over 3.2% is not permitted in Oklahoma State Parks. Also on the Illinois River.

^^^^^^^^^
Actually, only wine, cocktails and STRONG beer must be consumed inside designated area. But when you buy from one of the beer tents in the food court, you are buying 3.2 beer and you can walk anywhere with it; even away from the festival and down the street. Besides selling in grocery stores, this is one of the main reasons Oklahoma brewers created 3.2 product; they could not easily support events and sell (or even in some cases give away) strong beer, but 3.2 is a snap because it is subject to entirely different restrictions. This is certainly one of the things that needs to be worked out with ABLE if this law passes, as it could be tough on festivals like Live on the Plaza, Heard on Hurd, Festival of the Arts, etc.