I would agree that opening on Sunday would also increase availability. As for making studies say what I want... Well, there are quite a few studies out there and they all agree that increased availability (and Sunday sales was one of the criteria) has a direct correlation to alcohol abuse and drunk driving. You can feel free to dismiss them, much like folks dismiss climate change reports.

It is easy to believe studies when they support your side. Here is a recent study showing otherwise where increased availability did not cause an increase because DUI arrests went down in the following year. Alcohol-Related Arrests Continue to Decrease After Liquor Privatization | Washington Policy Center (http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/notes/alcohol-related-arrests-continue-decrease-after-liquor-privatization). When it comes to any alcohol related studies, I am highly suspect regardless of which side they support. Any accident caused by a true drunk driver is one too many but the statistics used are misleading and wrong. This article has a good explanation of what are alcohol related accidents and how the numbers are misleading and not representative of what is really happening. Common DUI/DWI Myths (http://www.motorists.org/dui/myths)

The quick review of studies I found dealt with increasing sales times as far as Sunday Sales, longer hours or lower prices. Like my earlier comment, the numbers can be manipulated to either side by adjusting the parameters and definitions.

I do not see how making me drive a mile further to buy a bottle of wine is going to increase the likelihood of a DUI. I am assuming the time frame to buy would be the same as the liquor stores as far as no sales on Sunday or after nine. If this is the case, then maybe we should go to a system of state operated stores with only a set number per county like other states have. Why do we restrict the ability for free commerce to protect one type of retail. We complain that we can't get a grocery store downtown but we limit what they can sell. I do believe though that liquor stores should be able to sell mixers, limes, cigars, refrigerated products, etc. The free commerce should work both ways. Would love to have a Specs here.

And if liquor store owners dont like grocery stores being allowed to sell wine, the easy and fair thing to do is allow liquor stores to sell ice, mixers, cigarettes, bottle openers, etc...
You nailed it. How annoying is it for the consumer as well as the store owner/employees that anything sans alcohol can not be sold in a liquor store?

You nailed it. How annoying is it for the consumer as well as the store owner/employees that anything sans alcohol can not be sold in a liquor store?

Not to annoying as you can't miss what you never had. As for the liquor store owner, I doubt many if any would want the trade off. Wal Mart and the such can sell at a loss, with offsets in other areas. Small liquor stores, not so much.

It is easy to believe studies when they support your side. Here is a recent study showing otherwise where increased availability did not cause an increase because DUI arrests went down in the following year. Alcohol-Related Arrests Continue to Decrease After Liquor Privatization | Washington Policy Center (http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/notes/alcohol-related-arrests-continue-decrease-after-liquor-privatization). When it comes to any alcohol related studies, I am highly suspect regardless of which side they support. Any accident caused by a true drunk driver is one too many but the statistics used are misleading and wrong. This article has a good explanation of what are alcohol related accidents and how the numbers are misleading and not representative of what is really happening. Common DUI/DWI Myths (http://www.motorists.org/dui/myths)

The quick review of studies I found dealt with increasing sales times as far as Sunday Sales, longer hours or lower prices. Like my earlier comment, the numbers can be manipulated to either side by adjusting the parameters and definitions.

I do not see how making me drive a mile further to buy a bottle of wine is going to increase the likelihood of a DUI. I am assuming the time frame to buy would be the same as the liquor stores as far as no sales on Sunday or after nine. If this is the case, then maybe we should go to a system of state operated stores with only a set number per county like other states have. Why do we restrict the ability for free commerce to protect one type of retail. We complain that we can't get a grocery store downtown but we limit what they can sell. I do believe though that liquor stores should be able to sell mixers, limes, cigars, refrigerated products, etc. The free commerce should work both ways. Would love to have a Specs here.

I have no idea if the private sale of liquor equaled more availability, so can't comment on that study.

However, you seem to be thinking I'm arguing against changes or something. My comment about the increased availability was in response to another comment made in regards to why liquor is regulated, and that there are consequences to changes. It doesn't mean those consequences aren't worth it.

Huh? Twice now you have made head scratching posts. Homeland, Buy For Less, Reasors...these are all Oklahoma based and owned grocers. With wine sold in grocery stores, we would still be supporting local businesses and the customer would have much better options. Oklahoma should be more free market and talk less about being free market.

And if liquor store owners dont like grocery stores being allowed to sell wine, the easy and fair thing to do is allow liquor stores to sell ice, mixers, cigarettes, bottle openers, etc...

Ding ding ding, We have a winner!!

And sorry bluedogok, while I agree that every state has weird laws, there is no comparison between Texas' laws in Travis County and Oklahoma's system when it comes to impact on the consumer.
The wackiest one in Texas was Dallas County and their wet/dry by voting precinct that they finally did a way with just a few years ago.


Isn't that "curfew" spread throughout all of Texas?* To my knowledge it runs 12hours starting at midnight on Sunday and running until noon.* Sure it's more drastic than OK's curfew but I'd argue for relaxing/changing several other aspects of the law there (or here) before I'd worry about the curfew.**
Not sure about retail store sales but I know it doesn't apply to bars or restaurants. I wasn't heading to a store to buy any alcohol at midnight when I lived in Texas.

When I worked in Louisiana (Vernon Parish, Leesville, Fort Polk) in 1985 (drinking age still 18 down there at that time) the bars closed at midnight on Sunday morning, the beer coolers were padlocked and had brown paper put up on the glass doors. There was a 24 hour frozen drink stand that closed from midnight to midnight on Sunday and reopened at 12:01 AM on Monday.

Huh? Twice now you have made head scratching posts. Homeland, Buy For Less, Reasors...these are all Oklahoma based and owned grocers. With wine sold in grocery stores, we would still be supporting local businesses and the customer would have much better options. Oklahoma should be more free market and talk less about being free market.


And if liquor store owners dont like grocery stores being allowed to sell wine, the easy and fair thing to do is allow liquor stores to sell ice, mixers, cigarettes, bottle openers, etc...
100% locally owned liquor stores > some locally owned grocery stores. Wal mart has 400 stores in oklahoma. 400!

Yeah because they can totally make up for the loss of wine revenue selling $2 bottle openers.

Oklahoma has more wine available then Texas does. So the free market is clearly working here.

100% locally owned liquor stores > some locally owned grocery stores. Wal mart has 400 stores in oklahoma. 400!


Harris Teeter in downtown Charlotte, which is a beautiful store by the way, is sustained primarily by beer and wine sales. Harris Teeter was also locally owned until Kroger bought them out earlier this year. The store likely wouldn't have been able to stay in business in a state with restrictive laws like Oklahoma because grocery profit margins are so thin. Alcohol is where the real profit is. That is one reason rooftops really are important when it comes to getting a grocery store in downtown OKC. Legalize wine in grocery stores and all of a sudden a downtown grocer becomes profitable on far less rooftops than it otherwise would need.

Oklahoma has more wine available then Texas does. So the free market is clearly working here.

I disagree. Grocery stores and gas stations would love to be able to sell wine and high point beer, but they cant. I want to be able to conveniently go to grocery stores and gas stations to buy wine and high point beer, but I cant. The free market is clearly not working here, because buyers and sellers are hamstrung by restrictive laws.

And you say Texas has less wine available than us (not sure what that exactly means) but if there is a wine that a Texan wants, they can order it and have it shipped to their house. Cant do that in Oklahoma. Why? Because free market principles are clearly not in play.

Arkansas voters reject plan for statewide alcohol - KATV - Breaking News, Weather and Razorback Sports (http://www.katv.com/story/27277354/arkansas-voters-reject-plan-for-statewide-alcohol)

Arkansas voters rejected an amendment to allow statewide liquor sales by a substantial margin. I was almost certain this would pass and am very surprised that it didn't.

Arkansas and Oklahoma are very culturally and politically similar across the board with the exception that Arkansas actually has a couple of progressive strongholds. This makes me wonder if modern liquor laws could even pass in Oklahoma if put on the ballot. Thoughts?

Arkansas voters reject plan for statewide alcohol - KATV - Breaking News, Weather and Razorback Sports (http://www.katv.com/story/27277354/arkansas-voters-reject-plan-for-statewide-alcohol)

Arkansas voters rejected an amendment to allow statewide liquor sales by a substantial margin. I was almost certain this would pass and am very surprised that it didn't.

Arkansas and Oklahoma are very culturally and politically similar across the board with the exception that Arkansas actually has a couple of progressive strongholds. This makes me wonder if modern liquor laws could even pass in Oklahoma if put on the ballot. Thoughts?

How do you define " modern liquor laws" ? It sounds like a subjective standard. In 1973 in New Jersey I could get liquor store delivery to my house. Thats over 40 years ago, would that be a modern law? Just curious as to your interpretation.

How do you define " modern liquor laws" ? It sounds like a subjective standard. In 1973 in New Jersey I could get liquor store delivery to my house. Thats over 40 years ago, would that be a modern law? Just curious as to your interpretation.

Doing away with 3.2 beer and allowing grocery/convenience stores to sell strong beer and wine. That's the way most people define it.

Arkansas voters reject plan for statewide alcohol - KATV - Breaking News, Weather and Razorback Sports (http://www.katv.com/story/27277354/arkansas-voters-reject-plan-for-statewide-alcohol)

Arkansas voters rejected an amendment to allow statewide liquor sales by a substantial margin. I was almost certain this would pass and am very surprised that it didn't.

Arkansas and Oklahoma are very culturally and politically similar across the board with the exception that Arkansas actually has a couple of progressive strongholds. This makes me wonder if modern liquor laws could even pass in Oklahoma if put on the ballot. Thoughts?

I think Oklahomans are still fine with county option on this. I would be happy for it to be statewide but don't have any particular problem with county option and I think it will eventually cover most, if not all, of the state.

Doing away with 3.2 beer and allowing grocery/convenience stores to sell strong beer and wine. That's the way most people define it.

Did the Arkansas vote you were referencing have anything to do with that? I think I could see that passing in Oklahoma before statewide liquor.

Did the Arkansas vote you were referencing have anything to do with that? I think I could see that passing in Oklahoma before statewide liquor.

Arkansas doesn't have 3.2 beer. If a county is wet, you can sell strong beer and wine in grocery/convenience stores, sell alcoholic beverages at restaurants, AND you can open a liquor store. If a county is dry though, no alcohol can be sold unless you are a private club, which is easy to be in some counties but very difficult in others.

If Oklahoma voted to modernize the laws but keep it by county, some counties that are currently "dry" but allow 3.2 beer would lose access to alcoholic beverages period if 3.2 beer was in fact done away with. I wouldn't have a problem with that but I am not sure it would pass and it would be a huge negative to people living in affected counties. Liquor statewide almost certainly wouldn't pass.

I think Oklahomans are still fine with county option on this. I would be happy for it to be statewide but don't have any particular problem with county option and I think it will eventually cover most, if not all, of the state.

County option was approved in 1984. As of Jan, 1, 2014, 26 counties or 1/3 of the state is still dry. How long will it be before the dry counties are less than 5 or 0 ?

If Oklahoma voted to modernize the laws but keep it by county, some counties that are currently "dry" but allow 3.2 beer would lose access to alcoholic beverages period if 3.2 beer was in fact done away with. I wouldn't have a problem with that but I am not sure it would pass and it would be a huge negative to people living in affected counties. Liquor statewide almost certainly wouldn't pass.

I see no reason to think that would happen. It seems that you're just looking for worst case scenarios.

County option was approved in 1984. As of Jan, 1, 2014, 26 counties or 1/3 of the state is still dry. How long will it be before the dry counties are less than 5 or 0 ?

If Arkansas is any indication, most of the counties that are still dry pride themselves on the fact that they are dry and aren't looking to go wet anytime soon. I would imagine its the same in Oklahoma.


I see no reason to think that would happen. It seems that you're just looking for worst case scenarios.

In Oklahoma, 3.2 beer is a completely separate category under a completely different set of laws than liquor. Liquor in this state is legally anything other than 3.2 beer. There are three ways to go about updating the laws and each would have their pluses and minuses.

#1. Create a completely new set of laws for beer and wine replacing 3.2 beer. Anywhere currently selling 3.2 beer can sell strong beer and wine and that includes "dry" counties. Liquor stores would continue to operate as usual
#2. Abolish 3.2 beer but keep liquor under its current classification and regulations. Expand sales to grocery stores. The downsides to this is dry counties would lose alcoholic beverages entirely. Grocery stores could not sell chilled beverages and would have to stop selling at 9PM like liquor stores currently do
#3. Keep 3.2 beer as is and implement option #2 above by county as approved by vote. Maybe even further complicate it by going the way of Colorado and only allowing a few stores in the state's largest counties to sell liquor. For everyone else its business as usual.

I prefer #1 but it also would be least likely to get passed.

County option was approved in 1984. As of Jan, 1, 2014, 26 counties or 1/3 of the state is still dry. How long will it be before the dry counties are less than 5 or 0 ?

1/3 of Oklahoma is still dry?

*edited* Oh - for liquor by the drink.

If Arkansas is any indication, most of the counties that are still dry pride themselves on the fact that they are dry and aren't looking to go wet anytime soon. I would imagine its the same in Oklahoma.



In Oklahoma, 3.2 beer is a completely separate category under a completely different set of laws than liquor. Liquor in this state is legally anything other than 3.2 beer. There are three ways to go about updating the laws and each would have their pluses and minuses.

#1. Create a completely new set of laws for beer and wine replacing 3.2 beer. Anywhere currently selling 3.2 beer can sell strong beer and wine and that includes "dry" counties. Liquor stores would continue to operate as usual
#2. Abolish 3.2 beer but keep liquor under its current classification and regulations. Expand sales to grocery stores. The downsides to this is dry counties would lose alcoholic beverages entirely. Grocery stores could not sell chilled beverages and would have to stop selling at 9PM like liquor stores currently do
#3. Keep 3.2 beer as is and implement option #2 above by county as approved by vote. Maybe even further complicate it by going the way of Colorado and only allowing a few stores in the state's largest counties to sell liquor. For everyone else its business as usual.

I prefer #1 but it also would be least likely to get passed.

Would number 1 also allow for grocery store sells?

Would number 1 also allow for grocery store sells?

Yeah. Anywhere that currently sells 3.2 beer could sell beer and wine.

And you say Texas has less wine available than us (not sure what that exactly means) but if there is a wine that a Texan wants, they can order it and have it shipped to their house. Cant do that in Oklahoma. Why? Because free market principles are clearly not in play.

Speaking of this... a friend of mine just did a tour in Napa and they were talking about shipping wine. The wineries there said Utah is the only state they can't ship to. Did something change where we can have wine delivered now? I don't remember hearing anything about it.

I sometimes wonder how many 'dry' counties would remain 'dry' if there was more stringent enforcement. I suspect liquor by the wink still exists in many places.

Speaking of this... a friend of mine just did a tour in Napa and they were talking about shipping wine. The wineries there said Utah is the only state they can't ship to. Did something change where we can have wine delivered now? I don't remember hearing anything about it.

Not sure anything has changed. As far as I know, pretty much all strong booze has to go through a wholesaler (the Naifehs, couple others) and cant be mailed directly to your house. Now, not all wineries may be aware of that, or they will risk it and send some anyways. That could be the case here. But I could be wrong.

Not sure anything has changed. As far as I know, pretty much all strong booze has to go through a wholesaler (the Naifehs, couple others) and cant be mailed directly to your house. Now, not all wineries may be aware of that, or they will risk it and send some anyways. That could be the case here. But I could be wrong.

It's murky. The Supreme Court ruled a little while back that states can't have different laws for in state and out of state wineries. Oklahoma allows you to have wine shipped from an in state winery, so they really aren't supposed to be able to block you from having something from out of state. The trick is you're technically required to order it in person, and you're limited to 1L a month. That being said, I (er... a friend of mine who I can't remember his name...) regularly has wine and beer shipped up from a retail chain in Texas, and hasn't had any problems. There is always a chance of it being seized. I also know for a fact that wine of the month and beer of the month clubs ship here regularly.

Hmm.... Good to know. :)

#2. Abolish 3.2 beer but keep liquor under its current classification and regulations. Expand sales to grocery stores. The downsides to this is dry counties would lose alcoholic beverages entirely. Grocery stores could not sell chilled beverages and would have to stop selling at 9PM like liquor stores currently do


This would be a step backwards in my opinion. The one thing we can not buy anywhere, anytime is chilled beer or wine over 3.2. So, making it so that you could never buy anything chilled anywhere would suck even more.

Anyone else conflicted on whether it is sad or humorous to still be discussing in late 2014 desired changes to the law which began in a 2010 thread.

I sometimes wonder how many 'dry' counties would remain 'dry' if there was more stringent enforcement. I suspect liquor by the wink still exists in many places.
Isn't that how it was made legal in Oklahoma? Aggressive enforcement by J. Howard Edmondson when he was the Tulsa DA at the places like Elk lodges and country clubs that got the influential people motivated to actually push for legalization (after Edmondson became Governor) since they were no longer assured their access to it would be available?

Isn't that how it was made legal in Oklahoma? Aggressive enforcement by J. Howard Edmondson when he was the Tulsa DA at the places like Elk lodges and country clubs that got the influential people motivated to actually push for legalization (after Edmondson became Governor) since they were no longer assured their access to it would be available?

I remember well when this happened and that played a big part.

Honest question, when I go to states that have more liberal alcohol laws there seems to be just as many liquor stores as there are in Oklahoma (maybe even more). Is there something about Oklahoma that would hurt liquor stores and small business that doesn't seem to be happening in other places.

The liquor stores simply don't want competition from the grocery stores. While I am sure the liquor stores would be able to survive, their profits would likely take a hit. When I have lived in other states I rarely went to a liquor store being that I am a beer/wine person and could find everything I usually wanted at grocery stores.

There are lots of beers that I have to go to the liquor store to purchase when I'm traveling. The one area they would really take a hit on is the <$30 wines which I'm sure is the bulk of the wine sales. You still have to go to liquor or wine stores to get the good stuff. :)

There are lots of beers that I have to go to the liquor store to purchase when I'm traveling. The one area they would really take a hit on is the <$30 wines which I'm sure is the bulk of the wine sales. You still have to go to liquor or wine stores to get the good stuff. :)

When I lived in Charlotte, Harris Teeter had as good of a beer selection as any liquor store here does. Their wine selection was a bit smaller but anything they didn't have you could go to Total Wine for.

There are lots of beers that I have to go to the liquor store to purchase when I'm traveling. The one area they would really take a hit on is the <$30 wines which I'm sure is the bulk of the wine sales. You still have to go to liquor or wine stores to get the good stuff. :)

This is the cause of the biggest change you would see. As someone who has experience on the retail side.. the sub $30 wines are the bread and butter of the liquor stores. The profits on those allow the liquor to be sold with 5% and less markup. Very slim margins on the liquor, a little better on the beer, and solid on the wines. I know, if we still had our store, and we lost a significant percentage of wine sales, we would have to raise prices on liquor across the board to survive.

If we're going to change those laws we need to do it before the next Presidential election. The number of signatures required to get it on the ballot is far lower right now, because it is a percentage of the voters in the last general election, and turnout was really low this November.

Who will drive Oklahoma alcohol reform? | News OK (http://newsok.com/who-will-drive-oklahoma-alcohol-reform/article/5382534)

This chat seems to indicate there may be a possibility of moving to single-strength beer on the 2016 ballot. This is something I will believe when I see, but it would be awesome news if it did come to pass.

He maintains that the real entity that can drive change is big beer (Anheuser-Busch).

Who will drive Oklahoma alcohol reform? | News OK (http://newsok.com/who-will-drive-oklahoma-alcohol-reform/article/5382534)

This chat seems to indicate there may be a possibility of moving to single-strength beer on the 2016 ballot. This is something I will believe when I see, but it would be awesome news if it did come to pass.

He maintains that the real entity that can drive change is big beer (Anheuser-Busch).

I wouldn't put much stock in what he wrote.

Why would A-B wanna go single strength and invite increased competition from Sam Adams and so many others to the dominance of grocery store shelves they currently enjoy? The fact that they have now done a reversal in their corporate policy by bringing their high point beer back in to liquor stores in Oklahoma after over 40 years would indicate just the opposite.

Their current strategy seems pretty clear. Maintain their dominance in grocery stores while adding new additional sales and profits from liquor stores.

I wouldn't put much stock in what he wrote.

Why would A-B wanna go single strength and invite increased competition from Sam Adams and so many others to the dominance of grocery store shelves they currently enjoy? The fact that they have now done a reversal in their corporate policy by bringing their high point beer back in to liquor stores in Oklahoma after over 40 years would indicate just the opposite.

Their current strategy seems pretty clear. Maintain their dominance in grocery stores while adding new additional sales and profits from liquor stores.

If I'm AB I bring in 6 point for distribution in liquor stores, and leave 3.2 where it is. 6 days a week for 5 hours 3.2 is the only alcoholic beverage available for sale off-premise and all day on Sunday.

AB didn't get 50% of the beer market making stupid business decisions like letting monopolies on selling times go away.

If I'm AB I bring in 6 point for distribution in liquor stores, and leave 3.2 where it is. 6 days a week for 5 hours 3.2 is the only alcoholic beverage available for sale off-premise and all day on Sunday.

AB didn't get 50% of the beer market making stupid business decisions like letting monopolies on selling times go away.

It's already happening. 6% Bud Light Platinum became available to liquor stores in Oklahoma as of yesterday.

Maybe AB-InBev is wanting to get away from the 3.2 business. Since they (and SAB-MillerCoors) are foreign owned maybe they wish to streamline their product offerings since Oklahoma requires special labeling. It may be all about reducing costs and squeezing pennies. Even in a 6% grocery store they are still going to dominate shelf space.

Just speculating on some possible motivation.

Who will drive Oklahoma alcohol reform? | News OK (http://newsok.com/who-will-drive-oklahoma-alcohol-reform/article/5382534)

This chat seems to indicate there may be a possibility of moving to single-strength beer on the 2016 ballot. This is something I will believe when I see, but it would be awesome news if it did come to pass.

He maintains that the real entity that can drive change is big beer (Anheuser-Busch).

Where you in on that Q&A?

I was hoping it would have gone longer, I had a flood of questions that went unanswered, all alcohol reform or LOCAL related. Guess I'll have to wait until next month.

Maybe AB-InBev is wanting to get away from the 3.2 business. Since they (and SAB-MillerCoors) are foreign owned maybe they wish to streamline their product offerings since Oklahoma requires special labeling. It may be all about reducing costs and squeezing pennies. Even in a 6% grocery store they are still going to dominate shelf space.

Just speculating on some possible motivation.

Would that increase profits? No. Does keeping the 3.2 laws the same and putting more 6 point beer in liquor stores increase profits? Yes.

If AB wanted to get the laws in Oklahoma changed, all they would have to do is announce that they would stop selling 3.2 beer. Doing so would generate enough public interest that there would likely be a drive to get the laws changed as fast as possible. Right now, consumer apathy is one of the biggest things working against reform. Liquor store owners, MADD groups, and religious groups are all dedicated to preserving the status quo and most Oklahomans don't give much thought to changing the laws. That would all change faced with the prospect of AB products being pulled from OK shelves.

Along those lines, how difficult would it be to increase the alcohol content allowed to be considered low-point beer? Maybe go from 3.2 to 5% or something? My understanding is that the 3.2 figure comes from the Volstead Act, where the limit was 0.5% during prohibition but then it was increased to 3.2 under Roosevelt in 1933.

If AB wanted to get the laws in Oklahoma changed, all they would have to do is announce that they would stop selling 3.2 beer. Doing so would generate enough public interest that there would likely be a drive to get the laws changed as fast as possible. Right now, consumer apathy is one of the biggest things working against reform. Liquor store owners, MADD groups, and religious groups are all dedicated to preserving the status quo and most Oklahomans don't give much thought to changing the laws. That would all change faced with the prospect of AB products being pulled from OK shelves.

Along those lines, how difficult would it be to increase the alcohol content allowed to be considered low-point beer? Maybe go from 3.2 to 5% or something? My understanding is that the 3.2 figure comes from the Volstead Act, where the limit was 0.5% during prohibition but then it was increased to 3.2 under Roosevelt in 1933.

Little known fact. 3.2 beer is actually 3.2% alcohol by weight whereas "6 point" is alcohol by volume. 3.2 by weight converts to about 4% by volume. Whereas "6 point" is actually 4.2%-5% by volume. Crafts are typically 6% or higher. Truth be told, while distribution is tricky, Crafts like not being next to the giants of beer and competing against them for shelf space.

Realbeer.com: Beer Alcohol Content And Carbs In Beer (http://www.realbeer.com/edu/health/calories.php)
The 3.2 Myth | Cover Story | Salt Lake City Weekly (http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/the-32-myth/Content?oid=2157643)

Oh and you forgot the other titan in the industry. The Naifeh family. Between AB and the Naifeh's, the only changes you'll see are the ones they want.

Little known fact. 3.2 beer is actually 3.2% alcohol by weight whereas "6 point" is alcohol by volume. 3.2 by weight converts to about 4% by volume. Whereas "6 point" is actually 4.2%-5% by volume. Crafts are typically 6% or higher. Truth be told, while distribution is tricky, Crafts like not being next to the giants of beer and competing against them for shelf space.

Realbeer.com: Beer Alcohol Content And Carbs In Beer (http://www.realbeer.com/edu/health/calories.php)
The 3.2 Myth | Cover Story | Salt Lake City Weekly (http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/the-32-myth/Content?oid=2157643)

Oh and you forgot the other titan in the industry. The Naifeh family. Between AB and the Naifeh's, the only changes you'll see are the ones they want.

I am familiar with 3.2 ABW being 4% by volume. I was wondering if the current law could be changed to allow a higher number to be considered "low-point," such as 5% or 6% by volume. This would allow the major brewers to sell their real product in grocery stores as well as open up grocery store shelf space to better domestics such as Sam Adams, while still keeping the stronger craft beers in the liquor stores. The biggest offense of 3.2 beer is not its alcohol content but the fact the brewers water down their product to meet the guideline. The mount of water it takes to lower the ABV just a half of a percent is enough to significantly alter the flavor of the beer. That is a shame.

Would it be possible to increase the definition of "non-intoxicating" to something higher than 3.2 ABW? Franklin Roosevelt changed the definition from 0.5 ABW to 3.2 ABW with relative ease in 1933.

I am familiar with 3.2 ABW being 4% by volume. I was wondering if the current law could be changed to allow a higher number to be considered "low-point," such as 5% or 6% by volume. This would allow the major brewers to sell their real product in grocery stores as well as open up grocery store shelf space to better domestics such as Sam Adams, while still keeping the stronger craft beers in the liquor stores. Would it be possible to increase the definition of "non-intoxicating" to something higher than 3.2 ABW? Franklin Roosevelt changed the definition from 0.5 ABW to 3.2 ABW with relative ease in 1933.

A slight increase in the definition of low point could be an effective way to allow stronger beers in grocery stores without requiring a complete rewrite of the ABLE laws. However, I think it's unlikely, since the 3.2 ABW standard isn't just Oklahoma based.

I am familiar with 3.2 ABW being 4% by volume. I was wondering if the current law could be changed to allow a higher number to be considered "low-point," such as 5% or 6% by volume. This would allow the major brewers to sell their real product in grocery stores as well as open up grocery store shelf space to better domestics such as Sam Adams, while still keeping the stronger craft beers in the liquor stores. The biggest offense of 3.2 beer is not its alcohol content but the fact the brewers water down their product to meet the guideline. The mount of water it takes to lower the ABV just a half of a percent is enough to significantly alter the flavor of the beer. That is a shame.

Would it be possible to increase the definition of "non-intoxicating" to something higher than 3.2 ABW? Franklin Roosevelt changed the definition from 0.5 ABW to 3.2 ABW with relative ease in 1933.

3.2 beer is considered a non intoxicating alcoholic beverage. Reason for this distinction is it allows AB, Coors Miller to pay slotting fees in grocery stores. Also why would AB allow others to come in and compete? They won't. That's why it won't happen.

Also if you are really worried about watering down the taste of bud light or coors lights I flat don't know what to tell you. They all taste like water to start with anyway.

Please, just give me cold beer and wine at a liquor store. That's all I ask. I'm sure the Naifeh's would have no problem with it, but not sure if the 3.2 guys would go for it.

Also if you are really worried about watering down the taste of bud light or coors lights I flat don't know what to tell you. They all taste like water to start with anyway.

I'm not even sure if there is any difference with Bud Light. I think it's a 4.0 / 3.2 beer no matter where you get it, right?

3.2 beer is considered a non intoxicating alcoholic beverage. Reason for this distinction is it allows AB, Coors Miller to pay slotting fees in grocery stores. Also why would AB allow others to come in and compete? They won't. That's why it won't happen.

Also if you are really worried about watering down the taste of bud light or coors lights I flat don't know what to tell you. They all taste like water to start with anyway.

Not Bud or Coors Light, but other beers like Blue Moon, Shiner, Dos Equis, Stella, PBR, etc. The new COOP beers are good because they offer a drinkable option if I am stucking buying low-point beer.

Please, just give me cold beer and wine at a liquor store. That's all I ask. I'm sure the Naifeh's would have no problem with it, but not sure if the 3.2 guys would go for it.

The stores have wanted it for a while (in fact, it was at one point a stated goal of the retail association if I recall correctly). However, the Grocery and Gas industry opposes it, as do groups like MADD and such. Evidently you might drink cold beer in your car leaving the liquor store. Not sure why they think someone wouldn't also just drink room temp whiskey or vodka.

The stores have wanted it for a while (in fact, it was at one point a stated goal of the retail association if I recall correctly). However, the Grocery and Gas industry opposes it, as do groups like MADD and such. Evidently you might drink cold beer in your car leaving the liquor store. Not sure why they think someone wouldn't also just drink room temp whiskey or vodka.

MADD groups and religious fundamentalists are for restricting access to alcoholic beverages wherever they can. It doesn't matter if the restrictions make sense.

Maybe 'Mother Hen' (Oklahoma) will allow the liquor stores to refrigerate beer.

If an alcoholic is going to drink the product after he purchases it from the liquor store, he would be better off drinking it cold than hot.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfPafgkWW7befDe9t0-jxM_Jocoqext5Dpz6giX38NkDVmFolQ

Tweaks in the system will happen. But major law changes simply aren't going too. How do I know? Because this very thread is 5 years old and no major changes have happened. However, small tweaks like brewery parity laws will. Best just to accept the status quo and plan ahead of you want cold strong beer or a bottle of wine on Sunday. It's really not that hard.

There's just to many hands in the oklahoma booze cookie jar and the way liquor laws have to be passed makes the hurdle to high. For example, to get wine in grocery it must be passed by on a statewide election. There's a huge # of signatures that need to be gathered and verified and turned in something like a year before the election even takes place. IF IF IF it passes (the amount of dark money that would flood in against it will blow you away and better get it on the ballot during a presidential year, we found out who votes in mid terms) there's an 18 month waiting period to allow everyone to get the changes in effect.

Its a ton of work and lot of hurdles to clear instead of just learning to buy ahead of time. I get no one likes to admit defeat on this board and bitching is a lot of fun but this a hamster wheel.

Tweaks in the system will happen. But major law changes simply aren't going too. How do I know? Because this very thread is 5 years old and no major changes have happened. However, small tweaks like brewery parity laws will. Best just to accept the status quo and plan ahead of you want cold strong beer or a bottle of wine on Sunday. It's really not that hard.

There's just to many hands in the oklahoma booze cookie jar and the way liquor laws have to be passed makes the hurdle to high. For example, to get wine in grocery it must be passed by on a statewide election. There's a huge # of signatures that need to be gathered and verified and turned in something like a year before the election even takes place. IF IF IF it passes (the amount of dark money that would flood in against it will blow you away and better get it on the ballot during a presidential year, we found out who votes in mid terms) there's an 18 month waiting period to allow everyone to get the changes in effect.

Its a ton of work and lot of hurdles to clear instead of just learning to buy ahead of time. I get no one likes to admit defeat on this board and bitching is a lot of fun but this a hamster wheel.

I am going to have to agree with you here. I don't think any significant changes will occur any time in the near future. As I have said, there is too much apathy among people who would support changing the laws yet those who support preserving the status quo, be it for religious reasons or because they own a liquor store, are pretty dedicated to that cause. Arkansas' failed attempt to do away with dry counties makes me lose hope that an attempt to relax Oklahoma's liquor laws would actually pass if put to a statewide vote.

Here are some changes that I think may be possible and this is what I believe those pushing for change should focus on.

1) Allowing brewpubs to brew and sell full strength beer
2) Liquor stores sell cold beer
3) Liquor store hours increase to 10PM or 11PM instead of 9PM.

I don't understand what the Neifah's would have against those changes. If the grocery stores are worried, maybe find a way to increase the alcohol percentage allowed for low-point beer from 4% ABV to 5% ABV, opening up grocery stores to real Budweiser as well as other domestics such as Sam Adams in exchange for allowing liquor stores to sell cold beer.

This entire issue may be easier to revisit in 20-30 years. Young conservative evangelicals for the most part don't have the hangups about alcohol that older ones tend to have and are less likely to resist relaxing the laws.

Only #1 has a chance.

#2 would get fought by AB because it waters down one of their key advantages. Smaller less capitalized liquor stores would fight as well.

#3 would get fought by MADD and AB.

I guess Oklahoma legislators think it's politically safer to be in the news for something like wanting to ban the wearing of hoodies in public than it would if they introduced bills to ban 3.2% beer, or allow grocery stores to sell wine.

I guess Oklahoma legislators think it's politically safer to be in the news for something like wanting to ban the wearing of hoodies in public than it would if they introduced bills to ban 3.2% beer, or allow grocery stores to sell wine.
That type of bill is inoffensive to much of their constituency especially when it will more than likely never make it out of committee, whereas a change to alcohol laws might rile some of them up. What we have now is tyranny of the vocal minority on almost all issues. Most of the population is detached and apathetic.

That type of bill is inoffensive to much of their constituency especially when it will more than likely never make it out of committee, whereas a change to alcohol laws might rile some of them up. What we have now is tyranny of the vocal minority on almost all issues. Most of the population is detached and apathetic.

That is what you get when most of the state's population doesn't turn out for elections.

The radical social conservatives who want to impose their agenda on all Oklahomans are very vocal, highly energized, and are out voting every time an election is held. If those who want to see sanity return to this state continue to stay home, there will never be any change.