Do you keep $5k sitting around to spare?

I don't own a liquor store so commenting what I'd do is a moot point. That said if you want your business to prosper you have to be willing to reinvest and sometimes that may involve borrowing money in order to do so, right? Unless of course you're simply in the business just to make money/pay bills.

Let me phrase it another way. If I owned a liquor store I'd want to be a relevant competitor with a focus on beer that was matched or bettered only by the states best stores. Sure this won't happen overnight but it's something I'd constantly be striving for and passing on refrigeration in my store would not even be a consideration.

I don't own a liquor store so commenting what I'd do is a moot point. That said if you want your business to prosper you have to be willing to reinvest and sometimes that may involve borrowing money in order to do so, right? Unless of course you're simply in the business just to make money/pay bills.

Let me phrase it another way. If I owned a liquor store I'd want to be a relevant competitor with a focus on beer that was matched or bettered only by the states best stores. Sure this won't happen overnight but it's something I'd constantly be striving for and passing on refrigeration in my store would not even be a consideration.

I agree and like I mentioned, I think the stores that don't do it will fade away. I was just explaining why some stores won't be able to. They either won't have the capital or the credit to make the upgrade. Some may not have the space or setup. Sam's, Byron's, Panchos, The Cellar, and most of those size shops will certainly have no problem.

Another somewhat progressive bill is being proposed.

Proposed bill would put Oklahoma beermakers on par with wineries | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/proposed-bill-would-put-oklahoma-beermakers-on-par-with-wineries/article/5388319)

A bill proposed by a Tulsa senator would bring brewers of high-point beer in Oklahoma on par with wineries by giving them the ability to sell their products directly to consumers on site.

Senate Bill 424 by Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, would amend state statute to allow breweries to sell high-point beer to consumers “on the premises of the brewery.”

Thirsty Beagle: Refrigeration legislation could topple Oklahoma beer distribution barrier | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/thirsty-beagle-refrigeration-legislation-could-topple-oklahoma-beer-distribution-barrier/article/5388599)


Passage of SB 383 could lead to the opening of Oklahoma’s borders to several high-profile national craft beer brands.

Candidate No. 1 could be a brand that all hardcore beer fans would know, and one that even most casual consumers would recognize.

New Belgium Brewing Co., of Fort Collins, Colo., has for years maintained it would not distribute its products — including the ubiquitous Fat Tire Amber Ale — in Oklahoma due to the state’s alcohol distribution laws and lack of liquor-store refrigeration. The standard argument has been that the company cannot ensure its beers will be fresh if left unrefrigerated for extended stretches.

New Belgium’s reaction to the potential passage of SB 383?

“For us I’d say it’s the biggest piece of the puzzle,” said Brian Krueger, who leads New Belgium’s sales team in opening new markets.

What can we do to support this bill? What are the next steps before this can pass?

What can we do to support this bill? What are the next steps before this can pass?

Agree. Anybody know what the next steps are and if us as the consumer can contribute in any way to helping it pass?

In my opinion this is one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle towards bringing Oklahoma's liquor laws in line with the rest of the country. This state isn't alone in having 3.2 beer or no wine in grocery, but it is the only state that requires beer be sold at room temperature. That needs to change.

Too bad that we didn't get it before Fat Tire lost a step. If I had taps in front of me for both Fat Tire and COOP Native Amber I'd pick NA every time. But it would still be great to have New Belgium, for sure.

Too bad that we didn't get it before Fat Tire lost a step. If I had taps in front of me for both Fat Tire and COOP Native Amber I'd pick NA every time. But it would still be great to have New Belgium, for sure.

Personally I would as well. I think Fat Tire is very overhyped. New Belgium has other beers though that are different from anything else I've had, such as 1554, and I will be very excited to not have to drive to Dallas or Ft. Smith to get it.

The funny thing is, I don't think Fat Tire was overhyped 15 years ago. It definitely changed a bit when they expanded production. I toured the brewery a couple of years ago, and the difference between the old plant (which still exists) and the new one is astonishing. It's a fantastic place, but you can't escape the fact that these days it is very much a large beer factory rather than a warm and fuzzy craft brewer.

Agree. Anybody know what the next steps are and if us as the consumer can contribute in any way to helping it pass?

In my opinion this is one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle towards bringing Oklahoma's liquor laws in line with the rest of the country. This state isn't alone in having 3.2 beer or no wine in grocery, but it is the only state that requires beer be sold at room temperature. That needs to change.


I’m glad you asked!

Follow Senator Bice

Follow LOCAL

Contact your state reps and voice your support for both of these bills!

If you go to LOCAL’s website they even have talking points and the hyperlink to finding your rep, it doesn’t get much easier than that.
What to say when you contact your reps about SB 383 and SB 424 (http://localok.org/say-contact-reps-sb-383-sb-424/)



Personally I would as well. I think Fat Tire is very overhyped. New Belgium has other beers though that are different from anything else I've had, such as 1554, and I will be very excited to not have to drive to Dallas or Ft. Smith to get it.


I also agree Fat Tire is overhyped but I’m fine with it if it continues to be a gateway into craft that it has been over the years. Many say the same for Boston Lager and Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. The fact is little has changed about these beers over their time; it’s our palates that have evolved as our craft beer journey continues. For the record the only thing that Fat Tire and Native Amber is that they are both ‘amber’ beers, other than that they are very different imo (Native Amber is WAY better). I will drink Fat Tire but don’t seek it out and wouldn’t even if it were available here. The same can be said for the majority of New Belgium’s core lineup, HOWEVER, I love their sour beers and once we get distro on their beers and people start getting access to more “mainstream” sour beer their lives will be forever changed. It’s akin to discovering you’re a fan of hoppy beers, an entire realm of beer and a multitude of beer categories are yet to be discovered in our state. At this stage we’re barely scraping the surface of this monster that’s building, which is why it’s paramount that we start updating our laws now.

Great, Thank you. I did this and shared to social media.

I also agree Fat Tire is overhyped but I’m fine with it if it continues to be a gateway into craft that it has been over the years. Many say the same for Boston Lager and Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. The fact is little has changed about these beers over their time; it’s our palates that have evolved as our craft beer journey continues. For the record the only thing that Fat Tire and Native Amber is that they are both ‘amber’ beers, other than that they are very different imo (Native Amber is WAY better). I will drink Fat Tire but don’t seek it out and wouldn’t even if it were available here. The same can be said for the majority of New Belgium’s core lineup, HOWEVER, I love their sour beers and once we get distro on their beers and people start getting access to more “mainstream” sour beer their lives will be forever changed. It’s akin to discovering you’re a fan of hoppy beers, an entire realm of beer and a multitude of beer categories are yet to be discovered in our state. At this stage we’re barely scraping the surface of this monster that’s building, which is why it’s paramount that we start updating our laws now.

I agree with this completely. Sam Adams Boston Lager used to be my absolute favorite beer. Today, I will drink it but I don't usually order it unless I am somewhere that it is the most complex thing served. Many of my go-tos when I first started drinking (Dos Equis, Corona, Beck's, Rolling Rock) are hardly drinkable for me now. Most of my experience with New Belgium beers was years ago so I'll be interested to see how my current palate responds to them. At the time, I could hardly stand the taste of IPAs. Now I love them.

Actually Native Amber was specifically brewed from the start to be a substitute for those who loved Fat Tire but couldn't get it here. Except that it was modeled after the earlier, fresher version of FT. Trust me on this; it's fact. But you are correct that it is much better.

I prefer Breckenridge Avalanche to Fat Tire, still prefer Shiner Bock but I drink all three depending upon what is available. Just like Shiner is available almost everywhere in Austin Fat Tire is like that up here, Avalanche doesn't have the same level of distribution.

I did bring a case of Fat Tire up to OKC for someone on Spartan's old forum when I lived in Austin.

When I first moved here six years ago Breck Av was available here, and was pulled out of OK shortly after. Love that beer

I was first introduced to Shiner 20+ years ago when spending a lot of time in Austin. You often literally saw nothing else being consumed by others when in a bar or restaurant. When it made it to the OKC market, Shiner was about all I would drink for a while. But these days when I'm out of options at a place with a bad beer list and order Shiner in a pinch I always regret it. The stuff is swill these days. It's probably because what you are getting around here is usually the watered-down 3.2 version, but either way it ain't the same great stuff it used to be.

I was first introduced to Shiner 20+ years ago when spending a lot of time in Austin. You often literally saw nothing else being consumed by others when in a bar or restaurant. When it made it to the OKC market, Shiner was about all I would drink for a while. But these days when I'm out of options at a place with a bad beer list and order Shiner in a pinch I always regret it. The stuff is swill these days. It's probably because what you are getting around here is usually the watered-down 3.2 version, but either way it ain't the same great stuff it used to be.

Real shiner is decent, but the 3.2 version is awful and that's what most places here serve.

Real shiner is decent, but the 3.2 version is awful and that's what most places here serve.

Yeah and that's a shame. I grew up on Shiner Bock. The warm stuff in the liqour stores aren't 3.2 also are they?

Warm stuff in the liquor stores is strong beer. I'm pretty sure that almost any time you get it at a bar or restaurant here these days it's the 3.2 version, because it masquerades as a premium for the (internal) cost of near beer.

Yeah and that's a shame. I grew up on Shiner Bock. The warm stuff in the liqour stores aren't 3.2 also are they?

No they sell the real thing. However, most restaurants that serve Shiner however serve the 3.2 version. Not sure why that is if they have a real liquor license. For me, its the same with Blue Moon. I used to love that beer, but most bars/restaurants here will serve the 3.2 version which tastes so watery its almost undrinkable.

...Not sure why that is if they have a real liquor license...
$$$$$$$

You can start with the fact that strong beer is subject to 13% liquor tax, and 3.2 is not.

$$$$$$$

You can start with the fact that strong beer is subject to 13% liquor tax, and 3.2 is not.

Doesn't 3.2 beer also count as food in terms of the 50% food requirement for an ABC-2 license?

I'm not sure on that. I've heard people say it, but that whole 50/50 thing seems so wishy-washy and loosely enforced that who knows..?

Actually Native Amber was specifically brewed from the start to be a substitute for those who loved Fat Tire but couldn't get it here. Except that it was modeled after the earlier, fresher version of FT. Trust me on this; it's fact. But you are correct that it is much better.

That is interesting! I've never heard that before. I'd have given them a good ribbing for missing the mark on that one (in a good way) had I known. I love Native Amber; buy it all the time but imo the beers aren't really that close in flavor. That said if you are a fan of Fat Tire and its signature heavy biscuit malt character you should try McNellie's Pub Ale by Marshalls. If memory serves that beer is also heavy on biscuit malt and has a pretty similar flavor. Not to mention it's local and should be easy to find.


No they sell the real thing. However, most restaurants that serve Shiner however serve the 3.2 version. Not sure why that is if they have a real liquor license. For me, its the same with Blue Moon. I used to love that beer, but most bars/restaurants here will serve the 3.2 version which tastes so watery its almost undrinkable.
Not for nothing but the "real" Shiner Bock you guys are speaking of is 4.4% ABV, what you see in convenience stores (and most likely on tap) is the low point version, which is 4.0%. fwiw .4% isn't that much of difference and most people have a hard enough time discerning a full point. Perhaps the taste difference you are noticing is more a draft versus bottle or even a temperature variance.

As for the reason why they'd opt to carry the lower point version is simple, taxes (being much lower on "low point" beer). That, overall profit and again the fact that the full strength version is only marginally stronger, which to me was actually surprising but then again I've never drunk enough of it to question it nor have I ever done a side by side comparison.

I'm not saying it was to be a copy; just very much in that wheelhouse.

I don't care about the alcohol content between the two Shiners, it's the flavor. When you grew up on the "real" stuff, you can sniff out the OK version quickly.

That's my chief complaint with all 3.2 beers. I'm not above enjoying a crisp lager or pilsner on a hot day, but the 3.2 varieties just taste like LITERALLY watered-down versions of the original. It's not about getting effed up, it's about flavor.

That's my chief complaint with all 3.2 beers. I'm not above enjoying a crisp lager or pilsner on a hot day, but the 3.2 varieties just taste like LITERALLY watered-down versions of the original. It's not about getting effed up, it's about flavor.

I agree. Thats what gets left out of this discussion too many times by people who just want to get drunk faster or conservatives who support existing laws with the intention of encouraging sobriety. The taste difference is far greater than the alcohol content difference. That's why I really like COOP's new 3.2 brews. It tastes and feels like I am drinking real beer and they aren't bad beers in their own right.

That's probably just the difference between a craft brewer taking it as a challenge to brew a great-tasting beer that fits the 3.2 restriction versus a mega-brewer dumbing down their existing brand to comply with the law. Not to mention the fact that a lot of mainstream big-money brews by design have less flavor, even less than their original formulas. If you haven't watched "Beer Wars" I'd recommend it; the documentary details how large corporate brewers have intentionally removed flavor from their beers over the decades to comply with the American palate's lowest-common-denominator. Lowest-common-denominator = most possible sales.

Oklahoma is one of the rare places where a brewer would invest in a flavor purposely formulated to taste good at 3.2. I'm glad COOP created new flavors from scratch instead of adapting existing ones, and hope other Oklahoma brands do the same.

We all know how government policy moves at a glacial pace. Even with the boom in craft brewing here in Colorado and a governor who was part of that growth (Wynkoop Brewing) it seems every legislative session there is always some tweaking of the alcohol laws. Reasonable laws always seem to lag behind the real world wishes even when an overwhelming majority of the politicians and public.

Mmmmm Wynkoop's Mac and cheese....nom nom

Stephanie Bice did a great job this morning talking on News 9 about the refrigeration issue and explained how to some extent it is the low-hanging-fruit of liquor law modernization in that it can be done in the legislature, whereas most of the more archaic liquor laws in Oklahoma are constitutional and would require referendums.

She said the main opponent to her proposed changes - which would allow refrigeration in liquor stores - is grocery and convenience stores. They are fighting it because they currently have a competitive advantage with having refrigeration while liquor stores don't, and feel the advantage would shift to liquor stores who would then be able to sell refrigerated strong beer while groceries were stuck with 3.2. So it really has little to do with religious opposition.

These are all things we have discussed here before, but it was interesting to hear it from a lawmaker's perspective.

Why again can't c-stores and grocery not just start selling the high point beer? That doesn't make sense.

It's against the law for them to do so. They don't have (nor can the get) state liquor licenses. They have LOCAL 3.2 off-premises consumption sales licenses, and are regulated exclusively at the city/county level throughout the state. ABLE, the state agency that regulates alcohol, does not concern itself with 3.2, as that is deemed non-intoxicating by state law. It's all very convoluted.

But my takeaway from Stephanie Bice's interview is that grocery/c-store sales is one of those things that would have to be changed via constitutional amendment, which would require a public referendum.

Stephanie Bice did a great job this morning talking on News 9 about the refrigeration issue and explained how to some extent it is the low-hanging-fruit of liquor law modernization in that it can be done in the legislature, whereas most of the more archaic liquor laws in Oklahoma are constitutional and would require referendums.

She said the main opponent to her proposed changes - which would allow refrigeration in liquor stores - is grocery and convenience stores. They are fighting it because they currently have a competitive advantage with having refrigeration while liquor stores don't, and feel the advantage would shift to liquor stores who would then be able to sell refrigerated strong beer while groceries were stuck with 3.2. So it really has little to do with religious opposition.

These are all things we have discussed here before, but it was interesting to hear it from a lawmaker's perspective.

A fair trade off would be to allow grocery stores to sell wine. If that requires a referendum, so be it. Let's vote and see what people want.

Bill 424 would also require a constitutional change.

Another bill has come to light, this one has an opposite effect of what we want and stems basically from what you all are discussing (low point beer). Breweries have recently started trying to play their edge by brewing good low point beers. COOP isn't the first by any means. Currently breweries are able to sell the beers direct at their breweries (or at special events) and even offer growler fills of these low point beers. They have become quite popular and as time passes more OK breweries are jumping on board with at least one or two offerings. So popular in fact that HB1858 proposes quadrupling the tax on low point beer. Make sure your people know that supporting that bill is a big NO!

I never suggested COOP was the first to purpose-brew low-point beers - in fact Oklahoma brewpubs have been doing so for more than 20 years - but I'm pretty certain they are the first to can them in state to market at grocery and convenience stores. They have actually been brewing low-point for several years now, for use at events such as H&8th and Live on the Plaza.

It's obvious that many of us want to see reform in this whole area of state alcohol laws take place. Maybe the major metropolitan areas need to seek to separate themselves from the state agenda. One size doesn't fit all...

You know as well as I that Mother Hen will sit on those eggs and think: "if the eggs aren't broken, they will eventually hatch." That's great thinking; however when you're sitting on unfertilized eggs, it is a matter of time before something will be rotten in Denmark.

I never suggested COOP was the first to purpose-brew low-point beers - in fact Oklahoma brewpubs have been doing so for more than 20 years - but I'm pretty certain they are the first to can them in state to market at grocery and convenience stores.

I seem to recall Bricktown Brewery selling beers in grocery stores in the 90's. Of course, they're a different animal than COOP and company.

I never suggested COOP was the first to purpose-brew low-point beers - in fact Oklahoma brewpubs have been doing so for more than 20 years - but I'm pretty certain they are the first to can them in state to market at grocery and convenience stores. They have actually been brewing low-point for several years now, for use at events such as H&8th and Live on the Plaza.
Actually, in recent years anyway, the first to do this was Mustang. They had two beers at one point but just as things were getting going they had to deal with other issues, mainly the tornado wiping out their newly purchased OK facility. Although they weren't brewing/packaging these low point options at that facility at the time that issue became front/center and was a huge roadblock moving forward with anything. I'm unsure if their intention is to bring these low point packages back or not, my guess is it'll depend on the outcome of these recently proposed bills.


I seem to recall Bricktown Brewery selling beers in grocery stores in the 90's. Of course, they're a different animal than COOP and company.

I remember it. Copperhead Amber Ale (now 46 star amber) was brewed/packaged for a minute by a Kansas brewery, I can't recall if they tweaked the abv of the recipe or if it mirrored the draft version they offered at the brewery however.

I know it's not very fashionable here to fully read and attempt to comprehend the full meaning of someone's post before spouting off in disagreement, but....if you'll read my post more carefully you'll see that I said "...I'm pretty certain they are the first to can them in state to market at grocery and convenience stores..." I said this because I was familiar with both the (brewed and bottled out-of-state) BB growlers AND the (brewed and bottled out-of-state) 3.2 Mustang. I also think Mustang's were re-formulations of existing strong beers, but can't speak to that 100%.

That said, I do think on further review that Choc had 3.2 beers in stores for a while before COOP did.

Wow. That escalated quickly. I honestly had no idea where BB was bottled PR canned. I thought it might have been in state.

A fair trade off would be to allow grocery stores to sell wine. If that requires a referendum, so be it. Let's vote and see what people want.

Okay, but where is the money coming from to hire signature takers to get at least 133,000 signatures as required? Petition requirements will be lowered if one or both proposed bills to do that are passed. One bill drops number of signatures required. The other bill allows more time to get them.

Mustang Session '33 was the low point beer Urbanized is thinking of. It was alright and is what I usually went with if I had to drink low point beer but like he says, it tasted a lot more like a watered down version of a stronger beer than something that was brewed to be that strength. COOPs beers are good because they are intended to be 4.0 ABV. It looks like that also is what Choc is going for.

I know it's not very fashionable here to fully read and attempt to comprehend the full meaning of someone's post before spouting off in disagreement, but....if you'll read my post more carefully you'll see that I said "...I'm pretty certain they are the first to can them in state to market at grocery and convenience stores..." I said this because I was familiar with both the (brewed and bottled out-of-state) BB growlers AND the (brewed and bottled out-of-state) 3.2 Mustang. I also think Mustang's were re-formulations of existing strong beers, but can't speak to that 100%.

That said, I do think on further review that Choc had 3.2 beers in stores for a while before COOP did.

You're right, my oversight. I thought you were focusing on the marketing at convenience of grocers/convenience (I was). My apologies. And yes, Choc did can one or two of their beers but have abandoned it. IIRC the sales couldn't justify adding a canning line (on top of already having a bottling line), a substantial cost/space inhibitor as you could imagine. Although I haven't checked, I'm fairly certain they still brew those beers. Perhaps they've increased the ABV to sell them along with their other beers in anticipation of their latest project, a full on brewery idea of beers brewed specifically low point. I believe it's called "Born Free".

Unless I misunderstood Gary (mustang brewmaster) the '33 beer is a homebrew kolsch recipe (many of their recipes are old homebrew recipes of his that have been tweaked/scaled to commercial sizes FYI) that was dropped from 4.5% to 4%.

No problem, sorry if I jumped off on you a little bit harshly. Makes sense about Choc finding it to be too expensive in light of already having a bottling line. COOP ended up benefiting in that regard having already committed to a canning line for their 16oz product.

From the JR:

Budweiser campaign highlights rift between ‘big beer,’ craft

By: Michael Felberbaum February 6, 2015

RICHMOND, Va. – Attention die-hard craft beer drinkers: This Bud’s not for you.

After several years of losing ground to craft brewers, Anheuser-Busch, the country’s biggest brewery, seems to be conceding that its flagship brew may not fly with fans of fancy suds.

Rather than try to woo them to toss back a Budweiser, Anheuser-Busch is aiming its latest marketing at its core consumers, the folks who likely wouldn’t reach for a craft beer in any case. And they’re doing it with a playful wink and nod that says, “We didn’t want their fancy-schmancy beer anyway.”

That was Anheuser-Busch’s playbook for the Super Bowl, when they ran an ad that calls Budweiser a “macro beer” – a reference to the microbrews of the craft market – that “isn’t brewed to be fussed over.” Relaunched this week in wider play, the ad shows a mustachioed man drinking beer from a fancy glass and mocks, “Let them sip their pumpkin peach ale. We’ll be brewing us some golden suds.”

“A prevailing misperception in beer is that small must be good, and big must be bad. This spot, if you like, is us saying we categorically don’t accept that,” Brian Perkins, Budweiser’s vice president of marketing, said in an interview. “This is about us owning who we are without apology.”

The ad left a sour taste with some in the craft beer world, who took to social media with parodies and taunts, including a video in which members of Ninkasi Brewing in Oregon chugged Budweiser and asked: “If you aren’t drinking a beer for taste, what are you drinking it for?”

But Perkins called the ad a “gentle poke” and said, “The only people who misread the spot, frankly, probably weren’t drinking Budweiser anyway … I’ve lost them already. They’re not my consumer.”

And he is right – they’re not.

Budweiser remains the No. 3 beer in the U.S. and Bud Light ranks at the top. Still, Budweiser’s volume fell more than 6 percent annually between 2008 and 2013, according to market research firm Euromonitor International. Meanwhile, craft brewers such as Colorado’s New Belgium, California’s Sierra Nevada and Sam Adams maker the Boston Beer Co. grew more than 7 percent annually over the same period.

Overall sales of craft beer rose about 17 percent to hold a 14-percent dollar share of the $100 billion U.S. beer market in 2013 despite a nearly 2-percent drop in overall beer sales, according to the Brewers Association, a Colorado-based trade group that represents most of the nation’s 3,200 breweries. Big beer also is losing ground to hard liquor.

Drawing a line in the sand between Budweiser and the craft beer market makes sense, says Euromonitor analyst Eric Penicka.

“They’re acknowledging that the typical craft beer consumer is definitely not going to go out of their way to buy Budweiser,” he said. “The product itself is hard for (Budweiser) to push outside of the core group who is already consuming it. And I think it makes sense for them to do that. … For them to try to push Budweiser into the craft consuming market, which would be primarily younger, more educated, financially more well-off, is not really going to strike a chord.”

Not that it’s a complete surrender. The U.S. arm of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA, a Belgian company that is the world’s largest brewer, has bought several smaller craft brewers, including Chicago’s Goose Island and Seattle’s Elysian Brewing, the latter of which also makes a peach pumpkin ale and includes the tagline “Corporate Beer Still Sucks” on one of its labels.

The beer giants also have been bulking up “craft-like” brands, such as Anheuser-Busch’s Shock Top, which has its own seasonal pumpkin beer, as noted by many who took offense to Budweiser’s ad.

Anheuser-Busch’s biggest competitor, MillerCoors – maker of Coors Light, Miller Lite and Blue Moon – has taken a similar approach with a portfolio of both craft and mass market beers, and isn’t ready to write off dedicated craft beer drinkers. MillerCoors spokesman Jonathan Stern says his company sees plenty crossover with consumers happily drinking both styles of beer.

The issue, he says, is that big beer’s core consumer just isn’t choosing mass market beers as often as they used to, and smart marketing to millennials is needed to turn that around.

Budweiser’s campaign isn’t about “running scared,” as some have implied, but simply owning its place as a big beer brand that’s enjoyed by many, Perkins said.

“In order to talk about who we are, sometimes you juxtapose it with what you’re not,” he said. “Kudos to the brewers of peach pumpkin ale and other flavor variations. That’s their thing and they’re great at it, but meanwhile, we’ll stick to who we always have been.”

I'm glad I rarely drink beer. I don't have to hurt my head thinking about all of that. :wink:

I'm glad I rarely drink beer. I don't have to hurt my head thinking about all of that. :wink:

To each their own, I certainly can respect that.

That said I think you're missing out. ;)

Any updates on the bill to allow cold beer in liquor stores?

Edit: I just checked the status of SB 383 and it has not been voted on yet.

I’m glad you asked!

Follow Senator Bice

Follow LOCAL

Contact your state reps and voice your support for both of these bills!

If you go to LOCAL’s website they even have talking points and the hyperlink to finding your rep, it doesn’t get much easier than that.
What to say when you contact your reps about SB 383 and SB 424 (http://localok.org/say-contact-reps-sb-383-sb-424/)





I also agree Fat Tire is overhyped but I’m fine with it if it continues to be a gateway into craft that it has been over the years. Many say the same for Boston Lager and Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. The fact is little has changed about these beers over their time; it’s our palates that have evolved as our craft beer journey continues. For the record the only thing that Fat Tire and Native Amber is that they are both ‘amber’ beers, other than that they are very different imo (Native Amber is WAY better). I will drink Fat Tire but don’t seek it out and wouldn’t even if it were available here. The same can be said for the majority of New Belgium’s core lineup, HOWEVER, I love their sour beers and once we get distro on their beers and people start getting access to more “mainstream” sour beer their lives will be forever changed. It’s akin to discovering you’re a fan of hoppy beers, an entire realm of beer and a multitude of beer categories are yet to be discovered in our state. At this stage we’re barely scraping the surface of this monster that’s building, which is why it’s paramount that we start updating our laws now.

How many have done this? We need to get behind these bills so that we can get it passed.

How many have done this? We need to get behind these bills so that we can get it passed.

Great question, everybody reading this call/email now!




SB383 and SB424 will be heard at committee!

Both SBs are slated for Thursday’s Business and Commerce committee meeting. These bills have some support. Additionally, we clearly have state senators–Bice and Crain–who are willing to advocate to modernize our laws. However, these state senators need your help for these bills to pass. The sides that oppose both bills have a lot more money, but we have the votes. We need to keep the pressure going to get these bills out of committee and to the floor. Contact the following legislators as soon as you can about these bills and kindly articulate your support:

Senator Dan Newberry – Chair – (405) 521-5600 newberry@oksenate.gov
Senator Stephanie Bice – Vice Chair – (405) 521-5592 bice@oksenate.gov
Senator Nathan Dahm – (405) 521-5551 Dahm@oksenate.gov
Senator Jim Halligan – (405) 521-5572 halligan@oksenate.gov
Senator Anastasia Pittman – (405) 521-5531 pittman@oksenate.gov
Senator Ron Sharp – (405) 521-5539 sharp@oksenate.gov
Senator Joseph Silk – (405) 521-5614 silk@oksenate.gov
Senator Roger Thompson – (405) 521-5588 thompson@oksenate.gov
Senator Charles Wyrick – (405) 521-5561 wyrick@oksenate.gov
Senator Ervin Yen – (405) 521-5543 yen@oksenate.gov

This is happening today!
URGENT ACTION ALERT

The good news is that both SB383 (refrigeration at liquor stores) and SB424 (brewery sells at point of production) will be heard on Thursday. However, we need your support to make sure it survives committee and makes it to the floor. We are asking that all LOCAL supporters and those who support the bills contact the following state senators*tomorrow*(Wednesday) at noon. The goal is to tie up their phone lines in support of modernizing our liquor laws. It's a tactic proven to work.

Senator Dan Newberry – Chair –*(405) 521-5600*
Senator Stephanie Bice – Vice Chair –*(405) 521-5592*
Senator Nathan Dahm –*(405) 521-5551*
Senator Jim Halligan –*(405) 521-5572*
Senator Anastasia Pittman –*(405) 521-5531*
Senator Ron Sharp –*(405) 521-5539*
Senator Joseph*Silk –*(405) 521-5614*
Senator Roger Thompson –*(405) 521-5588*
Senator Charles Wyrick –*(405) 521-5561*
Senator Ervin Yen –*(405) 521-5543*

Here's what to say when calling:

"Hello, my name is ______ and my zip code is ______. I would like for the senator to vote yes on SB 383 (Refrigeration) and SB 424 (brewery point of production sales). Thank you for your time."

We also ask that you email these state senators at your earliest*convenience. You can find their email addresses and a template of what to say at our website.*
SB383 and SB424 will be heard at committee! (http://localok.org/sb383-sb424-will-heard-committee/)

Thank you for your support,
Kevin Hall
Director of LOCAL

I've called all the numbers. One of their voice mail boxes is full. That should be a good sign. Since the anti AP bill was pulled from the result of heavy response, it inspired me to pick up the phone and do something.

Surely, liquor store owners won't be against selling cold beer.

Surely, liquor store owners won't be against selling cold beer.

At least the smart ones.

At least the smart ones.
Correct!

I'm not expecting walk-ins (like some of my favorite spots in other states) as I know it'll take time/money and some places just don't have that space but if you want my business you'd better have my IPAs refrigerated!

Republicans, it seems, like to say how they stand for smaller government and how regulations stifle business. It's time for them to take a break from lip service and take action on that by voting YES! Unlike the house, I'm glad the senate isn't trying as hard to govern like its got its head stuck up its ass.

Both bills passed unanimously, on to the next round!

Awesome news. Will be interested to see how it does before the full house. Does anybody know where Mary Fallin stands on this as she will probably have the final say?

Another bill that's not getting talked about much is HJR1002. It passed committee 6-4, and if it passes will add a ballot vote for amending the state constitution to allow direct ship to consumers for wine. I think it has a harder road getting passed, but I'm hopeful.