Not talked much about here but I've certainly let them all know how ludicrous it is, that is the lack of parity between wine and beer our state. Actually I'm sure I've ranted about it here too.

Not talked much about here but I've certainly let them all know how ludicrous it is, that is the lack of parity between wine and beer our state. Actually I'm sure I've ranted about it here too.

I'm not sure why everything has to come down to beer vs wine. Sometimes I link the liquor industry in the state (and folks who want change) eats its own young by focusing on this disparity too much.

I'm not sure why everything has to come down to beer vs wine. Sometimes I link the liquor industry in the state (and folks who want change) eats its own young by focusing on this disparity too much.
To me it's as simple as if it's good for them than its good for us. For the beer related bills to get beaten to death with drunk driving talk, morals, etc and then a wine bill passes immediately after makes no sense. The disparity isn't just here either, as you surely know. Actually the average person has no idea the disparity across the board in this state or otherwise. It makes no sense to anybody, well, except those that stand to lose money if something changes.

Convenience stores are against it, since they fear loss of beer business to the liquor stores. Why not simplify and level the playing field by abolishing 3.2% beer?
Cold high point beer could be coming to a liquor store near you | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2015/02/27/cold-high-point-beer-could-be-coming-to-a-liquor-store-near-you/)

Convenience stores are against it, since they fear loss of beer business to the liquor stores. Why not simplify and level the playing field by abolishing 3.2% beer?
Cold high point beer could be coming to a liquor store near you | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2015/02/27/cold-high-point-beer-could-be-coming-to-a-liquor-store-near-you/)

Baby steps.

I am not 100% sure, but I think doing away with 3.2 beer will require an amendment to the state constitution and cannot be done by the legislature. I know that the constitution distinguishes between low-point and high-point beer, but is the 3.2% ABW number specifically in the constitution?

Convenience stores are against it, since they fear loss of beer business to the liquor stores. Why not simplify and level the playing field by abolishing 3.2% beer?
Cold high point beer could be coming to a liquor store near you | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2015/02/27/cold-high-point-beer-could-be-coming-to-a-liquor-store-near-you/)

Guess who could give two ***** about Mohammed's argument? ;) I wish more people would stop talking about the convenience of cold high point beer and instead talk about the real reason we (and the beer) will benefit from cold storage.


Baby steps.

I am not 100% sure, but I think doing away with 3.2 beer will require an amendment to the state constitution and cannot be done by the legislature. I know that the constitution distinguishes between low-point and high-point beer, but is the 3.2% ABW number specifically in the constitution?

Yes, this is written into the constitution but I am not sure what it would take to change or do away with it. I don't think the number is mentioned, instead it is just referenced as "low point". I'm not sure when but it was previously referred to as "non-intoxicating". Either way the 3.2abw number was set by the Cullen-Harrison act prior to the ratification of the 21st amendment, over 80 years ago! The idea of that number is dumb, the way it was decided on is equally asinine and it was only meant to be a temporary measure to allow the sell of alcohol.

Yes, this is written into the constitution but I am not sure what it would take to change or do away with it...
It would take a public referendum.

It would take a public referendum.

I doubt anybody, or any group would want to be bothered with starting a petition for that.

I don't see convenience stores losing a lot of business. A lot of people won't want to pay the noticeably higher prices for chilled strong beer at liquor stores. Unlike liquor stores convenience stores can sell beer between 9pm and 2am.

I don't see convenience stores losing a lot of business. A lot of people won't want to pay the noticeably higher prices for chilled strong beer at liquor stores. Unlike liquor stores convenience stores can sell beer between 9pm and 2am.

I agree. People who prefer Bud/Miller/Coors will keep drinking it regardless of whether or not cold beer is available in liquor stores. Oklahoma is the only state that doesn't allow refrigeration in their liquor stores. I don't think convenience stores are hurting in states like Kansas, Colorado, and Utah. Those states have normal-strength domestics in their liquor stores as well, something Oklahoma does not. If you want domestic lager, you will still need to go to convenience stores in Oklahoma for the time being.

Everyone should also stop referring to liquor store beer as "high-point." In 46 other states, it is NORMAL STRENGTH. Referring to it as high-point encourages opposition from people and groups with an anti-alcohol bias like MADD and the religious right. Proponents of change in Oklahoma really need to get the word out that "high point" is really normal strength.

Oklahomans who support this change need to keep hounding state legislators about it. There is heavy opposition and still a huge moral/religious factor to the debate as well that will probably show up when it goes before the house.

I still tend to doubt there is all that much opposition from the religious side to reform of alcohol laws. This was well reflected when the counties Enid and Stillwater are in passed by huge margins allowing for liquor by the drink on Sunday rather recently. Surely most of the opposition would remain in the counties where liquor by the drink is still entirely banned. While sparsely populated, they may have enough legislators from there to influence the outcome of things to some extent.

Bill to let liquor stores sell cold, high-point beer passes Senate committee - Tulsa World: Capitol Report (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/bill-to-let-liquor-stores-sell-cold-high-point-beer/article_364e8452-c575-5328-8f9e-b2fb15a00669.html)

It will take time to reform and tweak the liquor & alcohol laws in Oklahoma; this is a continuous uphill battle.

It will take time to reform and tweak the liquor & alcohol laws in Oklahoma; this is a continuous uphill battle.

Liquor by the drink was passed a long time ago, over 30 years ago, so there has been a lot of time gone by. But probably too many Oklahomans are contented with alcohol laws as they are, so legislators have been sensing there's not much political demand to make alcohol laws less restrictive. At least the committee votes favoring a couple of alcohol law reforms reflect something contrary to that is trying to happen.

I know that Oklahoma's liquor laws are not optimal, especially for those of us who want to be able to go into a store, ANY store, and get a good craft beer, especially if it's after 9m, or on a Sunday. But unless you have traveled around the country, you may think that because of the "religious right, ultra-conservative, hillbillies in this state that we have the "dumbest" laws in the country. I would paraphrase Lee Corso and say, "Not so fast, my friends!"
In upstate New York liquor stores are not allowed to sell beer AT ALL! I found this out when I tried to get some beer for my hotel room. The proprietor told me that he was "not allowed" to sell beer in his liquor store. I was told that i would have to go to a "Beer Store"?!?
In parts of Pennsylvania I've been to you can't buy beer in ANY store, except a "Distributor". Or, as I found out, you can walk into a bar, and buy a 6-pack, and walk out?!?
Even our friends to the south, the Texans, have some weird liquor laws, even though most of us see them as the Shining City on a Hill, when it comes to liquor freedom. Oklahoma City used to have a brewing cooperative, OK City Brewing, where small, artisan brewers could rent time on the brewing equipment to get their product out, without having to purchase an entire brewery. Apparently, that's illegal in Texas?! What? You mean on SOME things we're more progressive than TEXAS? Say it ain't so!

Texas does have some weird beer production (and label) laws. They also have a lot of brewery and craft beer fan funds to help relax and change their laws, they've already changed some, but no need to dig into the pros/cons of their laws versus ours (for the record I'd swap our laws for theirs in a second). The law against partner/contract brewing and alternating proprietorships in Texas is a recent change, not sure how or why that was changed... Either way most states have at least a handful of dumb liquor laws that are a hindrance, some make it hard to do business when others make it really hard, our laws here in OK are of the latter.

Most states have some sort of weird or restrictive liquor laws. Arkansas and Texas both still have dry counties. Some states have state-run liquor stores. Up until the last decade there were some states that had a 5% ABV limit on beer, which completely kept most craft beers of of those states. Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia are among the ones I am thinking of. All of those that were still on the books saw repeal during the 2000s decade however. As it stands in 2015, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Utah have the most restrictive laws in the nation. Oklahoma stands out even among that group as being the only state to ban refrigeration and require brewpubs to serve low-point beer. If these laws pass, that will be a huge step.

It would take a public referendum.

It would take a lot more than that. It would require a complete restructure of our liquor laws, and the way distribution and ABLE function, and licensing, both at the retail level and the individual license level, since you'd essentially be legalizing liquor sales in non-package stores (unless you separate beer from liquor licensing altogether and remove it from ABLE control).

Of course. I was responding to the specific question of how a constitutional amendment would have to be addressed.

It would take a lot more than that. It would require a complete restructure of our liquor laws, and the way distribution and ABLE function, and licensing, both at the retail level and the individual license level, since you'd essentially be legalizing liquor sales in non-package stores (unless you separate beer from liquor licensing altogether and remove it from ABLE control).

I think the easiest way to get single-strength beer in Oklahoma would be to remove the 3.2 ABW restriction on low-point beer. Doing that would allow all beer to be under the same laws currently governing 3.2 beer. That would create a problem though because it would essential bar liquor stores from selling beer in this state. There would have to be another amendment allowing liquor stores to sell beer.

Getting wine in grocery stores would be a lot more difficult for the reasons you mention.

Why is government regulating liquor to begin with? Is liqoir something we really need to have laws on with exception of drinking and driving and public intoxication?

Why is government regulating liquor to begin with? Is liqoir something we really need to have laws on with exception of drinking and driving and public intoxication?

$$$$

$$$$

You got that right. I've been shocked before over how much more it cost to buy a bottle of beer in a bar in Dallas, compared to how much it cost in OKC. It would be nice if beer and liquor were taxed no higher than typical for other things.

Every drink you take of strong beer, wine or liquor has not only the standard sales tax on it (8.375% in OKC) but ALSO a 13% state liquor tax. In addition, the licensure of ABLE-licensed establishments is in the thousands annually to various government entities...PER ESTABLISHMENT. Despite the anti-taxation and anti-liquor bent of many public officials, booze remains a very lucrative proposition for the state, and they want to make certain that they get every penny due.

You got that right. I've been shocked before over how much more it cost to buy a bottle of beer in a bar in Dallas, compared to how much it cost in OKC. It would be nice if beer and liquor were taxed no higher than typical for other things.

I could get a cheap bottle of Barefoot wine for $4 at Harris Teeter in Charlotte. Here, its at least $8 in liquor stores. I understand that since money and taxation is involved that is something that isn't likely to change any time soon.

I saw an article in the gazette, talking about the possibility of coolers in liquor stores. The Gazette is not exactly a bastion of Conservative thought, and this is what they said about the debate;

"...the state's liquor store industry is highly competitive and some storeowners worry Senate Bill 383 would force businesses to make costly upgrades to include refrigerators. And therein lies the biggest problem with changing liquor laws. Conservative and religious institutions often aren't leading the fight against proposed change; it's the industry."
Conventional wisdom has ALWAYS been that the biggest opponent to any change in the state's liquor laws is the owner's of Byron's. What does anyone else think about that?

It depends on which laws. I don't agree when talking about coolers.

Ugh, more nonsense from anti-consumer choice legislators. This is about a bill to allow Oklahoma wineries ship to wine to people who have visited the winery. Read this joke of an argument:

Ritze told Kirby he’s worried minors might get their hands on wine sent to the wrong house.
"I get mail from people all the time that are not — to my address, to my — someone I don't even know who lives in the area," Ritze said.
"Do you open that mail that comes to you on a wrong address? If you get mail and it comes to you, that's a federal offense," Kirby said. "If my mail accidentally comes to your address, it has my name on it and you open it, that's a federal offense."
Russ said there’s no guarantee shipments would reach someone of legal drinking age.
"UPS is not required to check that," Russ said. "There's no way to guarantee that this could be a 21-year-old person."
UPS and Fed Ex’s policies require a signature from someone 21 or older for wine shipments. UPS leaves checking ID to the driver’s discretion. Fed Ex requires government-issued photo ID.

Thats right, they are worried that the few people who visit wineries and order wine to be delivered to their house is going to end up in minors hands and will do unthinkable things with it!!! Ahhh, could you imagine what might happen?!
Id be interested to know if Central Liquor has ever donated to Ritze and Russ.

Wine Shipment Vote Unlikely This Year | Public Radio Tulsa (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/wine-shipment-vote-unlikely-year)

Ugh, more nonsense from anti-consumer choice legislators. This is about a bill to allow Oklahoma wineries ship to wine to people who have visited the winery. Read this joke of an argument:

Ritze told Kirby he’s worried minors might get their hands on wine sent to the wrong house.
"I get mail from people all the time that are not — to my address, to my — someone I don't even know who lives in the area," Ritze said.
"Do you open that mail that comes to you on a wrong address? If you get mail and it comes to you, that's a federal offense," Kirby said. "If my mail accidentally comes to your address, it has my name on it and you open it, that's a federal offense."
Russ said there’s no guarantee shipments would reach someone of legal drinking age.
"UPS is not required to check that," Russ said. "There's no way to guarantee that this could be a 21-year-old person."
UPS and Fed Ex’s policies require a signature from someone 21 or older for wine shipments. UPS leaves checking ID to the driver’s discretion. Fed Ex requires government-issued photo ID.

Thats right, they are worried that the few people who visit wineries and order wine to be delivered to their house is going to end up in minors hands and will do unthinkable things with it!!! Ahhh, could you imagine what might happen?!
Id be interested to know if Central Liquor has ever donated to Ritze and Russ.

Wine Shipment Vote Unlikely This Year | Public Radio Tulsa (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/wine-shipment-vote-unlikely-year)

Is he also against pharmacies sending out drugs in the mail?

Its the latest thing in underaged drinking.. drinking wine shipped to the wrong address.

Ugh, more nonsense from anti-consumer choice legislators. This is about a bill to allow Oklahoma wineries ship to wine to people who have visited the winery. Read this joke of an argument:

Ritze told Kirby he’s worried minors might get their hands on wine sent to the wrong house.
"I get mail from people all the time that are not — to my address, to my — someone I don't even know who lives in the area," Ritze said.
"Do you open that mail that comes to you on a wrong address? If you get mail and it comes to you, that's a federal offense," Kirby said. "If my mail accidentally comes to your address, it has my name on it and you open it, that's a federal offense."
Russ said there’s no guarantee shipments would reach someone of legal drinking age.
"UPS is not required to check that," Russ said. "There's no way to guarantee that this could be a 21-year-old person."
UPS and Fed Ex’s policies require a signature from someone 21 or older for wine shipments. UPS leaves checking ID to the driver’s discretion. Fed Ex requires government-issued photo ID.

Thats right, they are worried that the few people who visit wineries and order wine to be delivered to their house is going to end up in minors hands and will do unthinkable things with it!!! Ahhh, could you imagine what might happen?!
Id be interested to know if Central Liquor has ever donated to Ritze and Russ.

Wine Shipment Vote Unlikely This Year | Public Radio Tulsa (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/wine-shipment-vote-unlikely-year)

That's all right. We're evidently supposed to oppose this anyways because it only benefits wineries, and the beer brewers are left out.

It's worth mentioning that it's already legal for Oklahomans to go to other states and order wine and have it shipped here. This would just allow Oklahoma wineries to compete.

How do kids survive wine being left off at wrong addresses in other states?

I saw an article in the gazette, talking about the possibility of coolers in liquor stores. The Gazette is not exactly a bastion of Conservative thought, and this is what they said about the debate;

Conventional wisdom has ALWAYS been that the biggest opponent to any change in the state's liquor laws is the owner's of Byron's. What does anyone else think about that?I thought Senate Bill 383 would give liquor stores the option, not the requirement to sell chilled strong beer. Or do they just don't want the bother and expense of adding something new in order to keep up with the competition who did.

It's worth mentioning that it's already legal for Oklahomans to go to other states and order wine and have it shipped here. This would just allow Oklahoma wineries to compete.

Since when? I thought it was illegal to ship any kind of booze into OK. I remember a bill last year (that I thought passed) that allowed OK wineries to ship to customers within OK but that's it.

And yes, as you surely know, I am one of those that's against them continuing passing legislation that's pro wine and further distances the wineries abilities to prosper while leaving out breweries. Worse, when this stuff does pass and the same arguments are made in the name of beer later on its met with fierce opposition. So aggravating.

Its legal to ship wine to Oklahomans if you order it in person from the winery. This bill only equalized it to allow Oklahoma wineries to have the same benefits as out of state wineries.

Anytime you want to restrict freedom, simply say "it's for the kids" and the sheeple will fall in line.

Ugh, more nonsense from anti-consumer choice legislators. This is about a bill to allow Oklahoma wineries ship to wine to people who have visited the winery. Read this joke of an argument:

Ritze told Kirby he’s worried minors might get their hands on wine sent to the wrong house.
"I get mail from people all the time that are not — to my address, to my — someone I don't even know who lives in the area," Ritze said.
"Do you open that mail that comes to you on a wrong address? If you get mail and it comes to you, that's a federal offense," Kirby said. "If my mail accidentally comes to your address, it has my name on it and you open it, that's a federal offense."
Russ said there’s no guarantee shipments would reach someone of legal drinking age.
"UPS is not required to check that," Russ said. "There's no way to guarantee that this could be a 21-year-old person."
UPS and Fed Ex’s policies require a signature from someone 21 or older for wine shipments. UPS leaves checking ID to the driver’s discretion. Fed Ex requires government-issued photo ID.

Thats right, they are worried that the few people who visit wineries and order wine to be delivered to their house is going to end up in minors hands and will do unthinkable things with it!!! Ahhh, could you imagine what might happen?!
Id be interested to know if Central Liquor has ever donated to Ritze and Russ.

Wine Shipment Vote Unlikely This Year | Public Radio Tulsa (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/wine-shipment-vote-unlikely-year)
That is an absolute crock of you know what by that legislator Every wine shipment that I have ever mail ordered or my bosses in Austin had sent to the office (which was a lot as both bosses were wine aficionados) had to be signed for and I had to show ID (I was closest to the door). If it was delivered to the house they never left it, I had to go to the FedEx office to pick it up the first time and after that I had it sent to the office. There is a big difference to FedEx/UPS (and DHL when they were still doing end point delivery) and the winery/distillery because of liability that I have never seen a delivery company not enforce it. It is not treated like "regular mail" by those carriers.

This is a Journal Record article on a wine shipments by state wineries law. There is some proof here on how the state's wholesalers exert their influence.
“(The bill) has nothing to do with purchasing online,” Kirby said. “There’s some miscommunication that this will cause Internet purchasing. It’s strictly on-site and in person. It’s also not so much about out-of-state (shipments). It’s more about growing the in-state wine business.”
The Oklahoma Grape Industry Council is not supporting the bill because of a previous agreement with wholesalers in the state. In 2014, the OGIC tried to run a bill similar to Kirby’s existing version. The council asked for the bill to be withdrawn in lieu of an interim study that determined ways that it and wholesalers could advance the state’s wine industry. One method involves two bills in this year’s session, Senate Bill 256 and Senate Bill 420. The other method is working with wholesalers on a $49,500 grant, which will be used for a marketing campaign.

Sipping away: Weather deters wine measure as author makes changes | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2015/03/06/sipping-away-weather-deters-wine-measure-as-author-makes-changes-capitol/)

SB424 passed the senate today!

What about SB383? When will it go before the full Senate?

SB424 passed the senate today!

By a pretty large margin (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2015-16%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/votes/Senate/SB424_VOTES.HTM), too.

With all of the legislation proposed, I wonder why no one proposed anything regarding sales of liquor in grocery stores.

With all of the legislation proposed, I wonder why no one proposed anything regarding sales of liquor in grocery stores.

I believe its because doing so would require a constitutional amendment. Cold beer and breweries selling direct can be done by legislative action.

^^^^^^^^
And a constitutional amendment would require a petition drive and a public referendum. Get to work, AP!

Today the state senate votes on cold normal-strength beer. If you want it to happen, call your senator.

http://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/

Today the state senate votes on cold normal-strength beer. If you want it to happen, call your senator.

http://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/

Indeed, call and/or email your state senator right now!

The bill has not been voted on yet but it has been amended to allow grocery and convenience stores to sell normal-strength beer in the event the state constitution is amended. While I fully support that change, I wonder what the implications will be when it comes to chances of the bill actually passing.

Is the overall vote still on for today? I assume we're talking about SB383 (http://oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb383&Session=1500), right? If I'm reading it right it looks like that amendment was added last Thursday.

Incidentally, I was able to find a senate chamber live stream (http://oksenate.gov/livechamber.htm), assuming you can listen to it for very long without falling asleep.

The bill has not been voted on yet but it has been amended to allow grocery and convenience stores to sell normal-strength beer in the event the state constitution is amended. While I fully support that change, I wonder what the implications will be when it comes to chances of the bill actually passing.

that only makes sense to allow that. I do not understand why allowing C-stores and groceries to sell regular beer cold is a big deal.

Maybe that's a stepping stone to wine eventually getting in there as well.

I agree that it's not a big deal. If there is a "liquor lobby" like many on here have claimed, it's possible that amendment might strike up meaningful opposition where previously there wasn't much.

The bill has not been voted on yet but it has been amended to allow grocery and convenience stores to sell normal-strength beer in the event the state constitution is amended. While I fully support that change, I wonder what the implications will be when it comes to chances of the bill actually passing.

That could sink this.

The bill has not been voted on yet but it has been amended to allow grocery and convenience stores to sell normal-strength beer in the event the state constitution is amended. While I fully support that change, I wonder what the implications will be when it comes to chances of the bill actually passing.

Well this is exciting. Hopefully it passes. Hopefully wine sales in grocery stores will be next.

Once legislators see kids don't actually steal high-point beer, take it to the parking lot, drink the whole case, and get behind the wheel, their opposition should dwindle. Although, these are Oklahoma legislators I'm talking about.

Let's say this passes and next year a constitutional amendment passes to abolish 3.2 beer, the normal-strength beer that replaces it would still have to go through the distribution system that currently supplies the liquor stores, would it not? If that is the case, would the Neifah's sink loads of money into opposing this?

Passed the senate.

SB 383 passed, Ayes: 33, Nays: 10 (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2015-16%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/votes/Senate/SB383_VOTES.HTM)

SB 383 passed, Ayes: 33, Nays: 10 (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2015-16%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/votes/Senate/SB383_VOTES.HTM)

Sweet.

So if this passes the House and Fallin signs it, we can buy strong beer in grocery stores along with cold beer in liquor stores?

I'm curious if it will take more. Will liquor licenses be required to sell this beer? Will able regulate it or will it move all beer out of able control? And if so, will that preclude liquor stores from selling beer? I imagine that this is just getting going...