Okay, I have a huge problem with the way News 9 presented the data, so I did some numbers crunching of my own. In 2008, Oklahoma had 274 alcohol-related fatalies. Texas had 1,463. Oklahoma in 2008 had 3,644,025 residents, while Texas has more than 24 million. So, if you presented the data on a numerical basis, the argument has been manipulated into pushing people to vote no.

So, what was the death rate per 100,000 people in 2008 in Oklahoma and all of its neighboring states? Please see below. I WILL say, that even 1 death is 1 too many when it comes to alcohol-related fatalities. But restricting WHERE you buy beer and wine is not the answer. It's about educating young kids that alcohol, machinery and speed is a death-knell.

State -Strong Beer/ Wine in Grocery Stores- -Alcohol-related Fatalities- -Percent of Total Vehicle-Related Fatalities- -Rate Per 100,000-
Arkansas -Yes- -205- -34%- -7.148-
Colorado -No- -202- -37%- -4.093-
Kansas -No- -157- -41%- -5.612-
Missouri -Yes- -364- -38%- -6.111-
New Mexico -Yes- -118- -32%- -5.939-
Oklahoma -No- -274- -37%- -7.519-
Texas -Yes- 1,463- -43%- -6.019-

I am going to send this over to News 9 and ABLE and tell them they may want to rethink their BS story. Based on the above data, I made sure that all sources were from 2008 for consistency. So, it appears that the results are a mixed bag. Missouri, which sells hard liquor at a gas station, had a lower death reate than Oklahoma. Same with Texas. In fact, Oklahoma had the HIGHEST death rate of all neighboring states. Arkansas comes in at a close second.

And, as was stated above, there is no evidence selling wine and beer in liquor stores limits the number of successful freestanding liquor stores, nor does it seem to have any effect on state rates of alcoholism. In short, there's no data of any kind that supports selling wine and beer in grocery stores having a negative effect relative to states that don't. It's all BS and likely liquor lobby related BS.

If this news 53 poll is made up of the same people that email Ogle their 2cents remarks I am not surprised.

I would like to think that in the year 2011, with internet and social marketing, the smart people of Oklahoma can get the liquor laws changed.

State -Strong Beer/ Wine in Grocery Stores- -Alcohol-related Fatalities- -Percent of Total Vehicle-Related Fatalities- -Rate Per 100,000-
Arkansas -Yes- -205- -34%- -7.148-
Colorado -No- -202- -37%- -4.093-
Kansas -No- -157- -41%- -5.612-
Missouri -Yes- -364- -38%- -6.111-
New Mexico -Yes- -118- -32%- -5.939-
Oklahoma -No- -274- -37%- -7.519-
Texas -Yes- 1,463- -43%- -6.019-


Based on this data the people that support restricted beer sales are actually the ones endangering the children.

The data above has been forwarded to ABLE and News9.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of state legislators, regulators and other policy makers seldom venture outside of Oklahoma to see how the rest of the regulated world is living it up.

I think we know they venture outside of Oklahoma, because the taxpayers usually pay the travel expenses and many take full advantage of that.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of state legislators, regulators and other policy makers seldom venture outside of Oklahoma to see how the rest of the regulated world is living it up.

I don't have high hopes that this crude assemblage of knuckledragging neanderthals will do much to advance Oklahoma forward.

The data above has been forwarded to ABLE and News9.


You expect ABLE to be reasonable? Please.

ABLE is going to fight this tooth and nail, not because they think the law is wrong or bad, but because it makes their turf smaller. That pointless law enforcement organization has no jurisdiction outside of liquor stores and bars. They have no jurisdiction over convenience stores or grocery stores so a change to expand what those stores can sell mean that ABLE’s world is just that much small and even more pointless.

The data above has been forwarded to ABLE and News9.

I can hear ABLE now, trying to spin that data. They will probably say something like, "Oklahoma already has a high alcohol related traffic fatality rate, this would only put more out there. Hide ya kids, Hide ya wife, yada yada yada"

You can run and tell that, homeboy!

Sigh:

http://muskogeephoenix.com/local/x1939350891/Local-politicians-not-in-favor-of-alcohol-proposal

Liquor laws are well-established in this state. Hence, you have liquor stores owned mostly by moms and pops. We have a lot less to gain, in my opinion, and more to lose by changing the laws. We would have scores of people going out of business, just so we could purchase wine and strong beer at Wal-Mart. Some people so worked up over trivialities such as Whole Freaking Foods (whom is already coming), and their ability to purchase wine at the grocery store, a mere convenience, that they have a scant thought about ending someone's livelihood (wine, I'm pretty sure, is a liquor store's bread and butter). Many of the same people (you "progressives" here) also whine and complain about Wal-Mart taking over the world. We need local ownership, and changing decades-old laws will end local ownership of liquor stores. Our liquor laws aren't broken.
We have beer and wine in grocery stores here in Austin and have plenty of mom-n-pop type of liquor stores in addition to large liquor stores like Spec's and Twin Liquors. A Wal Mart or Target cannot compete with the HEB/Central Market, Whole Foods or Randall's stores here let alone against Spec's. I know of about 15 local mom-n-pop liquor stores between the large retailers in our area of South Austin. They all seem to be able to coexist peacefully.


A NewsNow 53 poll (Channel 9) showed 30% in favor, and 70% opposed to this. I was pretty shocked. I know its not scientific and the ballots can be stuffed but still.
News site polls and comments are about the most worthless things on the internet.

We have beer and wine in grocery stores here in Austin and have plenty of mom-n-pop type of liquor stores in addition to large liquor stores like Spec's and Twin Liquors. A Wal Mart or Target cannot compete with the HEB/Central Market, Whole Foods or Randall's stores here let alone against Spec's. I know of about 15 local mom-n-pop liquor stores between the large retailers in our area of South Austin. They all seem to be able to coexist peacefully.

In reality, there seem to be so few grocery stores in OKC, the mom and pop liquor stores should do quite nicely.

Sigh:

http://muskogeephoenix.com/local/x1939350891/Local-politicians-not-in-favor-of-alcohol-proposal


“I am not in favor of it,” Garrison said. “We have enough access with alcohol already. I don’t see how it will be a good thing. It would be tougher to police it.”

State Rep. George Faught, R-Muskogee also worried how such a law would be enforced. He said his personal convictions would prompt him to vote against such a proposal.

“I’ve always been against expanding drinking, though I do believe in free enterprise,” Faught said. “There might actually be an individual too young to drink ringing up a sale.”



Are these guys for real? That is bat**** crazy. How do they think the other states manage to pull it off?

Are these guys for real? That is bat**** crazy. How do they think the other states manage to pull it off?

They aren't crazy Kerry, they're simply exercising their roles as elected leaders. You and I may severely disagree and that last quote is simply stupidity. There's already individuals too young to drink ringing up beer sales all over town.

They aren't crazy Kerry, they're simply exercising their roles as elected leaders. You and I may severely disagree and that last quote is simply stupidity. There's already individuals too young to drink ringing up beer sales all over town.
...and serving drinks in restaurants.

Here is the thing mugofbeer - If they are concerned about enforcement then why make it illegal in the first place. They are arguing the wrong side of the fence. The easiest thing to enforce is something that isn't illegal. However, the very idea that people under 21 don't drink is laughable at best; devoid of all senses of reality at worst. How do they keep grocery stores from selling wine or liquor stores from selling cork screws now?

Kerry, I apologize. I reread what I wrote and it is misleading. I mean, you and I may severely disagree with certain legislators and those who want to make liquor essentially go away. I dont disagree with you - other than to say these guys are elected by the people. They need to NOT be elected.

CO has very similar laws now and everyone does fine.

Kerry, I apologize. I reread what I wrote and it is misleading. I mean, you and I may severely disagree with certain legislators...

LOL - I was thinking how could we disagree - your screen name is mugofbeer.

It is still quite perplexing how the liquor laws in Oklahoma are quite draconian and antiquated? Until recently, Dallas had certain areas in town that were wet and then you could go 3 blocks North and be in a completly dry area of Dallas. Not any more. Dallas voters approved that all of Dallas County will now be wet so that ends their era of antiquated law. Question? Does Oklahoma want to settle for less in having their elected officials telling them you have no choice in the matter and the will of the people does not apply because we know what is in the best interest for all people in Oklahoma? At what cost does it bear? Is Oklahoma losing out on economic development? What if Costco wanted to build in Oklahoma but the stipulation was we need to be able to sell wine and liquor in our stores in order to maximize economic profit. What if the state leaders told Costco, too bad, so sad it is not going to happen? What message does this send?

It is sad that these dumb motherf&&&ers receive enough votes to "represent" us. These are the people the people of this state apparently want representing them. What does that say about this state?

This Beer and Wine issue should be left up for the people of Oklahoma to decide not the politicians who are obviously bought and paid for. Thats the biggest reason stores like World Market and Costco haven't entered the Oklahoma market. For a conservative state Oklahoma doesn't seem to be in favor of a free market system when it comes to this issue. Like others on said if the package stores have a problem with it. They need to expand thier product line.

This Beer and Wine issue should be left up for the people of Oklahoma to decide not the politicians who are obviously bought and paid for. Thats the biggest reason stores like World Market and Costco haven't entered the Oklahoma market. For a conservative state Oklahoma doesn't seem to be in favor of a free market system when it comes to this issue. Like others on said if the package stores have a problem with it. They need to expand thier product line. Your right about the politicians being bought and paid for just like a prostitute. Sold to the highest buyer. The free market system is quite weak in Oklahoma, but then again, maybe "most" of Oklahoman's want it that way?

Your right about the politicians being bought and paid for just like a prostitute. Sold to the highest buyer. The free market system is quite weak in Oklahoma, but then again, maybe "most" of Oklahoman's want it that way?
Yep, it's the "KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY BUSINESS" mindset...unless I can use you to my advantage then I have a proposition for you. But that is no different with any other city, county, state of federal government, they can all be bought.

Bluedog you are 100% correct. It's all about following the money for them.

It is still quite perplexing how the liquor laws in Oklahoma are quite draconian and antiquated? Probably because the majority of people don't care much about the issue of alcohol, or even drink. I seldom drink anything stronger than 3.2 beer.

Bunty: The majority of people don't care much...or even drink? I don't know you, or your world and I'm not going to criticize. We all have our own experiences. But I bet I know -conservatively - 1000 people and I bet I don't know 10 people that don't drink at all, maybe 50 or so stick solely to light beer. The vast majority of people I know drink responsibly, but they do drink wine, or mixed drinks at a party, a margarita on a patio, etc. etc. Oklahoma's liquor laws are antiquated. Is this by itself causing people to move or economic development not to happen? Of course not. But it's one of those minor annoyances that give certain people a touch more ammunition to roll their eyes and make further generalizations about the state.

Probably because the majority of people don't care much about the issue of alcohol, or even drink. I seldom drink anything stronger than 3.2 beer.

So does that mean that everyone should do as you and this "majority?" Why deny others the freedom of choice?

Here in Jax we have Total Wine and Liquor. Not only can you buy liquor and corkscrews in the same store, if you want to have a Mexican fiesta you can buy the whole party in one big box - tequila, ice, margarita mix, glasses, blender, chips, salsa, salt, limes, etc. One. Big. Box.

It is still quite perplexing how the liquor laws in Oklahoma are quite draconian and antiquated? Until recently, Dallas had certain areas in town that were wet and then you could go 3 blocks North and be in a completly dry area of Dallas. Not any more. Dallas voters approved that all of Dallas County will now be wet so that ends their era of antiquated law. Question? Does Oklahoma want to settle for less in having their elected officials telling them you have no choice in the matter and the will of the people does not apply because we know what is in the best interest for all people in Oklahoma? At what cost does it bear? Is Oklahoma losing out on economic development? What if Costco wanted to build in Oklahoma but the stipulation was we need to be able to sell wine and liquor in our stores in order to maximize economic profit. What if the state leaders told Costco, too bad, so sad it is not going to happen? What message does this send?

Okay, it's time to put the Costco argument to rest. Costco has locations in Utah, Colorado and Kansas. Utah has the most stringent retail liquor laws in the country. Colorado and Kansas are both 3.2 states. Please do your homework before claiming that Costco won't come to Oklahoma because of antiquated liquor laws.

I support beer and wine sales in grocery stores. But let's not support a change just to get a warehouse market that has locations in states with liquor laws similar to Oklahoma. Let's support a change so we can enjor a better quality of selection. I will say it is also a quality of life issue. When consumed in moderation, beer and wine are healthy beverages.

Are these guys for real? That is bat**** crazy. How do they think the other states manage to pull it off?

What is amazing Kerry, is that such two-bit remarks from officials are concrete evidence that they have the inability to problem-solve.

It is sad that these dumb motherf&&&ers receive enough votes to "represent" us. These are the people the people of this state apparently want representing them. What does that say about this state?

Language, soonerguru!!!!!!

They aren't crazy Kerry, they're simply exercising their roles as elected leaders. You and I may severely disagree and that last quote is simply stupidity. There's already individuals too young to drink ringing up beer sales all over town.

That's interesting, since in Chicagoland and Seattleland, the cashier had to call someone over 21 to ring the alcohol up if the cashier wasn't 21. They just set it aside and let the over-21 drag it over the scanner.

It is sad that these dumb motherf&&&ers receive enough votes to "represent" us. These are the people the people of this state apparently want representing them. What does that say about this state?

Ah, a little bit of vindication for my viewpoints. :tiphat: :Smiley259

Language, ... !!!!!!

FWIW to anyone, over the years I've often utilized a term learned from a friend of mine ... legilizards

That's interesting, since in Chicagoland and Seattleland, the cashier had to call someone over 21 to ring the alcohol up if the cashier wasn't 21. They just set it aside and let the over-21 drag it over the scanner.

In Texas, I was refused a wine sale at a Kroger supermarket because my brother (who is of age) didn't bring his ID. So if ABLE and the fear-mongers think that we are giving up control and making alcohol more accessible, they are full of hot air.

Okay, it's time to put the Costco argument to rest. Costco has locations in Utah, Colorado and Kansas. Utah has the most stringent retail liquor laws in the country. Colorado and Kansas are both 3.2 states. Please do your homework before claiming that Costco won't come to Oklahoma because of antiquated liquor laws.

I support beer and wine sales in grocery stores. But let's not support a change just to get a warehouse market that has locations in states with liquor laws similar to Oklahoma. Let's support a change so we can enjor a better quality of selection. I will say it is also a quality of life issue. When consumed in moderation, beer and wine are healthy beverages.
Then what is stalling Costco from coming to Oklahoma? The income isn't high enough? Too much competition from Sam's?

I'm convinced that most people in OK are just against any sort of changes....PERIOD.

I remember the weeping and gnashing of teeth that occurred over MAPS1. I heard things like, "Boo tax increase" and "Why do we need a ditch in bricktown...that won't do anything. We need better ideas." and other similar comments.

Then when we were talking about a lottery....we heard numerous arguments like, "It will bring in a criminal element" or "that's just a tax on the poor who can't afford it" or "we're doing fine without it"

Now we're hearing similar arguments about something as silly as whether or not to sell wine and strong beer in grocery stores.

Look...the sky isn't falling. Change can be good and when some stupid law has been in existence for too long, remove it and go on with your life.

Oklahoma's current liquor laws didn't stop me from drinking on a regular basis from the time I was 16 on and it won't prevent future kids that want to drink from doing so either. When someone wants to drink, they will find ways to do so.

No....this is all about the liquor store mafia holding out govt hostage. ok yeah that's a bit dramatic but that's what it seems like to me. The liquor store owners have a monopoly in this state and it's time it should end.....past time if you ask me.

Jethrol:

There is a lot to what you posted, the other side is true as well. Particularly regarding the Lottery and expanded Casino Gambling issue. While I don't think we have seen a dramatic increase in crime, there has been increases in gambling addiction and the associated crimes that stem from it. It IS a voluntary tax payed mainly by those people who can least afford it. And it doesn't seem to have made much difference in academic results. Have to remember, as originally proposed by then Senator Brad Henry, the Lottery was supposed to bring in $500M/year and according to the recent Lottery commercials, it has only brought in just over $350M TOTAL in the 5 years it has been around (their website shows $369M). Even during the vote, they had lowered the projections to $350M/year. Same was true from both sides on HB1804 (the anti-illegal immigration bill). Both sides claimed, if passed, there would be a mass exodus of Latinos (both legal & illegal) from the state. The numbers don't seem to support it. Funny thing was, many claimed it was anti-Mexican but I read the bill in its final form and couldn't find a single word, phrase, sentence etc that was anti any ethnic group or nationality. Challenged those to point out if it existed. Nothing but the chirping of crickets. Anyway, we now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

Jethrol:

While I don't think we have seen a dramatic increase in crime, there has been increases in gambling addiction and the associated crimes that stem from it. ...

Do you have evidence or is that just your opinion?

Do you have evidence or is that just your opinion?

Not just my opinion, the Oklahoman has run stories on it. If you are wanting links etc, I don't have those as it wasn't a issue I followed closely to have bookmarked etc. IIRC, there have been instances of various treasurers etc that have embezzled money to help fund their gambling addiction. Thousands and tens of thousands of dollars. Stuff like that. They also mentioned compulsive gambling has increased (there is a very small fraction of the money collected to combat anticipated increases).

There will always be a certain number of people that are going to go to the extreme no matter what you try to do to prevent it, but it seems to be human nature that the easier you make it for someone to do something, the more likely they are to do it (crimes of opportunity). And the opposite seems to hold true. The harder you make it, the less likely most are going to do it. Why do we put locks on our doors, alarm systems on our homes, businesses and cars? To make it less likely that our stuff will be taken. Granted the thief may just move on to the next target that hasn't taken those steps (back to crimes of opportunity).

Probably because the majority of people don't care much about the issue of alcohol, or even drink. I seldom drink anything stronger than 3.2 beer.

Is that why there are liquor stores all over the place?

Why can't parents bring their child into a liquor store or into a bar area? Like that roped off area at a restaurant bar really needs to be there?

Another moronic law!

I thought Okies were all about having less government and more individual freedoms?

... I thought Okies were all about having less government and more individual freedoms?

Nope. It's all about having as little government as deemed mandatory to have the masses conform their personal freedom levels to the conduct deemed acceptable to the majority. Sheeesh, where ya been, under a rock or something?

You dinna honestly equate things like fear of camel noses under tents and can't do X on Sunday and no weak beer alcohol sales after 2 am etc. etc. etc. with limited government? On control of personal choice, there is scant difference in the political philosophies except where reproduction, or not, is involved.

The 2:00 AM beer law isn't that old, it went into effect in the late 80's or early 90's. When I worked at Skaggs in Bethany there was no restriction on when you could buy beer, of course beer was also 18 at the time.

I went to Texas over the holidays to my parents. The convinence store down the road had about 20 bottles of wine for sale of the local winerys wines. Just absurd to think that a local winerys business could be increased. Then later that day I had to go Walgreens, where they had a superb selection of Yellowtail and about 5 other brands of $10 wine and less. There were drunks everywhere. Those stores were complete chaos with the homeless and criminals just roaming up and down the aisles causing scenes. It was horrible, do not know how my parents live there.

The above was obviously sarcasm. I did pick up a bottle at the convinence store bc I wanted to try the local wine. I went with my mom to a Kroger Signature store later that afternoon and did grocery shopping, picked up a couple 6ers of cold beer, non 3.2 which was nice. We left Kroger and in the same shopping center went to a liquor store to buy a couple bottles of wine. The liquor store, about a pitching wedge away from Kroger, was packed. Lots of people in the wine aisle at Kroger as well. (I didnt go down that aisle bc it was about 4 feet deep under red wine thanks to all the 5 year olds). Point being, people are going to buy alcohol no matter what so it would be nice to be able to have to freedom to decide where I want to purchase the product from and not be forced to go to a "liquor" store.

--Pet peeve---the fact that a liquor store can sell high point beer but it cant be cold. Laughable. Fine, instead of a cold beer I guess I will just buy a couple of pocket shots and pour it in my sonic drink. Give me a break.

--Pet peeve---the fact that a liquor store can sell high point beer but it cant be cold. Laughable. Fine, instead of a cold beer I guess I will just buy a couple of pocket shots and pour it in my sonic drink. Give me a break.

I guess it is the alcohol equivalent to a 5 days waiting period for a gun. Both waiting times are considered a 'cooling-off' period. Maybe the NRA can comeout with a sticker like on the Coors bottles that let you know when you have cooled off enough.

Jethrol:

...there has been increases in gambling addiction and the associated crimes that stem from it.
Do you have any data to back up this claim?

I'm skeptical because I have not see studies of this and statistics get mis-intrepreted by the media ALL THE TIME.

As a hypothetical example, one person on the radio will say, "In talking with someone at Gamblers Anonymous, they said they're seeing more people in their meetings than normal since the lottery was passed. Therefore the rates of gambling addiction must be rising due to lottery and other types of gambling appearing in OK." Or some other ludicrous comments. Correlation does not equal causality and many other things may have gone into the increasing numbers at the GA meeting.....and let's not forget that people's perceptions are not hard science.

So please educate me if you do have information on your claim.


It IS a voluntary tax payed mainly by those people who can least afford it.
Really....where does this come from?

I know lots of people that are highly educated, employed with good jobs that regularly play the lottery and spend lots of money on it. During this last MegaMillions lottery, I personally spent more than I normally do but I have a good job and can easily afford it. I only spent $40 this time but when it's reached $150M in the past, I've been known to drop $100 on the lottery. I'm not super wealthy or anything like that but I'm far from being classified as poor.

It's popular for people to say it's a voluntary tax on the poor but most people that say this have NO data to back it up and totally minimize the impact of employed people playing. My experience has been when someone says this and you drill down into why they're saying it, it's their belief and/or experience ONLY. They don't have any data to support it.


Have to remember, as originally proposed by then Senator Brad Henry, the Lottery was supposed to bring in $500M/year and according to the recent Lottery commercials, it has only brought in just over $350M TOTAL in the 5 years it has been around (their website shows $369M). Even during the vote, they had lowered the projections to $350M/year.
Wait....so what are you trying to argue? That the lottery is a failure because it didn't bring in $500 mil and ONLY brought in $350M+? Uh...$350M is better than a poke in the eye....a damned site better.

I guess it is the alcohol equivalent to a 5 days waiting period for a gun. Both waiting times are considered a 'cooling-off' period. Maybe the NRA can comeout with a sticker like on the Coors bottles that let you know when you have cooled off enough.
http://smiliesftw.com/x/bowroflarms.gif

Cooling off period? Oh man....see that's how silly our laws are. I mean has anyone EVER bought strong beer and not drank it because it took too long to get it cold? Please....this never happens.

Get a bucket add ice + water + salt = cold beer in about 5 mins.

http://smiliesftw.com/x/bowroflarms.gif

Cooling off period? Oh man....see that's how silly our laws are. I mean has anyone EVER bought strong beer and not drank it because it took too long to get it cold? Please....this never happens.

Get a bucket add ice + water + salt = cold beer in about 5 mins.

I guess you could say the same thing about ice cream if it wasn't being sold in stores ready to eat. Just go to the store and buy the ingredients and freeze your own. It only takes a short time longer so why complain if it wasn't being sold in the store?
It's about convenience not about being prevented from drinking strong beer.

Do you have any data to back up this claim?
As i said, i don't have the aticles bookmarked etc because it wasn't an issue I followed that closely but have read numerous articles in the Oklahoman that have stated it. Now if they mis-resreprested it or not, I don't know.

Really....where does this come from?
No doubt about it that people of all education levels and income levels gamble. When it comes to Lottery type games, lower income people have a tendency to spend not only any disposable income but non-disposable income (rent/food/car payments etc). Again, I don't have links, so take it for what it is worth.
On the flip side, do you have any data that supports your position?

Wait....so what are you trying to argue? That the lottery is a failure because it didn't bring in $500 mil and ONLY brought in $350M+? Uh...$350M is better than a poke in the eye....a damned site better.

You missed something there, it is a failure because at this point it was supposed to have brought in $2.5 BILLION ($500M/year) and it has only brought in the $369 million.

It was a failure because even though it was supposed to have been in a "lock box" and the legislature couldn't cut funding, they found ways to essentially pick the lock. Instead of it being "supplemental funding", it gets funneled through the School Funding Formula and anticipated revenues are appropriated. then when it fails to reach projections (after the schools have already made their budgets and spent the money half way through the school year), what was supposed to have been supplemental is now considered a shortage. Think every year the State School Superintendent has gone back to the Legislature and requested that they make additional appropriations to make up for the "shortfall".

Here's something I hadn't thought of, from a Tulsa news story, regarding small downtown groceries:

"In any other city that you go to, these little grocery stores, they're selling wine. Because they can't make just make it selling food, because they're so small," Snyder said.

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Tulsa-and-Oklahoma-City-trying-to-make-buying-wine-in-grocery-stores-legal

Sorry but more likely than a change in liquor laws is a legislation to ban stem-cell research. I heard this from one of the OKC Chamber's lobbyist. I ran a successful legislative campaign this cycle so I am very aware of the way the new kids i.e. Shortey and Breechen will act. As far as the stem cell ban, if it comes up the Democratic caucus will abstain just to prove how the chamber will go out of their way during election times to defeat democrats, so no reason to prop up the chamber. So hey right thinkin merican's > billions of dollars in health care research. A bold new Oklahoma indeed under Governor Fallin!

Banning tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research will discourage that research in Oklahoma. Banning any embryonic stem cell research will make Oklahoma look like it's retreating to the Dark Ages. Whether it's in alcohol laws or freedom to conduct scientific research, I'm all for Oklahoma making advancements in its laws, so it can join up with the more civilized states in these United States.

Banning tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research will discourage that research in Oklahoma. Banning any embryonic stem cell research will make Oklahoma look like it's retreating to the Dark Ages. Whether it's in alcohol laws or freedom to conduct scientific research, I'm all for Oklahoma making advancements in its laws, so it can join up with the more civilized states in these United States.

Thanks, Bunty, for posting that, you're brave. :tiphat: And along with any companies that would've been either doing embryonic stem-cell research or would've located here to do it, jobs will go to those other, friendlier climates. :Smiley103

The Republican controlled government will move or scare away lots of jobs from Oklahoma through their social conservative policies. Their corporate tax breaks won't overcome their social agenda. Just watch...

Sorry but more likely than a change in liquor laws is a legislation to ban stem-cell research. I heard this from one of the OKC Chamber's lobbyist. I ran a successful legislative campaign this cycle so I am very aware of the way the new kids i.e. Shortey and Breechen will act. As far as the stem cell ban, if it comes up the Democratic caucus will abstain just to prove how the chamber will go out of their way during election times to defeat democrats, so no reason to prop up the chamber. So hey right thinkin merican's > billions of dollars in health care research. A bold new Oklahoma indeed under Governor Fallin!

Huh? I remember the Chamber being against the ban on embryonic stem cell research that was almost passed a while back. Either way, never a good idea to have laws on the books that can lock up doctors doing research for the benefit of living humans. Not the message you want to send to the medical research industry.

Their corporate tax breaks won't overcome their social agenda. Just watch...

If history is to be the example, we already know this to be true. Any tax break or incentive that we make can be matched. When incentives are equalized companies will go for the markets providing a better quality of life and inclusive political atmosphere that is most attractive to the human resources they want to recruit.

We prove it everyday that companies often do not make these decisions on cost of doing business alone. If that were the case, we would have attracted many more corporate headquarters already.

On the surface it's hard to imagine that not being able to buy cold beer, criminalizing scientific research using embryos that are to be discarded, or the requirement of the government that a device be inserted into a woman's ****** as a prerequisite for a legal procedure would have any bearing on whether a technology development company would want to headquarter its business here or not, especially when our costs or so relatively low. But the decision to relocate is also a decision by the decision makers of where they are going to live and the reality is that many people hear the option of living here and think "no way!", in large part because of the image that it is socially intolerant and institutionally illiberal. These things are not only examples of government dictating personal conduct, but also reinforce an unfavorable image that has frankly been our Achilles heel for decades.

I think if some of this was the result of some rouge legislators using political leverage, it may go overlooked by prospective companies. Unfortunately, it is a very widespread movement that is widely supported and now has no checks to balance even its most far reaching attempts to institutionally control the conduct of Oklahoma citizens.

The Republican controlled government will move or scare away lots of jobs from Oklahoma through their social conservative policies. Their corporate tax breaks won't overcome their social agenda. Just watch...

Well, hopefully, there are enough supposedly enlightened Republicans, such as State Sen. Jim Hallagan, former president of OSU, who will help take the lead to keep from happening what you describe.