While I can understand where the "no liquor on Sunday" thing comes from, what is up with the car dealership Sunday ban?

so which part of what i said is not correct? are the grocery stores not asking the chamber to help? i never said that the OKC chamber is going to help them... i said that by his logic, the grocers should have been able to do it without the help of the OKC Chamber... well they tried that and the legislative committee said no... so now they are asking the chamber for a vote, hence having the have the chamber of OKC help them.

the only other part that could be not accurate would either be the statement that the grocery stores want it badly.... or that they are a much larger lobbying group than the liquor store owners of Oklahoma....

while i found your information to be useful and very helpful, i'm still not sure what part of my statement you thought was not correct

Nothing really directed at you. I was referring to the Chamber pushing the issue thats all. Although it should be an interesting campaign when both sides start going at it.

Nothing really directed at you. I was referring to the Chamber pushing the issue thats all. Although it should be an interesting campaign when both sides start going at it.

sorry... there are always so many personal attacks on these forums that i guess i jumped the gun... it should be very interesting, indeed

While I can understand where the "no liquor on Sunday" thing comes from, what is up with the car dealership Sunday ban?

That's a big mystery, especially since it was felt it had to be singled out. Apparently, it wasn't felt too sinful to buy a boat on Sunday. But why should it be so sinful before God to buy a car on Sunday? A car might be needed to be bought on Sunday to get to church. Somehow it's less sinful to buy a toy car at Wal-Mart on Sunday.

The liquor stores shouldn't really be worried about losing sales. Why? Because what stock boy at the grocery store is going to know anything about wine pairings? The main liquor is still at the liquor store AND they'll have wine. Unless the grocery store happens to have exactlly what i want, then i'm still going to have to go to a liquor store. I go to Andy's on 29th in MWC. They know exactlly where every bottle is, what it goes with, what you should use to cook/bake, etc. They are extremely knowledgeable (more so than any other liquor store ive been to). I'm not going to stop going there just because Crest can carry wine-in-a-box.

Clearly you have never lived in a state where wine can be sold in a grocery store. Here in Florida Publix has wine specialist in every location. If your specialist says a wine goes best with a red sauce containing fresh basil guess what, you can go 3 aisles over and get fresh basil. But the issue isn't just about wine in grocery stores; it is about bags of chips and bottle openers in liquor stores as well. Oklahomans have been repressed for so long they forgot what freedom is (or maybe never new).

Wouldn't you rather have store like this instead of Andy's?
http://www.totalwine.com/

http://media.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/dining/archives/IMGP2568_edited.jpg

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width/hash/b8/0a/b80af110fad830816b8e794a1addfb0f.jpg

Not being free for reasons based on nothing but nonsense is quite a Oklahoma cultural tradition, but at least they are slowly been rejected as the decades go by, for instance, tattoo application is now lawful.

There isn't a grocery store in OKC that would ever do anything like that wine set up. This city blows for grocery options.

There isn't a grocery store in OKC that would ever do anything like that wine set up. This city blows for grocery options.

That may be true, but walmart would take all the barefoot, leaping horse, blackstone, and other mainstream wines and take all the business. So now liquor stores would lose their core profit points. And once those stores go, rather than having good selection with people who know what they're selling, we'll be left with wal-mart selling 10-15 crap wines, and most rare/special wines not being available here...

Lots of texas folks drive to OK for wine and liquor for a reason.

That may be true, but walmart would take all the barefoot, leaping horse, blackstone, and other mainstream wines and take all the business. So now liquor stores would lose their core profit points. And once those stores go, rather than having good selection with people who know what they're selling, we'll be left with wal-mart selling 10-15 crap wines, and most rare/special wines not being available here...

Lots of texas folks drive to OK for wine and liquor for a reason.

So how do liquor store still survive in other states which have that option? I've visited many such states and have never seen a lack of liquor stores with good selections and people who know what they're selling.

So how do liquor store still survive in other states which have that option?

They raise prices on spirits. Unintended consequences and all that.

My friend, there are 5 grocery stores within a 5 minute walk of my place and you can't imagine the wine selection. Small stores doesn't take anything away...they make huge profits where only liquor stores currently compete.

Do you also think that we should unilaterally prohibit stores from selling meats so that butcher shops can make a come-back? I can't see any evidence that shows that allowing grocery stories to sell wine reduces my selection. In fact, my experience is 100% opposite. I have never seen, nor frankly bought, so much wine!

I totally agree Sid. There does not seem to be any issue in the other states that surround Oklahoma. I believe that there are only 2 or three states left in the country that sell 3.2 beer which is ridiculous. It seems that the liquor stores will need to adapt. If they need to charge a little more for the spirits then so be it.

I totally agree Sid. There does not seem to be any issue in the other states that surround Oklahoma. I believe that there are only 2 or three states left in the country that sell 3.2 beer which is ridiculous. It seems that the liquor stores will need to adapt. If they need to charge a little more for the spirits then so be it.

Why? Paying more money for liquor is worth picking up wine and beer at the grocery store? I pass 3 liquor stores on the way to any grocery store I can get to. I can get to liquor stores quicker and get in and out quicker. Why should I pay more for liquor for the inconvenience of buying wine and beer at grocery.

Another thing that concerns me, is that if they allow wine and beer sales in grocery stores, will they still limit the sales to 9 pm, and none on Sundays? Right now, I can run on Sunday and buy a case of beer (albeit 3.2). It's better than nothing, and is good for game day. If they don't change the blue laws at the same time, but all the 3.2 beer leaves Oklahoma, will this kill getting beer on a Sunday (or late night beer runs?).

If we're going to change liquor laws, I'm more concerned with getting cold beer from liquor stores (yeah, try getting that past the 7-11 lobby), and 7 day a week liquor store's.

At least we don't have the cluster-you-know-what that is Texas's liquor laws.

I totally agree Sid. There does not seem to be any issue in the other states that surround Oklahoma. I believe that there are only 2 or three states left in the country that sell 3.2 beer which is ridiculous. It seems that the liquor stores will need to adapt. If they need to charge a little more for the spirits then so be it.

Incorrect. Two of Oklahoma's neighboring states allow only 3.2 beer in general retail stores, Kansas and Colorado. Utah and Minnesota also allow only 3.2 beer.

Incorrect. Two of Oklahoma's neighboring states allow only 3.2 beer in general retail stores, Kansas and Colorado. Utah and Minnesota also allow only 3.2 beer.

So why is it so important to keep 3.2% beer alive and well? Or is it simply a well accepted cultural tradition to have 3.2 beer around and will be as difficult to get rid of as the Oklahoma law that bans car sales on Sunday?

It's important to some in the alcohol biz and therefor important to some legislators.

Here's and article in today's Denver Business Journal about Breckenridge Brewery opening up a new brewery outside Colorado because of some lobbyists who want to maintain the status quo.

Denver Business Journal - Breckenridge Brewery will take new brewery, jobs to East Coast (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2012/05/07/breckenridge-brewery-will-take-new.html)

Clearly you have never lived in a state where wine can be sold in a grocery store. Here in Florida Publix has wine specialist in every location. If your specialist says a wine goes best with a red sauce containing fresh basil guess what, you can go 3 aisles over and get fresh basil. But the issue isn't just about wine in grocery stores; it is about bags of chips and bottle openers in liquor stores as well. Oklahomans have been repressed for so long they forgot what freedom is (or maybe never new).

Wouldn't you rather have store like this instead of Andy's?
http://www.totalwine.com/

http://media.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/dining/archives/IMGP2568_edited.jpg

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width/hash/b8/0a/b80af110fad830816b8e794a1addfb0f.jpg

Almost every Whole Foods I've been to outside of OKC and Tulsa have a similar set up, to include tastings.

Almost every Whole Foods I've been to outside of OKC and Tulsa have a similar set up, to include tastings.
I know the one that I went to in Boston a few years ago had no alcohol in it, all alcohol was still sold in package stores only at that time. I don't think they have changed Massachusetts law since then either.

Incorrect. Two of Oklahoma's neighboring states allow only 3.2 beer in general retail stores, Kansas and Colorado. Utah and Minnesota also allow only 3.2 beer.

Minnesota? Are you sure about that? They serve babies beer in bottles up there.

They raise prices on spirits. Unintended consequences and all that.

Why? What a ridiculous statement. Liquor stores are not going to raise prices in the face of added competition. And if they are stupid enough to do so, they'll go away.

That may be true, but walmart would take all the barefoot, leaping horse, blackstone, and other mainstream wines and take all the business. So now liquor stores would lose their core profit points. And once those stores go, rather than having good selection with people who know what they're selling, we'll be left with wal-mart selling 10-15 crap wines, and most rare/special wines not being available here...

Lots of texas folks drive to OK for wine and liquor for a reason.

"Lots" of Texas folk drive here to buy liquor? You're killing me now. Seriously, you have a great sense of humor! Texas does have some bone dry counties, so I could see the desperate souls who live in those locales coming across the border to shop, but your general point is laughable.

Are you really suggesting that cities like Dallas and Austin don't have liquor stores with quality wine selections? If so, you should get out more.

Minnesota? Are you sure about that? They serve babies beer in bottles up there.

LOL. Yes I am quite sure. I have inlaws in Minnesota. It was a full table topic at a family reunion in Tulsa. Except they call it near-beer instead of three-two beer.

"Lots" of Texas folk drive here to buy liquor? You're killing me now. Seriously, you have a great sense of humor! Texas does have some bone dry counties, so I could see the desperate souls who live in those locales coming across the border to shop, but your general point is laughable.

Are you really suggesting that cities like Dallas and Austin don't have liquor stores with quality wine selections? If so, you should get out more.

Not sure if a lot of Texans make special trips to Oklahoma for liquor, but I can say a lot of Texans have told me that while visiting in Oklahoma, they notice a price difference in Oklahoma liquor stores. Many of their favorite brands are cheaper to buy in Oklahoma. I was surprised to hear that, but take it for what it is.

So how much does it cost to buy a bottle of beer in a Dallas bar these days? $4 or $5, compared to around $3, maybe $3.50, in OKC?

So how much does it cost to buy a bottle of beer in a Dallas bar these days? $4 or $5, compared to around $3, maybe $3.50, in OKC?

My post was concerning package store prices, Bunty. Not what you buy at the bar.

"Minnesota? Are you sure about that? They serve babies beer in bottles up there."

Didn't we--as Oklahomans (like, on this board)--just scoff at the concept of that "fetal remains" thing the legislature wasted time on? [Oh. Wait. This is very different. Nevermind.]

But seriously . . .
No matter what the GroceryStore/Public Voters/Etc. does in this regard, The Cartel will "win" in court.
Check the record.

"Lots" of Texas folk drive here to buy liquor? You're killing me now. Seriously, you have a great sense of humor! Texas does have some bone dry counties, so I could see the desperate souls who live in those locales coming across the border to shop, but your general point is laughable.

Are you really suggesting that cities like Dallas and Austin don't have liquor stores with quality wine selections? If so, you should get out more.

Yes, I'm sure. Worked in a liquor store for years. It's not due to selection, it's price. It's enough of a price that we'd have folks make special trips to buy $500-$1000 worth of liquor for their cabinet or for a party. Also had folks make similar purchases for Weddings. And I didn't work in a Byrons type discount store either.

Again, when you take away the strongest profit point of the liquor stores, then they'll have to make up the profit margin somewhere (either cut costs/employees, or raise prices on the spirits grocery stores can't sell).
It's not rocket science.

I believe the taxes on retail liquor in Texas are quite a bit higher than in Oklahoma, but then most of the price of liquor in the US is taxes. Why do you think they still go after bootleggers who make any kind of quantity, the "revenue man" wants "his" money. A liter bottle of Meyer's rum was just under $30 in Texas, I was paying around $22 in OKC before I moved, that same bottle is about $4.00 in Antigua. Texas adds taxes and/or fees onto everything they can since they have to make up for not having a state income tax....and don't get me started on property taxes down there, I am just glad we will be done with our Texas property as of Friday, we close on the sale of our house there then.

I still say, the real liquor fight I'm interested in is cold beer in liquor stores, and 7 day shops. The grocery store thing is a distraction, and won't help me out as a consumer at all. I can get to and in and out of a liquor store a hell of a lot easier than wal-mart. I'm also not convinced that we'll suddently get costco's and trader joe's if we have liquor in grocery stores. Hasn't worked for Texas.

I still say, the real liquor fight I'm interested in is cold beer in liquor stores, and 7 day shops. The grocery store thing is a distraction, and won't help me out as a consumer at all. I can get to and in and out of a liquor store a hell of a lot easier than wal-mart. I'm also not convinced that we'll suddently get costco's and trader joe's if we have liquor in grocery stores. Hasn't worked for Texas.

They do have Costco's in Texas and I believe Fort Worth is getting a Trader Joe's.

They do have Costco's in Texas and I believe Fort Worth is getting a Trader Joe's.

Ah, didn't know Trader Joe's was finally opening up Texas locations. Wonder what took them so long. If wine in grocery stores was the magic ticket, you'd think they would had been there for years...

"Minnesota? Are you sure about that? They serve babies beer in bottles up there."

Didn't we--as Oklahomans (like, on this board)--just scoff at the concept of that "fetal remains" thing the legislature wasted time on? [Oh. Wait. This is very different. Nevermind.]

But seriously . . .
No matter what the GroceryStore/Public Voters/Etc. does in this regard, The Cartel will "win" in court.
Check the record.
Then again, maybe not...
http://news.yahoo.com/horrifyingly-ground-baby-pills-real-thing-122643765.html
http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/skorea-finds-smuggled-capsules-contain-human-flesh-2343509.html


SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — South Korea has seized thousands of smuggled drug capsules filled with powdered flesh from dead babies, which some people believe can cure disease, officials said Monday.
The capsules were made in northeastern China from babies whose bodies were chopped into small pieces and dried on stoves before being turned into powder, the Korea Customs Service said.
Customs officials refused to say where the dead babies came from or who made the capsules, citing possible diplomatic friction with Beijing. Chinese officials ordered an investigation into the production of drugs made from dead fetuses or newborns last year.
The customs office has discovered 35 smuggling attempts since August of about 17,450 capsules disguised as stamina boosters, and some people believe them to be a panacea for disease, the customs service said in a statement. The capsules of human flesh, however, contained bacteria and other harmful ingredients.

So why is it so important to keep 3.2% beer alive and well? Or is it simply a well accepted cultural tradition to have 3.2 beer around and will be as difficult to get rid of as the Oklahoma law that bans car sales on Sunday?

The last part. The 'low point', 'non-intoxicating', '3.2' law has been in effect since the repeal of prohibition.

A little background: The 18th amendment banned 'intoxicating liquors' but it was the Volstead Act that defined what 'intoxicating liquors' were. Prior to the 21st amendment (repealing the 18th) the Cullen-Harrison Act was passed that allowed the sale of 3.2% (by weight, 4% by volume) liquors since it was determined at the time that alcohols up to that level were thought to be, or rather, considered to be 'non-intoxicating'. One recount of the court proceeding I read referenced a 'trusted source' they used for proof. Several people testified that this source had drunk 40 or 50 beers and was still sober! Lol, I can only imagine what it would have been like to be in the court room for their silly claims and justifications. Then again, at this point in history nearly everybody was for the repeal of prohibition and passing the Cullen-Harrison Act was merely allowing them to produce, transport, and sell alcohol until the 21st amendment came long.

As mentioned there are several states like OK that still use this seemingly arbitrary 3.2 number for defining 'low-point' alcohol. It would be great if everybody opposed to (and for) changing the liquor laws were aware of how we came to have the laws as well as their specifics. Moreover there should be specific times when a law is passed that it is revisited to update it (if necessary) to account for current changes, definition changes, etc. to make sure the law even makes sense any more. There are way too many stupid laws in the books that were passed when things were ran way differently than they are now.*

*disclaimer- I apologize in advance for my ignorance in politics, law-making, etc. I'm certainly talking out of my ass in that regard if that isn't obvious in my post.

What's that thing Neal Degrasse Tyson is fond of saying... eye-witness and expert testimony is regarded as the highest form of information in the legal system, but is the lowest form of information when dealing with matters of science and fact....

What you said reminds me of that TV show "Mad Men." Maybe compared to everyone else in the room the guy who'd just had 50 beers was pretty sober....



Is the Oklahoma Supreme Court still reviewing the language of the proposed state question?

One step closer.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-supreme-court-rules-grocery-store-wine-sale-ballot-language-is-constitutional/article/3688393

One step closer.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-supreme-court-rules-grocery-store-wine-sale-ballot-language-is-constitutional/article/3688393

I can certainly see both sides. I personally am for the changes. I think that it is great that we can let the voters decide.

not sure why they can't get the signatures in time for this election ... 2014 is still a long way away

not sure why they can't get the signatures in time for this election ... 2014 is still a long way away

I agree. They need to ask for volunteers. I'd sit somewhere with a petition any time I had time off. I'm probably not the only one.

Boulder: Absentee ballots have to be available/mailed something like a 45 days out from the election (so service members and folks living oversees have sufficient time), add to that the time it takes to get the signatures (I thought they already had them and that was what was being decided by the Court), then there is time for verification and protests etc. I don't know if when you add all of that up there is time...it might be cutting it very close. as it is 4 months plus change until the Nov election...3 months for sig + verification/challenges + 1.5 months for Absentee ballots, you are at a minimum of 4.5 months

not sure why they can't get the signatures in time for this election ... 2014 is still a long way away

It's not feasible for make the 2012 election due to the time frames that are involved with:

getting the signatures
reviewing/verifying the signatures
protest period
hear the protest(s)
decide the protest(s)

The election is within 150 days. Ballots need to be printed in advance of the election. Printing Ballots takes place only after challenges are beaten back, if indeed they are.

Patience Grasshopper. 2014 will be here soon enough.

It's not feasible for make the 2012 election due to the time frames that are involved with:

getting the signatures
reviewing/verifying the signatures
protest period
hear the protest(s)
decide the protest(s)

The election is within 150 days. Ballots need to be printed in advance of the election. Printing Ballots takes place only after challenges are beaten back, if indeed they are.

Patience Grasshopper. 2014 will be here soon enough.

except it won't happen in 2014 .... even if that gets passed .. it then takes a vote of the county to allow it and that won't happen until 2015 at the earliest

True, I suspect they could get a special election called (unlikely), would it be until 2014 before the next statewide election comes up?

Can't recall if Questions even can go to special election ballots (probably can, just not recalling one way or the other.)

In any event, no politico comes to mind from our current crop of "i'm way more conservabot than anyone else here" that would vote to have an expensive special election simply to get wine into grocery stores a year or so earlier.

It seems like they can as Gov Henry could have called for a special election on the Lottery but decided to wait until the next statewide general election???