Welp. I don't see this becoming the last liquor law thread. One of the bills, IE HJR 1034, will die this week if they do not hear it. I would suggest calling Gary Banz office at 405-557-7395 and asking if this will be heard this week. Enough people call and they might push it thru?

all bills are now postponed until next year and a task force is being created to "study" the issues.

Grocery Store Wine Sale Proposal On Hold
Consumer Groups Call Oklahoma Alcohol Laws 'Antiquated'

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A bill that would allow grocery and convenience stores to sell strong beer and wine is being put on hold while a task force studies the issue.
A bill by Republican state Sen. Clark Jolley would create a 13-member task force that would help draft a proposal to be presented to the Legislature next year.

The sale of strong beer and wine in grocery and convenience stores is supported by chambers of commerce and consumer groups who said Oklahoma's alcohol laws are antiquated. Opponents include alcohol retailers and distributors who say their business models depend on existing state alcohol laws.

Current law allows only low-point beer to be sold in grocery and convenience stores. Only liquor stores are allowed retail sales of strong beer or wine and the products cannot be refrigerated.

Drat.

I'll bet the Alcohol lobby is the reason it's being put in front of the task force.

I'll bet the Alcohol lobby is the reason it's being put in front of the task force.

They needed to buy time to organize their opposition.

It's not like every other state in the country hasn't already done this. The only thing they could possibly be studying is how to keep a bunch of government dolts on the payroll at ABLE.

Guys, I think that all bills being put on hold for a task force to study the issue is actually a good thing, and here is why. Oklahoma's liquor laws were written and patched over the years in a way that any change as drastic as what has been proposed this year is going to require the entire model to be overhauled and rebuilt from top to bottom, and there are several reasons why.

First, over 7,000 3.2 beer licenses would disappear under the new guidelines. And those low-point beer license fees will need to be replaced with a new beer & wine license and the fees will have to be hashed out. Second, there are liquor wholesale distributors and low-point beer distributors whose roles will change drastically, and how is going to require a lot of discussion, such as whether an Anheuser-Bushch warehouse in OKC can stock and distribute wine. Third, liquor stores will need to hash out how taxes will be paid on non-alcoholic items. Yes, I know, other states do it... but we are talking about a change that will require a lot of parties to be on the same page.

I am in support of overhauling the system to allow for gorcery stores to sell beer and wine, but ushering in a new system can't happen overnight. The general election wouldn't happen until 2012. By then I will have a chance to vote for change. Plus, there is an unconfirmed rumor that brewers are preparing to end the production of 3.2 beer anyhow, since it is growing more and more cost-prohibitive for production.

I believe that this is a good thing too. Progress is being made, and changes are in the works.

...or a task force will study the issue, generate a report and recommendations and nothing more will be done.

The Okc Chamber of Commerce is following this closely and I believe they will see these changes through.

Put it to a statewide vote to allow counties to decide on a county-by-county basis.

Has anyone tried a petition drive to get this put on a ballot for the voters to decide instead of waiting on the Legislature?

I'll bet the Alcohol lobby is the reason it's being put in front of the task force.

Nope... The Liquor lobby was the reason the bill was going to die in committee. The Task force is a move by proponents to keep the issue alive on life support...

Guys, I think that all bills being put on hold for a task force to study the issue is actually a good thing, and here is why. Oklahoma's liquor laws were written and patched over the years in a way that any change as drastic as what has been proposed this year is going to require the entire model to be overhauled and rebuilt from top to bottom, and there are several reasons why.

First, over 7,000 3.2 beer licenses would disappear under the new guidelines. And those low-point beer license fees will need to be replaced with a new beer & wine license and the fees will have to be hashed out. Second, there are liquor wholesale distributors and low-point beer distributors whose roles will change drastically, and how is going to require a lot of discussion, such as whether an Anheuser-Bushch warehouse in OKC can stock and distribute wine. Third, liquor stores will need to hash out how taxes will be paid on non-alcoholic items. Yes, I know, other states do it... but we are talking about a change that will require a lot of parties to be on the same page.

You are correct that there are so many laws that would have to change that the liquor laws would have to be rewritten from the ground up and it would require passing changes to the state constitution.

The roles of the wholesalers wouldn't actually change much at all in the bill that was sent to the task force because it only proposed a minor tweak of the franchise laws. The low point beer distributors already have the ability to also have a license to distribute strong beer, wine and spirits.

There will be no change in how liquor stores pay taxes as they only pay collected sales taxes which are the same rate as those for non alcoholic items.


I am in support of overhauling the system to allow for gorcery stores to sell beer and wine, but ushering in a new system can't happen overnight. The general election wouldn't happen until 2012. By then I will have a chance to vote for change. Plus, there is an unconfirmed rumor that brewers are preparing to end the production of 3.2 beer anyhow, since it is growing more and more cost-prohibitive for production.

The franchisees for the major domestic beers are strong opponents to changing the current laws because it would mean increased competition for market share and shelf space to their products in grocery stores. There is no truth to the rumor of discontinuing production of 3.2 beer.

They are fighting some of the same 3.2 issues in Colorado....the new Governor is a former microbrewery owner.

The Denver Post - Hickenlooper catches flak for changes in low-alcohol beer sales (http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_17544267)

Has anyone tried a petition drive to get this put on a ballot for the voters to decide instead of waiting on the Legislature?

This would involve a whale of a lot more money and time than anyone, any group for that matter, seems to be interested in investing, particularly toward such an uncertain outcome. I get the pros between making the most frequently mentioned changes, and I'm not overtly concerned about the most common cons.

But, in truth, once I decided some time back to no longer be part of a drinking team with an embarrassing bowling problem, I've not felt any personal stake in the overall battle. I don't seem to be alone in that regard.

Has anyone tried a petition drive to get this put on a ballot for the voters to decide instead of waiting on the Legislature?

It appears you can still sign this. I signed it years ago. I was hoping people would pass this on to their friends at the time and was shocked more signatures weren't obtained.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/285/966/504/#whosignedthis

Has anyone tried a petition drive to get this put on a ballot for the voters to decide instead of waiting on the Legislature?
The Oklahoma Legislature should save the people the bother and expense of a petition by putting alcohol reforms up for state questions. They have, without a doubt, done it before. But maybe they'll ony be more interested in putting more strange and wacky stuff on the ballot again. I would have much rather voted for alcohol reform last November amongst all those questions, rather than the senseless crap over Sharia law.

Usually referring something to a study is a passive way of sending something into legislative purgatory where it never returns from. But maybe it is a legitimate move. Or maybe it's a move by lawyers to try to figure out how to legislatively protect existing monopolies when public support for free enterprise is so vast in our state.

The Colorado Beer Bill made it to the floor of the house and died.

The Denver Post - Bill to expand beer sales fizzles in House (http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2011/04/11/bill-to-expand-beer-sales-fizzles-in-house/27483/)

WoW!! Colorado is an extremely liberal state and even they can't fix their liquor laws?

Colorado isn't that much different, special interests run things just like they do everywhere else.

WoW!! Colorado is an extremely liberal state and even they can't fix their liquor laws?

Uhh....not sure where you get that Colorado is extremely liberal, but that's very far from the truth. It's a slight Republican, swing state. George W. Bush won the state twice, the first time by 8 points and the second by 5 points. Until Obama won the state, they voted for every GOP candidate since 1964 . Their Congressional delegation is 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats and two Democrat Senators. The State Legislature is split control, with Democrats in charge of the Senate and Republicans in charge of the House.

Thus, BlueDog is right--you can't reduce this to the ideological makeup of the state. The failure to modernize liquor laws is primarily due to special interest, just like it is here.

They are still ahead of us. You can get refrigerated beer in their liquor stores, along with other items like bottle openers, limes, mixers etc.

Thus, BlueDog is right--you can't reduce this to the ideological makeup of the state. The failure to modernize liquor laws is primarily due to special interest, just like it is here.

If I was a legislator, I wouldn't think twice about modernizing the alcohol laws in this supposedly free society. If I felt I needed to obey special interests within the alcohol sales lobby, then maybe I shouldn't be there.

If I was a legislator, I wouldn't think twice about modernizing the alcohol laws in this supposedly free society. If I felt I needed to obey special interests within the alcohol sales lobby, then maybe I shouldn't be there.

I agree 100%. But that's an ideal, not reality.

Liquor Lobby: "If you oppose this law, I'll give you the max contribution, get 5 of my buddies to do the same, and have our PAC give the max."

Legislator: "Deal."

Also:

Liquor Lobby Ad on Television: "The State Legislature is considering a bill that will make alcohol more available to your children and underage teenagers. Multiple studies and common sense tells us this is a dangerous combination. More alcohol-related deaths among our young and unsafe rodes because of drunk drivers are just a few of the consequences. Let's keep our children and our roads safe: Call your Representative and tell them to oppose HB XXX."

Typical Voter: "Oh. My. God. I can't believe the legislature wants to give alcohol to kids and make drunk driving legal. Aunt Betty, did you hear about this? Send an email to your email list."

Educated Voter: "Oh. My. God. People actually believe that crap?"

Result: State Representative Smith has a full campaign account and can claim he was considered about the kids.

This session was a not unreasonable shot at this. But, in reality, it was close to, or fully, a doa matter.

You won't see it in any meaningful manner next session, as it is a pre-election session for the House and 1/2 the Senate. Neither chamber is going to have enough members willing to tackle a major alcohol upheaval in an election year. They aren't in danger of losing the current majorities, but their concern now is keeping themselves in office instead of fighting off internal to the party challenges. Going out on a limb for alcohol access, though there are sound economic reasons to do so, would pretty much assure the current vested interests running challengers who want their money and will hear their concerns with both ears.

Oklahoma probably missed its best shot for a long spell by deferring the matter forward. it's not the first time. it won't be the last.