Metro suggested a new thread discussing our liquor laws. I always find it interesting, because as much as people seem annoyed with our liquor laws 1) they never change, 2) actual bills for change hardly ever seem to come up and, 3) there seems to be a great deal of confusion over the origin of these laws and why we can't get rid of them. In fact, I seem to recall Drew Edmondson saying that he doesn't see a constiuency for changing the liquor laws, yet I know of no one who supports these laws in their current form. Maybe through some discussion here we can figure some of this out and maybe focus on what we may have an ability to change.

First, I'd like to address the 3.2 issue. It's not as drastic as most people think, especially when talking about domestic beers. As swake pointed out in the other thread, 6.0 beer is not as prevalent as college students going to Texas for the weekend would have you believe. Here's a good site I found a while back that outlines the alcohol content of many beers:

http://www.realbeer.com/edu/health/calories.php

Note that the %s there are listed by volume and Oklahoma's law is based on weight. So, a 4.2% by volume Bud Light ("regular" Bud Light) is only minutely higher in alcohol than "Oklahoma" BL. And there is no such thing as a 6.0 Budweiser, by weight or volume (Bid Ice gets to 5.9% by volume). I think the 6.0 myth comes from some states that may have or may have had laws limiting content to 6.0%, basically in efforts to curtail malt liquor sales. But that is more of a guess than anything.

Most of the higher percentages belong to independents, micro-breweries, and imports. All of which are available in OK in some way shape or form and most do not make 3.2 versions of their beer at all (some do have standards). In fact, while our liquor laws are very inconveniencing, I am not aware of any liquor that is outlawed outright. You can even buy Everclear (grain alcohol) in OK, which is illegal in some states.

However, the one thing that is entirely denied to Oklahoma consumers is chilled wine or beer containing more than 3.2% alcohol by weight. While I hate that I can't buy wine or liquor in a grocery store, I hate even more that I am denied being sold a product in the way that I want it altogether. In many cases lack of refrigeration is damaging to the product and is motivation for some makers to not sell their product in Oklahoma.

As far as I can reason, I can’t not think of a corporate protectionist slant on this rule. The distribution oligopoly shouldn't have a reason to not make cold product available to the consumer. The liquor stores may not want to install fridges, but that'd just be a competitive choice (and obviously a bad one). I don’t foresee any of these stores going out of business by changing this rule.

Anyway, my point is that it’s probably a long haul to get our laws changed, but I think it would be great to take on the one thing that we're denied altogether and which seems to have the least motivation for resistance from corporate and co-op lobbies.

Please feel free to discuss any and all facets and opinions regarding our liquor laws. It’s all on topic.