Oklahoma Laws v. 3.2: The Liquor Law Thread

[SouthsideSooner]

I understand the convenience aspect of this and respect your opinion, Betts and I too avoid shopping at Wal-mart but it doesn't change the fact that they dominate the grocery market in Oklahoma.

The net effect of wine sales in grocery stores would be to take tens of millions of dollars annually from local merchants who spend those dollars in their local communitys and give it to Wal-mart and to replace hundreds of good paying jobs with a small amount of Wal-mart hourly positions.

All to possibly get one grocery store to come to Oklahoma that already operates in other markets without the benefit of wine sales?

[Nixon7]

It IS an embarrassment. Out of staters were laughing at us when the PGA was in Tulsa this year. Same thing for when I am at other events. They think we are the only state to have 3.2....and we all carry bibles. Sometimes we deserve to be laughed at. Our liquor laws won't change in my lifetime. (And I'm 22)

[BDP]

My compromise would be to allow liquor stores to sell cold product. That law is only one statute and would be much easier to change.

I'm so glad to get the perspective of a liquor store owner on this one.

I definitely think it would go a long way if we could get liquor stores to sell refrigerated beer. 1) It would increase the product available, as I understand that some do not like to sell in Oklahoma because they know their beer would be stored at room temp and 2) it would significantly raise the quality of the beer that is sold in Oklahoma liquor stores. As a side note, I know we're not the only 3.2 state and definately not the only one that restricts liquor sales to liquor stores, but are the only one that requires liquor stores to sell their product at room temp? To me, this is definitely an more screwed up law than even our 3.2 restrictions.

Now, as a liquor store owner would you concede wine sales to grocery stores if you were not restricted on what you sold in your stores. That is, you could sell mixers, snack, cigarettes, etc.? I'm not sure how they could do that statutorily and keep franchise convenience stores from selling liquor as you would have to redefine liquor stores, but if it could be done legally do you think that would be a worthy compromise?

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

The net effect of wine sales in grocery stores would be to take tens of millions of dollars annually from local merchants who spend those dollars in their local communitys and give it to Wal-mart and to replace hundreds of good paying jobs with a small amount of Wal-mart hourly positions.

Here's the rub though...Do we coddle the local merchants to maintain stupid laws and screw the consumer?

Sorry, not to be rude...But people that work at liquor stores aren't paid much more than a Wal Mart employee. Cashier is rarely, if ever, a "good paying job".

It's retarded that I can't walk into WalMart at 4am and be able to buy that bottle of rum I need for the next day's festivities along with my chips and salsa.

It's retarded that I can't buy cold beer over 3.2%, and retarded that I'm restricted on where I can buy it.

It's retarded that I can't buy booze on a Sunday.

[SouthsideSooner]

I would be the first to agree that Oklahoma has some stupid laws. I'm certainly not a spokesman for our industry, just one guy sharing his thoughts. I am without a doubt biased because it's my livelihood we're discussing.

I just want to point out that when you start changing things, it can result in situations you may not have intended.

So with that said....

Now, as a liquor store owner would you concede wine sales to grocery stores if you were not restricted on what you sold in your stores. That is, you could sell mixers, snack, cigarettes, etc.? I'm not sure how they could do that statutorily and keep franchise convenience stores from selling liquor as you would have to redefine liquor stores, but if it could be done legally do you think that would be a worthy compromise?


I wouldn't want that. I have a pretty good size store and a good selection and still don't have the room to carry everything I would like. I wouldn't want to cut my selection to carry snacks, pop etc. and I have no desire to sell cigarettes.
Any products that would be legal to sell in grocery stores would also be available in conveniences stores.

However we give away complementary bottle openers and wine openers if you are in need.

[I]Here's the rub though...Do we coddle the local merchants to maintain stupid laws and screw the consumer?[I]

I can't argue against all the stupid laws, I'm only talking about wine in grocery stores and some of the consequences that might come from that. Off brand convenience stores are by far the worst offenders of sales of alcohol to minors. Would most Oklahomans want them to be able to also sell Maddog 20/20 and other products that meet the legal discription of wine like wine based premade mixed drinks and test tube shots?

As far as consumers getting screwed, there's little doubt that Wal-mart would come in hard with preditory pricing and grab as much marketshare as possible in a short amount of time. They're selection won't be very good but they will have give away prices on high volumn wines like Yellow Tail, Turning Leaf, Beringer etc. These products are already very price sensitive in this market and sold on skinny margins in the larger stores but you'll be able to save a buck or two a bottle.

An interesting note is that in Oklahoma, being in the heart of the Bible belt, we pay some of the highest "sin taxes" on alcohol in the nation and yet because of the competetive nature of our wholesale system, our prices on spirits are as good or better than you'll find in most states. Unfortunately thats also why you can't buy strong Bud here. You'll find lower wine prices in other states but thats mostly because most states tax wine at a lower percentage than spirits and Oklahoma doesn't.

Sorry, not to be rude...But people that work at liquor stores aren't paid much more than a Wal Mart employee. Cashier is rarely, if ever, a "good paying job".

I believe that the larger stores would take a pretty good hit but they would survive. It's the smaller stores that are getting by and making a decent living that would take the biggest hit and many would shake out. I wasn't really talking about clerks losing jobs as I was people going out of business.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

I understand your points, and I can sympathize somewhat, but using the "what if" defense to uphold an old law doesn't really wash. What if convenience stores sell Boone's Farm to minors? Well...They get fined and people get in trouble. There are already laws in place that prohibit that and the staff at these locations is well aware of them. Nothing in that regard would change, as they're already carrying booze.

I'm also not in the mindset of defending small business owners at the expense of just about every consumer in the state. Wal Mart may be the big evil empire, and I'm sure that they will do their thing if let in the liquor market (borking up the whole system), but they DO make things readily available to more people than any other business that I know of. Personally, I don't shop there very often because I'm too picky about most things I buy and they pretty much carry crap for product. Like you said, that would carry over into the booze side of the house I'm sure.

I'm really not picking at you or saying that you're necessarily wrong (you obviously have put much more thought AND know much more about this topic than me), I think I'm just kind of irked about the hours that I'm allowed to buy a legal product as well as where I'm allowed to buy it...And I'm taking it out on you . I work nights, have funky days off, and keep VERY odd hours. If I get one more lecture from a clerk at 7-11 for buying beer at 8:20 in the morning on a Wednesday I'm going to throttle somebody.

Luckily, I'm not a stupid person, and I know how to plan ahead. I always keep enough beer to get a half-dozen beer snobs hammered.

[okclee]

Southside Sooner.......I appreciate your input on this subject, especially since you are an owner and know more on this subject than most.

I agree with you , I would not want Wal-Mart or convenience stores to get into the liquor store business. I think many of us have our favorite liquor stores and we do get fair prices here compared to other states and cities.

Here is a question for you, What would be the simpliest way for the consumer citizens to get the stronger domestic beers (Bud, Miller, Coors) both in liquor stores and on tap at bars and restaurants??

I have referred to Minnesota before, they have liquor stores only selling all of the beer and wine. The liquor stores do have coolers and they have the same hours as we do in Okla. The grocery stores and convenient stores have beer but it is of the 3.2 variety. All of the bars and restaurants sell the stronger beers on tap. Oh, and by the way they also have "Whole Foods" grocery stores.

[Turanacus]

3.2 is whack !

[Nixon7]

It's us, and Utah.

Alcohol laws of the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

It's us, and Utah.

Alcohol laws of the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice...I want Louisiana's laws.

[BDP]

I wouldn't want that. I have a pretty good size store and a good selection and still don't have the room to carry everything I would like. I wouldn't want to cut my selection to carry snacks, pop etc. and I have no desire to sell cigarettes.
Any products that would be legal to sell in grocery stores would also be available in conveniences stores.

Obviously, you wouldn't be forced to carry those products. They would just be there as upsell/traffic driving items. Your average ticket would go up for sure. Most of that stuff has great margins, too. Basically, it would be a way to mitigate the effects of other stores being allowed to carry what, right now, only you are allowed to carry.

I understand your perspective, but you have to admit that it is a very unique one. Almost of the advantages you outline are legislated. Very few other retail sectors are afforded the same type of protections. I know that one of my businesses would be very happy to have exclusive right to retail our segment of products, but would that ever fly? What inherently justifies these protections for our liquor store owners and operators that can't be applied to other retail sectors? We have direct laws in place to enforce sales to minors, over consumption, drinking and driving. All of those things are illegal, why do we need indirect laws to control behaviors that are already explicitly outlawed, especially when the end result is destrimental to competition and legal consumer access?

I guess what I am saying is that I understand your bias, but is there any prudent reason for government to grant such protection to our retail liquor sector as a matter of commerce regulation?

[SouthsideSooner]

It is unique because its a very unique product. We're dealing in "the last legal drug". You can point out nicotine, caffeine etc. but they don't pack the destructive punch that alcohol does when it's abused. The primary reason for the restrictive laws is keeping it out of the hands of minors. One of the reasons that grocery and convenience stores can't sell wine is that a corporation can't own a liquor store. Our laws are set up so that if a business is selling to minors there is a one person to hold accountable.

The laws are much more strict for liquor stores than they are for those selling 3.2% products. Sell a minor a beer in a 7-11 and get caught, you'll be given a ticket and pay a fine. Do it in a liquor store and you'll be arrested, taken to jail and charged with a felony and you can't have a liquor licence in Oklahoma if you've been convicted of a felony. Sure, you can pay alot of money and get the charge reduced but do it three times in a two year period and you lose your licence permanently.

It is left to each state to determine how restrictive they want to be. In Missouri you can buy a bottle of liquor in any little gas station you come across. In Louisiana you can get mixed drinks through the drive thru. We are more in the middle of the pack.

Most Oklahomans aren't for less restrictive laws. The best example I can give you is that we had a state wide vote two years ago to decide if liquor stores should have to continue to close on election days. Can you think of one good reason why anyone would vote against it? It passed by less than one percent. Does this make us a backwards state? Massachusetts had a state wide vote on wine in grocery stores last year and there has been a well organized push there for years and it failed.

As far as selling other products, I strive to be the best at what I do and to reduce my selection to make room to sell other stuff holds no appeal for me. The keys to my success are selection, price, service and a comfortable shopping environment.
We stock over a thousand unique selections on wine and over two hundred different beers. I wish I had room for more. Take a decent small liquor store and fill it half full of that other stuff and you'll have a mediocre liquor store and a mediocre convenience store combined.

[BDP]

It is unique because its a very unique product. We're dealing in "the last legal drug". You can point out nicotine, caffeine etc. but they don't pack the destructive punch that alcohol does when it's abused. The primary reason for the restrictive laws is keeping it out of the hands of minors. One of the reasons that grocery and convenience stores can't sell wine is that a corporation can't own a liquor store. Our laws are set up so that if a business is selling to minors there is a one person to hold accountable.

The laws are much more strict for liquor stores than they are for those selling 3.2% products. Sell a minor a beer in a 7-11 and get caught, you'll be given a ticket and pay a fine. Do it in a liquor store and you'll be arrested, taken to jail and charged with a felony and you can't have a liquor licence in Oklahoma if you've been convicted of a felony. Sure, you can pay alot of money and get the charge reduced but do it three times in a two year period and you lose your licence permanently.

OK, but this is pretty specious and hard to reconcile. If this really is all about sales to minors then 1) the punishment for selling 3.2 to minors would be just as severe and 2) the same restrictions would be placed on 3.2 as it holds just the same amount of destructive power as any alcohol. In fact, the majority of alcohol related crimes in Oklahoma involve 3.2 beer.

Most Oklahomans aren't for less restrictive laws. The best example I can give you is that we had a state wide vote two years ago to decide if liquor stores should have to continue to close on election days. Can you think of one good reason why anyone would vote against it? It passed by less than one percent. Does this make us a backwards state? Massachusetts had a state wide vote on wine in grocery stores last year and there has been a well organized push there for years and it failed.

Well, this comes down to democratic philosophy. Is it right to allow government to restrict freedoms simply because the majority wants that freedom restricted? I don't think so, but clearly a lot of Americans do. Obviously our founders thought otherwise, which is why they created the bills of rights to restrict the limitations government can place on civil liberties even if done so democratically.

But that may be too broad of a point for this discussion.

As far as selling other products, I strive to be the best at what I do and to reduce my selection to make room to sell other stuff holds no appeal for me. The keys to my success are selection, price, service and a comfortable shopping environment.
We stock over a thousand unique selections on wine and over two hundred different beers. I wish I had room for more. Take a decent small liquor store and fill it half full of that other stuff and you'll have a mediocre liquor store and a mediocre convenience store combined.

Ok, but that's completely anecdotal, which, to me, isn't a valid basis for public policy. While you may want to be a specialty store, I don't see any prudent justification for statutorily requiring a retail establishment to be a specialty store if that establishment wants to trade in a given item. While that's your private personal policy which guides your business model, that doesn't justify legislatively dictating it as public policy.

If anything, you've made a case that liquor laws should be stricter not relaxed and that's fine. But what this boils down to is that our 3.2 classification, along with the motivations and restrictions based on the classification, is completely unfounded. I would never argue that alcohol isn't a potentially destructive substance that isn't related to crime, but I don't see how our current laws mitigate that in any real way. I mean, what's the difference between a crime committed after drinking wine and one committed after drinking 3.2 Bud? I'd love to see a comparison of per capita alcohol related crimes by state and see if there is any statistically significant difference that can be definitively contributed to our 3.2 classification and policies surrounding it. That'd be a trick for sure. Short of that, it's pretty clear that the laws stay in place more because of ignorance and protectionist motivations than any real and justified public concern. Our 3.2 laws were created as a way to circumvent prohibition after all, so it's seems pretty disingenuous to recategorized them as alcohol consumption deterrents today.

[okcpulse]

Nope, Nixon7, Kansas, Colorado and Minnesota all only allow 3.2 beer in grocery stores in addition to us and Utah. Only difference is that those three states carry cold strong domestic beer brands in their liquor stores.

[okcpulse]

BDP, Utah also requires all beverages to be sold at room temp. Kansas did so up until 1970.

[foodiefan]

just an observation. . .just returned from the Dallas area . . .got one heck of a buy on a GREAT chardonnay at the Shell Station in Plano for Pete's Sake!! The clerk said they had a wine tasting there last Friday night. Wine in the grocery stores, wine in (some) gas station. . .and I don't think Texas has gone to hell in a handbasket. Same thing in AZ. . . . wine in grocery stores. Both of these states are more like OK than NY and Mass. . .some major metro areas, but the rest of the state is "country". While I understand that there is always resistance (I can remember the concerns that "robotics" would kill the auto industry by taking away union jobs. . . turns out it was quality that killed the goose!! The "next great thing" is always going go gore someone's ox, but that's progress I suppose.

Would also like to hear some comments from SouthSide Sooner on the Oklahoma "liquor cartel" vs the local wine industry. . .just seems like there ought to be a better way to support the local vintners than to drive them out of business.

[Moondog]

From the Tulsa World:

Strong beer a 'no sale'



By RANDY KREHBIEL World Staff Writer
12/30/2007

Questions on term limits find contradictory responses.

Oklahomans' historical reluctance to liberalize alcohol sales is demonstrated again in their opposition to legalizing the sale of wine and strong beer in grocery and convenience stores.

Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed in the latest Oklahoma Poll said they are against the measure, which is generally supported by grocers and wholesalers and opposed by retail liquor stores.

Thirty-five percent favored the change, and 6 percent were undecided.

This is my biggest pet peeve with Oklahoma... If I want to buy a cold six pack of good beer (not the weak stuff), we'll I'm just SOL!!

[jbrown84]

Love County (Marietta, WinStar Casino) is voting in the next couple week on whether to finally allow liquor-by-the-drink. Apparently there is a strong chance that it will not pass. Even the local newspaper is against it.