Oklahoma liquor laws

[gopokes88]

If you truly support small local business, you shouldn't support wine in grocery.

[Jeepnokc]

If you truly support small local business, you shouldn't support wine in grocery.

What if the grocery store is Native Roots?

[Jersey Boss]

What if the grocery store is Native Roots?

Yeah thats one. How many local small business liquor stores does that contrast with?

[bchris02]

Pennsylvania is one that is commonly overlooked due to the fact they don't have to deal with 3.2 beer there, but their laws are very archaic. They are also the one single example of a "liberal" state that has laws that rival Oklahoma's in restrictiveness. I would have definitely placed Oklahoma second behind Utah instead of Massachusetts. Mass. liquor laws aren't that bad as long as you live in the state.

The logical next step in Oklahoma is to bring brewery laws in line with what the wineries currently enjoy. This needs to be done sooner rather than later so Oklahoma can take greater advantage of the current craft-beer craze.

[onthestrip]

If you truly support small local business, you shouldn't support wine in grocery.

Huh? Twice now you have made head scratching posts. Homeland, Buy For Less, Reasors...these are all Oklahoma based and owned grocers. With wine sold in grocery stores, we would still be supporting local businesses and the customer would have much better options. Oklahoma should be more free market and talk less about being free market.

And if liquor store owners dont like grocery stores being allowed to sell wine, the easy and fair thing to do is allow liquor stores to sell ice, mixers, cigarettes, bottle openers, etc...

[Jeepnokc]

I would agree that opening on Sunday would also increase availability. As for making studies say what I want... Well, there are quite a few studies out there and they all agree that increased availability (and Sunday sales was one of the criteria) has a direct correlation to alcohol abuse and drunk driving. You can feel free to dismiss them, much like folks dismiss climate change reports.

It is easy to believe studies when they support your side. Here is a recent study showing otherwise where increased availability did not cause an increase because DUI arrests went down in the following year. Alcohol-Related Arrests Continue to Decrease After Liquor Privatization | Washington Policy Center. When it comes to any alcohol related studies, I am highly suspect regardless of which side they support. Any accident caused by a true drunk driver is one too many but the statistics used are misleading and wrong. This article has a good explanation of what are alcohol related accidents and how the numbers are misleading and not representative of what is really happening. Common DUI/DWI Myths

The quick review of studies I found dealt with increasing sales times as far as Sunday Sales, longer hours or lower prices. Like my earlier comment, the numbers can be manipulated to either side by adjusting the parameters and definitions.

I do not see how making me drive a mile further to buy a bottle of wine is going to increase the likelihood of a DUI. I am assuming the time frame to buy would be the same as the liquor stores as far as no sales on Sunday or after nine. If this is the case, then maybe we should go to a system of state operated stores with only a set number per county like other states have. Why do we restrict the ability for free commerce to protect one type of retail. We complain that we can't get a grocery store downtown but we limit what they can sell. I do believe though that liquor stores should be able to sell mixers, limes, cigars, refrigerated products, etc. The free commerce should work both ways. Would love to have a Specs here.

[bille]

And if liquor store owners dont like grocery stores being allowed to sell wine, the easy and fair thing to do is allow liquor stores to sell ice, mixers, cigarettes, bottle openers, etc...

You nailed it. How annoying is it for the consumer as well as the store owner/employees that anything sans alcohol can not be sold in a liquor store?

[Jersey Boss]

You nailed it. How annoying is it for the consumer as well as the store owner/employees that anything sans alcohol can not be sold in a liquor store?

Not to annoying as you can't miss what you never had. As for the liquor store owner, I doubt many if any would want the trade off. Wal Mart and the such can sell at a loss, with offsets in other areas. Small liquor stores, not so much.

[jerrywall]

It is easy to believe studies when they support your side. Here is a recent study showing otherwise where increased availability did not cause an increase because DUI arrests went down in the following year. Alcohol-Related Arrests Continue to Decrease After Liquor Privatization | Washington Policy Center. When it comes to any alcohol related studies, I am highly suspect regardless of which side they support. Any accident caused by a true drunk driver is one too many but the statistics used are misleading and wrong. This article has a good explanation of what are alcohol related accidents and how the numbers are misleading and not representative of what is really happening. Common DUI/DWI Myths

The quick review of studies I found dealt with increasing sales times as far as Sunday Sales, longer hours or lower prices. Like my earlier comment, the numbers can be manipulated to either side by adjusting the parameters and definitions.

I do not see how making me drive a mile further to buy a bottle of wine is going to increase the likelihood of a DUI. I am assuming the time frame to buy would be the same as the liquor stores as far as no sales on Sunday or after nine. If this is the case, then maybe we should go to a system of state operated stores with only a set number per county like other states have. Why do we restrict the ability for free commerce to protect one type of retail. We complain that we can't get a grocery store downtown but we limit what they can sell. I do believe though that liquor stores should be able to sell mixers, limes, cigars, refrigerated products, etc. The free commerce should work both ways. Would love to have a Specs here.

I have no idea if the private sale of liquor equaled more availability, so can't comment on that study.

However, you seem to be thinking I'm arguing against changes or something. My comment about the increased availability was in response to another comment made in regards to why liquor is regulated, and that there are consequences to changes. It doesn't mean those consequences aren't worth it.

[Soonerman]

Huh? Twice now you have made head scratching posts. Homeland, Buy For Less, Reasors...these are all Oklahoma based and owned grocers. With wine sold in grocery stores, we would still be supporting local businesses and the customer would have much better options. Oklahoma should be more free market and talk less about being free market.

And if liquor store owners dont like grocery stores being allowed to sell wine, the easy and fair thing to do is allow liquor stores to sell ice, mixers, cigarettes, bottle openers, etc...

Ding ding ding, We have a winner!!

[bluedogok]

And sorry bluedogok, while I agree that every state has weird laws, there is no comparison between Texas' laws in Travis County and Oklahoma's system when it comes to impact on the consumer.

The wackiest one in Texas was Dallas County and their wet/dry by voting precinct that they finally did a way with just a few years ago.

Isn't that "curfew" spread throughout all of Texas?* To my knowledge it runs 12hours starting at midnight on Sunday and running until noon.* Sure it's more drastic than OK's curfew but I'd argue for relaxing/changing several other aspects of the law there (or here) before I'd worry about the curfew.**

Not sure about retail store sales but I know it doesn't apply to bars or restaurants. I wasn't heading to a store to buy any alcohol at midnight when I lived in Texas.

When I worked in Louisiana (Vernon Parish, Leesville, Fort Polk) in 1985 (drinking age still 18 down there at that time) the bars closed at midnight on Sunday morning, the beer coolers were padlocked and had brown paper put up on the glass doors. There was a 24 hour frozen drink stand that closed from midnight to midnight on Sunday and reopened at 12:01 AM on Monday.

[gopokes88]

Huh? Twice now you have made head scratching posts. Homeland, Buy For Less, Reasors...these are all Oklahoma based and owned grocers. With wine sold in grocery stores, we would still be supporting local businesses and the customer would have much better options. Oklahoma should be more free market and talk less about being free market.


And if liquor store owners dont like grocery stores being allowed to sell wine, the easy and fair thing to do is allow liquor stores to sell ice, mixers, cigarettes, bottle openers, etc...

100% locally owned liquor stores > some locally owned grocery stores. Wal mart has 400 stores in oklahoma. 400!

Yeah because they can totally make up for the loss of wine revenue selling $2 bottle openers.

Oklahoma has more wine available then Texas does. So the free market is clearly working here.

[bchris02]

100% locally owned liquor stores > some locally owned grocery stores. Wal mart has 400 stores in oklahoma. 400!

Harris Teeter in downtown Charlotte, which is a beautiful store by the way, is sustained primarily by beer and wine sales. Harris Teeter was also locally owned until Kroger bought them out earlier this year. The store likely wouldn't have been able to stay in business in a state with restrictive laws like Oklahoma because grocery profit margins are so thin. Alcohol is where the real profit is. That is one reason rooftops really are important when it comes to getting a grocery store in downtown OKC. Legalize wine in grocery stores and all of a sudden a downtown grocer becomes profitable on far less rooftops than it otherwise would need.

[onthestrip]

Oklahoma has more wine available then Texas does. So the free market is clearly working here.

I disagree. Grocery stores and gas stations would love to be able to sell wine and high point beer, but they cant. I want to be able to conveniently go to grocery stores and gas stations to buy wine and high point beer, but I cant. The free market is clearly not working here, because buyers and sellers are hamstrung by restrictive laws.

And you say Texas has less wine available than us (not sure what that exactly means) but if there is a wine that a Texan wants, they can order it and have it shipped to their house. Cant do that in Oklahoma. Why? Because free market principles are clearly not in play.

[bchris02]

Arkansas voters reject plan for statewide alcohol - KATV - Breaking News, Weather and Razorback Sports

Arkansas voters rejected an amendment to allow statewide liquor sales by a substantial margin. I was almost certain this would pass and am very surprised that it didn't.

Arkansas and Oklahoma are very culturally and politically similar across the board with the exception that Arkansas actually has a couple of progressive strongholds. This makes me wonder if modern liquor laws could even pass in Oklahoma if put on the ballot. Thoughts?

[Jersey Boss]

Arkansas voters reject plan for statewide alcohol - KATV - Breaking News, Weather and Razorback Sports

Arkansas voters rejected an amendment to allow statewide liquor sales by a substantial margin. I was almost certain this would pass and am very surprised that it didn't.

Arkansas and Oklahoma are very culturally and politically similar across the board with the exception that Arkansas actually has a couple of progressive strongholds. This makes me wonder if modern liquor laws could even pass in Oklahoma if put on the ballot. Thoughts?

How do you define " modern liquor laws" ? It sounds like a subjective standard. In 1973 in New Jersey I could get liquor store delivery to my house. Thats over 40 years ago, would that be a modern law? Just curious as to your interpretation.

[bchris02]

How do you define " modern liquor laws" ? It sounds like a subjective standard. In 1973 in New Jersey I could get liquor store delivery to my house. Thats over 40 years ago, would that be a modern law? Just curious as to your interpretation.

Doing away with 3.2 beer and allowing grocery/convenience stores to sell strong beer and wine. That's the way most people define it.

[ljbab728]

Arkansas voters reject plan for statewide alcohol - KATV - Breaking News, Weather and Razorback Sports

Arkansas voters rejected an amendment to allow statewide liquor sales by a substantial margin. I was almost certain this would pass and am very surprised that it didn't.

Arkansas and Oklahoma are very culturally and politically similar across the board with the exception that Arkansas actually has a couple of progressive strongholds. This makes me wonder if modern liquor laws could even pass in Oklahoma if put on the ballot. Thoughts?

I think Oklahomans are still fine with county option on this. I would be happy for it to be statewide but don't have any particular problem with county option and I think it will eventually cover most, if not all, of the state.

[ljbab728]

Doing away with 3.2 beer and allowing grocery/convenience stores to sell strong beer and wine. That's the way most people define it.

Did the Arkansas vote you were referencing have anything to do with that? I think I could see that passing in Oklahoma before statewide liquor.

[bchris02]

Did the Arkansas vote you were referencing have anything to do with that? I think I could see that passing in Oklahoma before statewide liquor.

Arkansas doesn't have 3.2 beer. If a county is wet, you can sell strong beer and wine in grocery/convenience stores, sell alcoholic beverages at restaurants, AND you can open a liquor store. If a county is dry though, no alcohol can be sold unless you are a private club, which is easy to be in some counties but very difficult in others.

If Oklahoma voted to modernize the laws but keep it by county, some counties that are currently "dry" but allow 3.2 beer would lose access to alcoholic beverages period if 3.2 beer was in fact done away with. I wouldn't have a problem with that but I am not sure it would pass and it would be a huge negative to people living in affected counties. Liquor statewide almost certainly wouldn't pass.

[Jersey Boss]

I think Oklahomans are still fine with county option on this. I would be happy for it to be statewide but don't have any particular problem with county option and I think it will eventually cover most, if not all, of the state.

County option was approved in 1984. As of Jan, 1, 2014, 26 counties or 1/3 of the state is still dry. How long will it be before the dry counties are less than 5 or 0 ?

[ljbab728]

If Oklahoma voted to modernize the laws but keep it by county, some counties that are currently "dry" but allow 3.2 beer would lose access to alcoholic beverages period if 3.2 beer was in fact done away with. I wouldn't have a problem with that but I am not sure it would pass and it would be a huge negative to people living in affected counties. Liquor statewide almost certainly wouldn't pass.

I see no reason to think that would happen. It seems that you're just looking for worst case scenarios.

[bchris02]

County option was approved in 1984. As of Jan, 1, 2014, 26 counties or 1/3 of the state is still dry. How long will it be before the dry counties are less than 5 or 0 ?

If Arkansas is any indication, most of the counties that are still dry pride themselves on the fact that they are dry and aren't looking to go wet anytime soon. I would imagine its the same in Oklahoma.

I see no reason to think that would happen. It seems that you're just looking for worst case scenarios.

In Oklahoma, 3.2 beer is a completely separate category under a completely different set of laws than liquor. Liquor in this state is legally anything other than 3.2 beer. There are three ways to go about updating the laws and each would have their pluses and minuses.

#1. Create a completely new set of laws for beer and wine replacing 3.2 beer. Anywhere currently selling 3.2 beer can sell strong beer and wine and that includes "dry" counties. Liquor stores would continue to operate as usual
#2. Abolish 3.2 beer but keep liquor under its current classification and regulations. Expand sales to grocery stores. The downsides to this is dry counties would lose alcoholic beverages entirely. Grocery stores could not sell chilled beverages and would have to stop selling at 9PM like liquor stores currently do
#3. Keep 3.2 beer as is and implement option #2 above by county as approved by vote. Maybe even further complicate it by going the way of Colorado and only allowing a few stores in the state's largest counties to sell liquor. For everyone else its business as usual.

I prefer #1 but it also would be least likely to get passed.

[jerrywall]

County option was approved in 1984. As of Jan, 1, 2014, 26 counties or 1/3 of the state is still dry. How long will it be before the dry counties are less than 5 or 0 ?

1/3 of Oklahoma is still dry?

*edited* Oh - for liquor by the drink.

[Plutonic Panda]

If Arkansas is any indication, most of the counties that are still dry pride themselves on the fact that they are dry and aren't looking to go wet anytime soon. I would imagine its the same in Oklahoma.



In Oklahoma, 3.2 beer is a completely separate category under a completely different set of laws than liquor. Liquor in this state is legally anything other than 3.2 beer. There are three ways to go about updating the laws and each would have their pluses and minuses.

#1. Create a completely new set of laws for beer and wine replacing 3.2 beer. Anywhere currently selling 3.2 beer can sell strong beer and wine and that includes "dry" counties. Liquor stores would continue to operate as usual
#2. Abolish 3.2 beer but keep liquor under its current classification and regulations. Expand sales to grocery stores. The downsides to this is dry counties would lose alcoholic beverages entirely. Grocery stores could not sell chilled beverages and would have to stop selling at 9PM like liquor stores currently do
#3. Keep 3.2 beer as is and implement option #2 above by county as approved by vote. Maybe even further complicate it by going the way of Colorado and only allowing a few stores in the state's largest counties to sell liquor. For everyone else its business as usual.

I prefer #1 but it also would be least likely to get passed.

Would number 1 also allow for grocery store sells?