Oklahoma liquor laws

[jerrywall]

I don't really care if the 3.2 beer goes away and strong beer & wine were made available at gas stations and grocery stores. In fact, if it ran my favorite liquor stores out of business I'd be against it, because I like getting solid, educated wine advice and having hundreds of beers to choose from rather than dozens.

What I WOULD like to see changed is allowing the refrigeration of strong beer in liquor stores. Not because I want it cold immediately - I rarely consume beer within an hour or two of buying anyway - but because it would open the door to some breweries who require refrigeration at all stages of the distribution process. I'd rather have more options, even if it means going out of my way or planning ahead.

The refrigeration thing will happen. I don't really have a doubt about that. There's some serious momentum there. It may be a few years, but I do believe it will happen eventually.

[gopokes88]

The refrigeration thing will happen. I don't really have a doubt about that. There's some serious momentum there. It may be a few years, but I do believe it will happen eventually.

No it's not. Budweiser is going to fight it and win. Small liquor stores will fight as well.

The system Oklahoma setup makes it so incredibly difficult to change because of the # of steps in the process to change. Things that aren't left up to ABLE's discretion have to be passed on a statewide ballot. To get on the ballot there's a huge # of signatures that need to be collected and turned in. Then the measure has to actually pass on the vote. What's $20,000,000 to Budweiser's super-pac with some made up statistics about how it'll increase DUI's? Oh and it will need to be on a presidential election year, it'll get crushed on a midterm. It's probably already too late for 2016 unless a group mobilizes soon. The system just gives opponents too many opportunities to kill it or defeat it.

[jerrywall]

I always laugh when people talk about some all powerful liquor lobby, whether it's AB, or the retailers, or whatever. Things just aren't that organized, and AB doesn't care enough about it to put money/effort into fighting refrigeration in the only state that bans it. They moving pretty heavily into liquor stores anyways, and I think part of the reason is they're anticipating refrigeration.

There was a pretty solid effort a few years ago, and the only reason it didn't happen is there was a decision to focus on other issues. There has been changes to the liquor laws on almost an annual basis over the past decade. Things like sales on election days, etc. Some are easier than others, but these changes do happen.

The biggest bar to the process isn't some PAC, or some organized opposition, or the Naifeh's, or anything else. It's inertia. Yeah, the process is difficult, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

[jerrywall]

The other two things I expect to see soon on ballots (in the next couple of election cycles) would be in-store tastings, and minors in liquor stores (parents able to bring small children in with them). There is retailer and some legislative support for both of those issues.

[SouthsideSooner]

No it's not. Budweiser is going to fight it and win. Small liquor stores will fight as well.

The system Oklahoma setup makes it so incredibly difficult to change because of the # of steps in the process to change. Things that aren't left up to ABLE's discretion have to be passed on a statewide ballot. To get on the ballot there's a huge # of signatures that need to be collected and turned in. Then the measure has to actually pass on the vote. What's $20,000,000 to Budweiser's super-pac with some made up statistics about how it'll increase DUI's? Oh and it will need to be on a presidential election year, it'll get crushed on a midterm. It's probably already too late for 2016 unless a group mobilizes soon. The system just gives opponents too many opportunities to kill it or defeat it.

This is incorrect. To get refrigeration In liquor stores would mean just one statute changed in the legislature. Only the laws that would require a constitutional change would require a statewide vote.

Some laws are easier to change than others and refrigeration would be one of the easier ones but the convenience stores will fight it with all the political clout they can muster.

[bchris02]

This is incorrect. To get refrigeration In liquor stores would mean just one statute changed in the legislature. Only the laws that would require a constitutional change would require a statewide vote.

If its this easy, why is nobody in the legislature willing to propose it? In my opinion it's not because of some mythical convenience store lobby or challenge from AB.

[onthestrip]

Just a few changes are needed IMO.

1. Allow refrigerated high point beer in liquor and grocery stores 7 days a week.
2. Allow wine sales in grocery stores 7 days a week.
3. Allow liquor stores to sell other items such as cigarettes, mixers, ice, etc so they can compensate against grocery stores selling wine and high point beer.

That about covers my main issues with our current laws. It allows more consumer options and it throws a bone to liquor stores by allowing them to sell non-liquor things. If we wanted to go further, Id say breweries should have more freedom for samples or sales and that liquor stores can open Sundays. But those arent the most pressing issues.

[onthestrip]

If its this easy, why is nobody in the legislature willing to propose it? In my opinion it's not because of some mythical convenience store lobby or challenge from AB.

I get the feeling in previous news stories that liquor stores arent all for this due to the additional costs they would incur. There is a liquor store lobby (not sure how well heeled they are) and they really arent for things that can increase costs or competition. And everything we all want will do that to them.

[BDP]

Liquor stores only states -
Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Wyoming

So a few more than 5. I think you're right about the refrigeration ban though.

You're right. There's five with 3.2 laws, and the others on your list restrict everything to liquor stores. What's funny is that I'd actually be fine with the latter, as long as it could be refrigerated.

What I WOULD like to see changed is allowing the refrigeration of strong beer in liquor stores. Not because I want it cold immediately - I rarely consume beer within an hour or two of buying anyway - but because it would open the door to some breweries who require refrigeration at all stages of the distribution process.

And there's a reason for that.

I don't think it's about immediacy either. The reality is that if I wanted to have a cold beer tonight during the national championship game, I should have thought about that on Saturday. (or go buy a bag of ice, a cooler, and some salt after I go to the liquor store.)

[jerrywall]

I get the feeling in previous news stories that liquor stores arent all for this due to the additional costs they would incur. There is a liquor store lobby (not sure how well heeled they are) and they really arent for things that can increase costs or competition. And everything we all want will do that to them.

The liquor store lobby is one of the groups pushing for refrigeration (well, at least the official retail liquor association) so I don't think you're on track here. I think the limitation is two fold: 1, getting a legislator to expend their capital/effort in presenting a bill and 2, priorities. There are multiple laws/changes the retail industry is trying to get through, and refrigeration is a few down the list.

[bchris02]

I concur that I don't believe the liquor lobby is against refrigeration but rather for it. There may be small liquor stores that don't want to take on the costs of refrigeration system, but the larger ones, which are what matters when it comes to any kind of lobby if it does exist, would be for it.

The reason, in my opinion, that no legislator wants to propose refrigeration is the fact it would be very unpopular with religious conservatives and MADD groups.

[gopokes88]

I always laugh when people talk about some all powerful liquor lobby, whether it's AB, or the retailers, or whatever. Things just aren't that organized, and AB doesn't care enough about it to put money/effort into fighting refrigeration in the only state that bans it. They moving pretty heavily into liquor stores anyways, and I think part of the reason is they're anticipating refrigeration.

There was a pretty solid effort a few years ago, and the only reason it didn't happen is there was a decision to focus on other issues. There has been changes to the liquor laws on almost an annual basis over the past decade. Things like sales on election days, etc. Some are easier than others, but these changes do happen.

The biggest bar to the process isn't some PAC, or some organized opposition, or the Naifeh's, or anything else. It's inertia. Yeah, the process is difficult, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

I worked in the industry for 3 years. Yes there is and yes they will fight it. It may not have a face or appear organized, but it is there. That's why this thread is 5 years old and we are no closer to any substantial change. They'll be quiet about it, but behind the scenes any change both the Naifeh family and AB take long looks at to ensure it does not adversely affect them.

Here's the proof.



In a ruling handed down in June, the state Supreme Court rejected a formal protest against the plan by a coalition of organizations that attacked the measure on constitutional grounds and expressed concern that increasing the number of retail alcohol outlets will increase the opportunity for abuse.

Oklahoma grocery store wine proposal being renewed | WashingtonExaminer.com

Who do you think this is? Who do you think paid the legal bills?

What if I told you the only reason it was brought up for a Supreme Court challenge was to throw a wrench into the process to kill Oklahomans for Modern Laws momentum and watch the whole thing die? They knew they weren't going to win it they just wanted to throw rocks at it. It worked.

Guess what wasn't on the November 2014 ballots? Wine in grocery.

There's a bunch more legal challenges they can hurl at it too.
At Wal Mart how do you ensure a minor who works at the store doesn't have access to the wine?
Liquor stores in the state have to be owned by sole props and 1 license per person, but now corporations are allowed to have a license, and multiple ones at that? So the people who have been following the rules for 50+ years owning one store as a sole prop are suddenly at a massive disadvantage, that'll be in court for years.

It is far more complex then people on here realize. There are a lot of people with very deep deep pocket books very intent on maintaining the basic pillars to the structure. 4 tier, no wine in grocery, high point/low point separation.

[ctchandler]

Liquor stores only states -
Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Wyoming

So a few more than 5. I think you're right about the refrigeration ban though.

Jerrywall,
Actually, in Pennsylvania you can buy six packs of beer (to go) at a bar. If you wan't a case, you have to go to a liquor store. I was there about five years ago and that's how it was then.
C. T.

[bluedogok]

There's a bunch more legal challenges they can hurl at it too.
At Wal Mart how do you ensure a minor who works at the store doesn't have access to the wine?
Liquor stores in the state have to be owned by sole props and 1 license per person, but now corporations are allowed to have a license, and multiple ones at that? So the people who have been following the rules for 50+ years owning one store as a sole prop are suddenly at a massive disadvantage, that'll be in court for years.

There is nothing requiring Oklahoma to change their ownership structure. In Colorado any business entity is limited to one liquor license, they do not have the 10 year continuous residency requirement like Oklahoma. Trader Joe's (8th & Colorado), Whole Foods (Boulder), King Soopers (Glendale) and other stores have one location with wine, high point beer or liquor. Costco and Sam's Club have separate locations leased out to individual liquor license holders, all they sell in the store proper is 3.2 beer/malt beverage just like in the rest of the grocery stores. Not saying that is the optimal situation but Colorado has their ownership structure for pretty much the same reasons as Oklahoma.

Texas has a limitation of 5 liquor licenses per person, how Spec's has built their chain is Texas allows family members (including by marriage) pooling of licenses under a marketing umbrella. The stores in Central Texas are licensed to a married couple of which one is a family member of the Spec's family in Houston. The Costco and Sam's have beer and wine in the store but all liquor is sold through attached, leased spaces in the building with no direct connection to the stores just like here in Colorado.

Even "solid blue and liberal" Massachusetts still had all alcohol sold under the package store concept in Boston the last time that I was there. There was a WF right behind our hotel by Mass General and they had no beer or wine in the store.

[SouthsideSooner]

If its this easy, why is nobody in the legislature willing to propose it? In my opinion it's not because of some mythical convenience store lobby or challenge from AB.

Because the political will isn't there to get it done. There's not enough of a willingness to push for it from those who would benefit to get it past the opposition.

Big liquor stores would love it but don't have much political clout and A-B and the liquor distributors are only luke warm to it.

I've got a close friend who's a former director of operations for Circle K in Oklahoma and north Texas and we've had several conversations about this. Beer sales make up a very large percentage of their sales. I've heard it many times and to loosely quote "Why would people buy 3.2 when you can get strong beer cold in liquor stores. We'd fight it to the death."

You may think they're just "mythical" but with 7-11, QT, On-Cue and Circle K leading the way, You have a much more determined opposition than you have any political support to ever even get it out of committee for a vote.

[bille]

Just a few changes are needed IMO.

1. Allow refrigerated high point beer in liquor and grocery stores 7 days a week.
2. Allow wine sales in grocery stores 7 days a week.
3. Allow liquor stores to sell other items such as cigarettes, mixers, ice, etc so they can compensate against grocery stores selling wine and high point beer.

That about covers my main issues with our current laws. It allows more consumer options and it throws a bone to liquor stores by allowing them to sell non-liquor things. If we wanted to go further, Id say breweries should have more freedom for samples or sales and that liquor stores can open Sundays. But those arent the most pressing issues.

One more that's very important and that's for there to be parity between wine and beer. Look at the restrictions on our state's breweries versus the wineries, it's laughable at best. Worse is pro-wine laws pass no problem yet to gain an inch for the breweries takes an enormous effort. This change, that I believe will happen sooner rather than later will be huge for our craft breweries.

On premise brewing in excess of 4% would also be huge. People have no idea how restricted our brewpubs are having to brew beers with a 4% cap. When that changes I predict a lot of brewpubs opening OR established restaurants adding in equipment to brew their own beer.

I know I've brought them up before but I haven't heard any mention of them in the past several pages. If you care (and you should!) there's a grassroots effort in place. LOCAL - Free The Taps Go join. Come out to a meeting and support the effort, we need all the help we can get!

[Plutonic Panda]

Liquor stores only states -
Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Wyoming

So a few more than 5. I think you're right about the refrigeration ban though.

So Oklahoma among 10 other states in a group of 50. That helps. :P

[jerrywall]

So Oklahoma among 10 other states in a group of 50. That helps. :P

In the interest of accuracy, yes. And the fact that we're part of 20%, yes again. People regularly act like we're some soft of outlier when it comes to liquor laws. It's not quite like the tattoo laws, where our closes comparison was Iran.

[bchris02]

In the interest of accuracy, yes. And the fact that we're part of 20%, yes again. People regularly act like we're some soft of outlier when it comes to liquor laws. It's not quite like the tattoo laws, where our closes comparison was Iran.

The issue I have is how Oklahoma has among the most restrictive laws in the nation in every area of life. If there is a ridiculous blue law on the books anywhere, Oklahoma is one of the few states that has it. It's not like Colorado which has backwards liquor laws (though not as restrictive as Oklahoma) but they also have legal pot. Kansas has restrictive laws for grocery and convenience stores but they have Sunday sales and chilled beer/wine in liquor stores. It's not like Arkansas which has dry counties but also allows certain bars/clubs to stay open until 5AM as well as full strength beer/wine in grocery stores. For a party that is supposed to be about small government, Oklahoma Republicans are sure obsessed with being the moral police and using the full weight of the state to do it.

[warreng88]

I think the biggest problem with this discussion is that people think people are going to be getting drunker faster. It's like the tattoo discussion ten years ago and no thinks anything about it now. Once it gets passed (cold high point beer and wine in grocery stores and refridgeration in liquor stores), the only time it will come up is if someone pushes to get liquor sold in grocery stores or pushes the limit a little further. This will just bring us up to par so people don't have to travel to Texas to buy 6 point (which some people still do, believe it or not) and keeps that money in Oklahoma.

[bchris02]

If restrictive laws were the answer, Oklahoma should have the lowest DUI rate in the nation but it doesn't. I always bring that up every time I talk with a conservative to who defends the current system on the basis of preventing DUIs. People who are ignorant actually drink more, thinking two beers in Oklahoma is equal to a single beer in other states.

[Bunty]

Well, it's time then. I think only 5 states restrict sales of beverages with over 3.2% ABV to licensed liquor stores and I believe Oklahoma is the only state that requires they be sold at room temperature.

What's the point in requiring them to be sold at room temperature? Is it so buyers will be less tempted to drink from them in their cars on a hot summer day?

[Bunty]

The issue I have is how Oklahoma has among the most restrictive laws in the nation in every area of life. If there is a ridiculous blue law on the books anywhere, Oklahoma is one of the few states that has it. It's not like Colorado which has backwards liquor laws (though not as restrictive as Oklahoma) but they also have legal pot. Kansas has restrictive laws for grocery and convenience stores but they have Sunday sales and chilled beer/wine in liquor stores. It's not like Arkansas which has dry counties but also allows certain bars/clubs to stay open until 5AM as well as full strength beer/wine in grocery stores. For a party that is supposed to be about small government, Oklahoma Republicans are sure obsessed with being the moral police and using the full weight of the state to do it.

As I have brought up before, I think the best way to explain why Oklahoma is the way it is goes back to its early stages of settlement. The type of people it largely attracted were probably the Christian right of that era. They were fed up from trying to live with the unrestricted laws on alcohol in some of the neighboring states, especially Missouri. My grandparents, coming from Missouri, settled in rural Oklahoma to farm around the start of statehood in 1907. They never drank and regularly went to church. That was also when alcohol was prohibited in Oklahoma as a state, which surely further attracted the Christian right. Now that it's 2015, I wouldn't be surprised if more people than ever want to move away from Oklahoma, due to the stubbornly archaic way it is. But then I bet if the Oklahoma Christian right people of 1907 were to see what Okalhoma has become today, they would be mighty displeased about it.

[Jersey Boss]

As I have brought up before, I think the best way to explain why Oklahoma is the way it is goes back to its early stages of settlement. The type of people it largely attracted were probably the Christian right of that era. They were fed up from trying to live with the unrestricted laws on alcohol in some of the neighboring states, especially Missouri. My grandparents, coming from Missouri, settled in rural Oklahoma to farm around the start of statehood in 1907. They never drank and regularly went to church. That was also when alcohol was prohibited in Oklahoma as a state, which surely further attracted the Christian right. Now that it's 2015, I wouldn't be surprised if more people than ever want to move away from Oklahoma, due to the stubbornly archaic way it is. But then I bet if the Oklahoma Christian right people of 1907 were to see what Okalhoma has become today, they would be mighty displeased about it.

Well, Massachusetts was settled by Puritans, so I don't hold much stock in the look who came here first theory.

[bchris02]

Well, Massachusetts was settled by Puritans, so I don't hold much stock in the look who came here first theory.

Good point. The big difference I would say is that Massachussetts' Puritan history predates Oklahoma's statehood by centuries. The one state that can be compared to Oklahoma is Utah with it's Mormon heritage. In fact Utah is probably the only other state that can come close to matching Oklahoma when it comes to archaic, restrictive laws designed to enforce the moral standard of the church.