Oklahoma liquor laws

[Urbanized]

^^
Eid knows more about the liquor business than you, me, or anyone who posts here (no offense to JerryWall or anyone else who owns/owned a liquor store). Sam has run a couple of the largest, most successful liquor stores in the metro for decades.

Regardless of what he said in that interview, I'm sure he opposes this for purely business reasons. He probably doesn't want to have to buy coolers, and/or probably doesn't want to compete with grocery and C-stores if the whole bundle of changes take place. I'm sure he's just rationalizing in that story to protect the status quo.

[Dustin]

^^
Eid knows more about the liquor business than you, me, or anyone who posts here (no offense to JerryWall or anyone else who owns/owned a liquor store). Sam has run a couple of the largest, most successful liquor stores in the metro for decades.

Regardless of what he said in that interview, I'm sure he opposes this for purely business reasons. He probably doesn't want to have to buy coolers, and/or probably doesn't want to compete with grocery and C-stores if the whole bundle of changes take place. I'm sure he's just rationalizing in that story to protect the status quo.

Of course, he's just trying to protect his business. I totally understand that, but he makes it sound like people are going to buy a refrigerated six-pack and chug it in the parking lot. I'm sure there are some sad people that do this, but the majority wouldn't and don't.

[Bunty]

Of course, he's just trying to protect his business. I totally understand that, but he makes it sound like people are going to buy a refrigerated six-pack and chug it in the parking lot. I'm sure there are some sad people that do this, but the majority wouldn't and don't.

Then I'll never understand how selling chilled beer in grocery and convenience stores was ever allowed, unless 3.2% beer was classified as a non-intoxicating beverage at the time. If true, another indication how crazy Oklahoma alcohol laws can be.

[BDP]

Then I'll never understand how selling chilled beer in grocery and convenience stores was ever allowed, unless 3.2% beer was classified as a non-intoxicating beverage at the time. If true, another indication how crazy Oklahoma alcohol laws can be.

It's my understanding that 3.2 was classified as non-intoxicating to circumvent prohibition.

If anyone wants to drink cold beer in their car or in the parking lot, 3.2 beer is already available for that activity and it's more readily available and accessible than higher point beers, so using that to keep cold beer out of liquor stores is pretty silly.

If buying the refrigerators is the problem, I'd gladly finance any store that doesn't have the resources for it, as I'd be pretty confident the increase in sales will pay it off very quickly with a nice return.

I'm pretty sure the resistance from stores and from Central is just based on fear that cold beer in liquor stores is a stepping stone to high point beer and wine in grocery stores. Theses businesses have depended on the state's regulation of competition in their industry for a long time. Any amount of change or ease of regulations will cause concern and anxiety, even if some of the change has a great chance of helping them in the near future.

And, as Jerrywall pointed out, I am also pretty sure that many breweries and wineries avoid the state not just because of refrigeration laws, but because of our distribution regulations.

[bchris02]

It's my understanding that 3.2 was classified as non-intoxicating to circumvent prohibition.

If anyone wants to drink cold beer in their car or in the parking lot, 3.2 beer is already available for that activity and it's more readily available and accessible than higher point beers, so using that to keep cold beer out of liquor stores is pretty silly.

Exactly. The difference between 3.2 beer and full-strength beer has a lot more to do with taste than alcohol content anyways.

[bille]

It's my understanding that 3.2 was classified as non-intoxicating to circumvent prohibition.

Exactly. The Cullen Harrison act redefined beer up to 3.2abw as "non-intoxicating" as a stopgap until the 21st amendment could be ratified. The only thing I can find as to why they went with 3.2 is that many of the light lagers selling prior to prohibition were around that percentage.

Exactly. The difference between 3.2 beer and full-strength beer has a lot more to do with taste than alcohol content anyways.

Process, ingredients, and style can certainly trick a palate though. I'd bet most wouldn't be able to distinguish the difference between low point and full strength, mainly because the macro swill many people drink and refer to as beer is usually just a percentage or less difference. Which brings me to the issue of defining "non-intoxicating" (now called low point). The purpose of establishing the definition and the number was temporary and has long outlived it's use and it's time that we do away with it.

[bchris02]

Process, ingredients, and style can certainly trick a palate though. I'd bet most wouldn't be able to distinguish the difference between low point and full strength, mainly because the macro swill many people drink asked refer to as beer is usually just a percentage or less difference. Which brings me to the issue of defining "non-intoxicating" (now called low point). The purpose of establishing the definition and the number was temporary and has long outlived it's use and it's time that we do away with it.

It depends on the beer. I can't tell a difference between 3.2 Bud Light and real Bud Light. Same with Coors and Miller. Its a little easier to distinguish full-strength Budweiser from 3.2 Budweiser. The 3.2 versions of brews like Stella Artois, Shiner, PBR, Killians Irish Red, etc are so watered down they are undrinkable.

If one has to drink 3.2 beer the new COOP beers are pretty decent.