Oklahoma liquor laws

[jerrywall]

That's good. I really hope they put some thought into expanded availability hours.

[TheTravellers]

Which part?

The part I quoted.

[jerrywall]

The part I quoted.

The part about underage drinking? Or selling to someone who's down? Or the lawsuits? Or the loss of a liquor license? Or the totality. Not sure which 'It' you're asking about.

[TheTravellers]

The part about underage drinking? Or selling to someone who's down? Or the lawsuits? Or the loss of a liquor license? Or the totality. Not sure which 'It' you're asking about.

The part which I quoted, which was all of it. If I only wanted an answer to one of those, I would've only quoted the part I wanted an answer to. Basically - how often do liquor stores sell to someone they shouldn't and get sued and/or lose their license?

[jerrywall]

The part which I quoted, which was all of it. If I only wanted an answer to one of those, I would've only quoted the part I wanted an answer to. Basically - how often do liquor stores sell to someone they shouldn't and get sued and/or lose their license?

I don't have numbers. I do know Oklahoma has a severe underage drinking problem and I'm pretty sure they're not brewing it themselves. You can look at the able site for their hearings. It happens regularly. Stores and bars lose licenses. There have been lawsuits against both bars and liquor stores for selling to someone who's already drunk. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I guess maybe you question the fact that someone with a personal business stake would be more interested in not losing their business than an 18 yo at WalMart, or that underage drinkers try to buy alcohol, or just if enforcement happens?

[jerrywall]

I can say this... when we had our liquor store... we were hit with an ABLE sting about twice a year. We were VERY proactive about carding, because we knew what failing to do so would cost us ($2000, a felony, and potential loss of license). It's impossible to cite how this increased responsibility prevented underage drinking, since it's like proving a negative, but it's not a great leap of logic to assume it does.

[TheTravellers]

I don't have numbers. I do know Oklahoma has a severe underage drinking problem and I'm pretty sure they're not brewing it themselves. You can look at the able site for their hearings. It happens regularly. Stores and bars lose licenses. There have been lawsuits against both bars and liquor stores for selling to someone who's already drunk. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I guess maybe you question the fact that someone with a personal business stake would be more interested in not losing their business than an 18 yo at WalMart, or that underage drinkers try to buy alcohol, or just if enforcement happens?

Like I said in my original post, just curious. Wanted to know if it the enforcement happened often enough to expose a serious problem at many stores that sold to the drunk or underage or if it was just a few here and there. Yes, I know underage drinking is a big thing here, didn't know if enforcement actually did any good at reducing the numbers or not... Basically wondering if enforcement happened often enough to make owners do what they should or if it was a paper tiger. Thanks for the reply.

[jerrywall]

I do know I saw a study that showed the majority of underage drinking in Oklahoma was 3.2 beer, so that would seem to imply that underage drinkers go for the easiest sources. I'll see if I can find it.

[TheTravellers]

I do know I saw a study that showed the majority of underage drinking in Oklahoma was 3.2 beer, so that would seem to imply that underage drinkers go for the easiest sources. I'll see if I can find it.

Makes sense, available at hundreds more places than there are liquor stores and the clerks there probably give less of a sh*t than the liquor store clerks/owners... I believe it, you don't have to go on a quest for the info.

[Jersey Boss]

I do know I saw a study that showed the majority of underage drinking in Oklahoma was 3.2 beer, so that would seem to imply that underage drinkers go for the easiest sources. I'll see if I can find it.

Easiest as well as most plentiful.

[David]

Here's an interesting write-up about this, which among other things I did not know specifies that SB 383 is the companion legislation I heard about yesterday in the Rules Committee recording.

The Thirsty Beagle: Alcohol reform rhetoric continues to heat up

It also has this interesting detail:

Much to my surprise, state Sen. Stephanie Bice jumped into the conversation. Bice, a co-author of SJR 68 and the primary author of the all-important SB 383, pointed out something that the RLAO has neglected to mention. Apparently, in negotiations over the language of SJR 68, the RLAO was strictly opposed to language that allowed liquor store owners to hold more than one liquor license.

"I WANTED liquor store owners to be able to own more than one license," Bice wrote in one comment. "But RLAO demanded I not allow it because they didn't want to have specks or total wine come into OK."

[Urbanized]

I think it has become pretty obvious exactly who has been responsible for our antiquated laws here, and it (surprisingly/unsurprisingly) has almost nothing to do with religion or public safety. Just like everything else, it's all about money. That, and keeping the status quo. Which again is about money.

[SouthsideSooner]

I think it has become pretty obvious exactly who has been responsible for our antiquated laws here, and it (surprisingly/unsurprisingly) has almost nothing to do with religion or public safety. Just like everything else, it's all about money. That, and keeping the status quo. Which again is about money.

...and changing the laws, which is all about the money...

From that same article...

"On the SJR 68 side, let's be real: This measure is primarily about big business. I'm not saying that to be controversial. I've stated for more than a year now -- even back to when I was blogging at The Oklahoman -- that if we did get alcohol law reform, it would be driven by whoever had the most money. Call me cynical if you want. At that time, I thought it would be driven by Anheuser-Busch and the Beer Distributors of Oklahoma. I hadn't anticipated the role Walmart would play, but they're arguably the most influential player involved at the moment, at least so far as SJR 68 is concerned."

[Bunty]

I think it has become pretty obvious exactly who has been responsible for our antiquated laws here, and it (surprisingly/unsurprisingly) has almost nothing to do with religion or public safety. Just like everything else, it's all about money. That, and keeping the status quo. Which again is about money.

Then why has it taken Wal-Mart so long to get involved in the alcohol law reform process, other than they were still concentrating in trying to dominate the grocery business during the 1990s and a little later.

[dankrutka]

I think it has become pretty obvious exactly who has been responsible for our antiquated laws here, and it (surprisingly/unsurprisingly) has almost nothing to do with religion or public safety. Just like everything else, it's all about money. That, and keeping the status quo. Which again is about money.

Without going back through this entire thread or reading the numerous competing articles, could you (or someone) add names to the pronouns?

[bille]

Then why has it taken Wal-Mart so long to get involved in the alcohol law reform process, other than they were still concentrating in trying to dominate the grocery business during the 1990s and a little later.

That's a great question. I think Wal-Mart has been wise in standing on the sidelines for this battle waiting for the momentum to get to the point where it was right for them to jump in and start steering the bus.

[Bunty]

That's a great question. I think Wal-Mart has been wise in standing on the sidelines for this battle waiting for the momentum to get to the point where it was right for them to jump in and start steering the bus.

Probably throwing in groceries was part of Wal-Mart's strategy to finally get rid of T. G. & Y, Gibson's, K-Mart and others, thereby wiping out competition in the future for sales of alcohol.

[kevinpate]

Why would a large corporation be focused on creating numerous new sales outlets across the state rather than jump feet first into the waters where others were cutting each other's lines at every opportunity?

Why, to build the most fish markets before they went into the fish harvesting business of course.

Nicely played all in all.

[bchris02]

Oklahoma alcohol bill would allow for dry counties, require store clerks to be 18 for beer sales | News OK

It looks like the bill will allow for dry counties. With 3.2 beer out of the picture, dry will mean dry, much like it does in Texas or Arkansas. Thoughts on this? I am guessing this is to help gain favor with those who may oppose modernization on religious grounds.

[jerrywall]

I have been concerned with beer bars, festivals, and other such events or venues which rely on 3.2 beer. I'm also worried that Sunday beer sales could go away. None of this has been addressed. I'm less concerned about dry counties. I don't see any going that direction.

[bchris02]

I have been concerned with beer bars, festivals, and other such events or venues which rely on 3.2 beer. I'm also worried that Sunday beer sales could go away. None of this has been addressed. I'm less concerned about dry counties. I don't see any going that direction.

Everything I understand is that single-strength beer will be able to be sold during the same hours current 3.2 beer can be sold. However, events that rely on 3.2 beer are a concern.

[TheTravellers]

Everything I understand is that single-strength beer will be able to be sold during the same hours current 3.2 beer can be sold. However, events that rely on 3.2 beer are a concern.

Eh, they'll have to change their business model, not sell beer, or not have the event if it depends that heavily on that horrible stuff, I'm not too concerned, but then I probably am not their target customer.

[TheTravellers]

So if I wanted to contact my rep/senator about supporting one or more bills, I'm assuming it would be SJR 68 and SB 383? From what I've read, neither are great, but they're about as good as we can hope for right now, is that correct?

[onthestrip]

Is there not enough concern of this concentrating even more power to the 2 big wholesalers to push back on that? Or are we all just too happy to see more consumer freedom that we will ignore that and the threat of higher prices due to lack of competition between wholesalers?

Szyndrowski: Unfairly picking winners and losers | The Journal Record

[jerrywall]

Clock is ticking on bill to revise Oklahoma alcohol laws | News OK