Oklahoma liquor laws

[dcsooner]

I for one am very religious (not a member of the religious right though), do not drink myself (I have seen alcohol destroy too much to support it with my dollars) and think the world would be a lot better place without alcohol (in my dreams!), but I will vote for this measure in November because I support free market principles and more choice for the consumer in this particular case. I just don't see how this is a bad thing for the state. I don't buy the opposition's arguments.

+1

[bchris02]

Anyway, the religious right will have to turn out in big enough numbers in the two biggest counties, Oklahoma and Tulsa, to defeat alcohol law reform. They certainly have not been able to do that in the past. I think the religious right has been much better in making sure alcohol law reform questions would not be permitted a vote. So as I see it, the recent developments already represent a huge defeat for the religious right.

You are right. The religious right is way over-represented in the statehouse and it passed by a pretty healthy margin. That is likely a good sign.

There will probably be a healthy opposition to reform, but a lot of it will probably come from counties where liquor by the drink still isn't legal, and those counties aren't populous enough to decide it. There would have to be a large turnout in Oklahoma City and Tulsa against reform for it to fail. While the churches most likely to rally their flocks against it are loud (Fairview Baptist, Windsor Hills Baptist, Olivet Baptist, Southwest Baptist to name a few), most of those congregations are rather small.

[jerrywall]

Could someone smarter than I explain what sb424 means to me as a consumer of locally-crafted beer? What additional products can a brewery offer because of this bill they cannot currently offer?

Full strength beer direct to the consumer from local breweries

[barrettd]

Full strength beer direct to the consumer from local breweries

The way I read it, I would assume this includes all offerings, including kegs, growlers, etc. Is that correct? The bill reads to include consumers in the same group with distributors and package stores.

[mattjank]

From what I have seen so far, it seems like a lot of opposition to this is going to come from the religious right. There is going to be a lot of scare tactics out there about how this will increase underage drinking, increase drunk driving, and tear at the moral fabric of this state. My guess is the passage will depend on young people turning out to vote. Most younger people, even those that are churchgoing, don't see alcohol as the social taboo that the older generation (who grew up in a state where liquor by the drink was not legal) do.

Those are the same scare tactics that I've been hearing from liquor store owners all over social media. That and how much prices will increase and selection will go down.

But I'm all for it. Much better than the current situation.

[jerrywall]

Scare tactics it may be, but it doesn't make them less true. It's just a matter of net benefit. There will be increases in drinking and underage drinking, and it's a shame that this bill doesn't provide for more mental health and addiction treatment. I also believe removing competition in distribution and allowing exclusivity agreements will reduce selection and drive up prices. But it's better than nothing.

[warreng88]

Battle brewing: Groups prepare to serve up arguments for, against liquor changes

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record May 27, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – Two groups are organizing supporters so they can take separate sides on the state question regarding alcohol sales and distribution.

Retail Liquor Association of Oklahoma President Bryan Kerr said his organization is rallying groups to work together so people understand why they should vote against the measure outlined in Senate Joint Resolution 68. He estimated six groups will stand with his association, including a private-sector mental health organization.

The conglomerate could include religious groups, but he said he didn’t know if they would want to affiliate with an association that supports retail liquor stores.

Kerr has previously spoken out against SJR 68 because he said it will hurt small businesses. If approved during the general election in November, the measure would allow cold, high-point beer and wine sales in liquor, grocery and convenience stores.

He said the adjoining Senate Bill 383, which outlines the rules and regulations for alcohol sales, does even more damage to liquor stores because it does not limit the times that grocery and convenience stores could sell beer and wine. Liquor stores are closed on Sunday, but people with a retail beer or retail wine license – which convenience and grocery stores will have to acquire – can sell their products any day from 7 a.m. to 2 a.m.

The RLA said consumers showed in earlier polls that they want to be able to bring people under age 21 into liquor stores, which SB 383 does not address.

“We want to make sure people really understand what SJR 68 really will do,” Kerr said. “It has more bad things in it than good. We do need alcohol reform, but not that alcohol reform.”

Oklahomans For Consumer Freedom supports the proposed reforms. Spokesman Tyler Moore said the group and its partnering organizations will reconvene after Memorial Day to decide their next step. Entities supporting Oklahomans for Consumer Freedom include Americans for Prosperity, Beer Distributors of Oklahoma, Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, Oklahoma Beer Alliance, Oklahoma Grape Industry Council, Oklahoma Grocers Association, Oklahoma Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, Oklahoma Retail Merchants Association, Oklahomans for Modern Laws, State Chamber of Oklahoma and the Tulsa Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Moore said advertisements will start in midsummer. The group plans to make a lot of stops at community events.

“It’s important to us to engage and have real conversations,” he said. “We want to have a presence everywhere we can. We just want to make sure voters have the information to make an informed decision. We’re pretty confident that the public support is already there.”

[David]

Oklahoma Petroleum Marketers? That feels like a bit of an odd man out compared to the rest of that list.

[AP]

It's the association for Petroleum Marketers and Convenience stores. Those industries are very tightly connected.

[David]

Ahh, convenience stores, that makes sense.

[bille]

The way I read it, I would assume this includes all offerings, including kegs, growlers, etc. Is that correct? The bill reads to include consumers in the same group with distributors and package stores.

Haven't heard exactly what will be legal to sell but at this point I think most brewers are assuming pints for on-premise consumption and cans, bottles, growler/crowlers to go. I'd assume kegs are included too.

[Laramie]

If some Oklahoma Legislatures had their way we would be stuck in the days of the brown bag bottle (non liquor by the drink). Remember when you brought your own bottle (they tagged it with your name) and they (bars) served you mixed drinks and you took your bottle home with you...

...things were so screwed up, you didn't know who ordered a drink from your bottle or took a swig from it. And if you forgot to pick it up upon leaving--chances are you would never see that bottle again.

[bchris02]

If some Oklahoma Legislatures had their way we would be stuck in the days of the brown bag bottle (non liquor by the drink). Remember when you brought your own bottle (they tagged it with your name) and they (bars) served you mixed drinks and you took your bottle home with you...

...things were so screwed up, you didn't know who ordered a drink from your bottle or took a swig from it. And if you forgot to pick it up upon leaving--chances are you would never see that bottle again.

People who support the current laws for moral reasons are the same people who complain about liberal coastal states being "nanny states." Why do I need the state of Oklahoma protecting me from buying a cold real beer and buying it past 9PM? The liquor laws here are an example of the worst of nanny-statism.

While I don't agree with it, I can understand opposing this on the grounds of small liquor stores being hurt, but the moral objection is the height of hypocrisy.

[Laramie]

Good point!

[dankrutka]

There will be increases in drinking and underage drinking...

Honest question, is there evidence to support this? Does Oklahoma currently have lower rates of drinking and underrage drinking than other states?

[bchris02]

Honest question, is there evidence to support this? Does Oklahoma currently have lower rates of drinking and underrage drinking than other states?

Last study I saw, Oklahoma falls right in the middle of the pack in terms of drunk driving and alcoholism. If Oklahoma's strict laws really protected people from themselves, it should be near the bottom.

[Bunty]

People who support the current laws for moral reasons are the same people who complain about liberal coastal states being "nanny states." Why do I need the state of Oklahoma protecting me from buying a cold real beer and buying it past 9PM? The liquor laws here are an example of the worst of nanny-statism.

I still don't get why the nannies thought it became okay in recent years in Payne County to finally order a drink legally on the Lord's Day but isn't okay to do that on a holiday. I wonder if Jesus is mad?

[jerrywall]

Last study I saw, Oklahoma falls right in the middle of the pack in terms of drunk driving and alcoholism. If Oklahoma's strict laws really protected people from themselves, it should be near the bottom.

Our laws aren't particularly stricter than other states. We're sort of the middle of the road.

[baralheia]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought RLAO was on the SB383/SJR68 bandwagon? Wasn't this supposed to be the "great compromise" bill that brought everyone to the table, or am I not remembering correctly?

[bchris02]

Our laws aren't particularly stricter than other states. We're sort of the middle of the road.

In terms of actual impact on the consumer they are. Only Utah is stricter. Pennsylvania comes pretty close, surprisingly, they usually don't get mentioned though because they don't have 3.2 beer.

[bille]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought RLAO was on the SB383/SJR68 bandwagon? Wasn't this supposed to be the "great compromise" bill that brought everyone to the table, or am I not remembering correctly?

They were for SB383 last year when it was first introduced, back then it was only about refrigeration of high point beer in liquor stores. That support changed when they started getting the short end. Now they only support their own initial petition.

[bchris02]

They were for SB383 last year when it was first introduced, back then it was only about refrigeration of high point beer in liquor stores. That support changed when they started getting the short end. Now they only support their own initial petition.

Yeah, not everything that the RLAO wanted was included in SB383. One thing they wanted was grocery or convenience stores that sell full strength wine/beer to be required to be a certain distance from a liquor store to prevent competition. This provision would likely not have made a difference in the suburbs, but would have impacted downtown especially as it continues to grow and the grocers start to show interest in the market.

[bille]

Yeah, not everything that the RLAO wanted was included in SB383. One thing they wanted was grocery or convenience stores that sell full strength wine/beer to be required to be a certain distance from a liquor store to prevent competition. This provision would likely not have made a difference in the suburbs, but would have impacted downtown especially as it continues to grow and the grocers start to show interest in the market.

Right. Their initial, IP stated ~1/2 mile from existing retail stores, which would exclude a lot of existing grocers. Moreover it limited them to four total licenses. Seriously? No way even the smaller interests like reasors, quick trip, and oncue would go for that.

They made a significant change in their follow on IP but I'm thinking it's too late now that all of the bills have moved on. I'm nowhere near the person to ask though. I'm just excited SB424 passed and legit brewery taprooms will be here in just a couple of months. Exciting stuff!

[jerrywall]

Yeah, not everything that the RLAO wanted was included in SB383. One thing they wanted was grocery or convenience stores that sell full strength wine/beer to be required to be a certain distance from a liquor store to prevent competition. This provision would likely not have made a difference in the suburbs, but would have impacted downtown especially as it continues to grow and the grocers start to show interest in the market.

The other thing they supported is in the increased funding for mental health and substance abuse treatment.

Also, until 383 was expanded, in store tastings, and allowing minors in to stores with their parents was not part of the package, nor was addressing 16yo's selling full strength beer and wine. Neither was the ability for breweries to sell growlers and crowlers. So it's no surprising they had objections with the information being presented.

To me the final bills, between the two of them, came out being much closer to the RLAO proposal, with four exceptions.

1. No new (as far as I've seen) mental health and substance abuse funding.
2. No 500 ft distance minimum for new wine licenses.
3. No phased in limit for number of wine licenses.
4. The ability for manufacturers to buy into distributors and have exclusive distribution deals (cause we know that won't affect prices).

I could see the benefit of those, but am happy with progress no matter.

[David]

I'm not seeing an update on http://www.oklegislature.gov/ yet, but here's this:

https://twitter.com/LOCALOkie/status/739924519448510464

The Governor signed both SB383 and SB424 today. We are getting closer. #hopthevote @stephaniebice