Oklahoma liquor laws

[jerrywall]

Ugh, more nonsense from anti-consumer choice legislators. This is about a bill to allow Oklahoma wineries ship to wine to people who have visited the winery. Read this joke of an argument:

Ritze told Kirby he’s worried minors might get their hands on wine sent to the wrong house.
"I get mail from people all the time that are not — to my address, to my — someone I don't even know who lives in the area," Ritze said.
"Do you open that mail that comes to you on a wrong address? If you get mail and it comes to you, that's a federal offense," Kirby said. "If my mail accidentally comes to your address, it has my name on it and you open it, that's a federal offense."
Russ said there’s no guarantee shipments would reach someone of legal drinking age.
"UPS is not required to check that," Russ said. "There's no way to guarantee that this could be a 21-year-old person."
UPS and Fed Ex’s policies require a signature from someone 21 or older for wine shipments. UPS leaves checking ID to the driver’s discretion. Fed Ex requires government-issued photo ID.

Thats right, they are worried that the few people who visit wineries and order wine to be delivered to their house is going to end up in minors hands and will do unthinkable things with it!!! Ahhh, could you imagine what might happen?!
Id be interested to know if Central Liquor has ever donated to Ritze and Russ.

Wine Shipment Vote Unlikely This Year | Public Radio Tulsa

That's all right. We're evidently supposed to oppose this anyways because it only benefits wineries, and the beer brewers are left out.

[jerrywall]

It's worth mentioning that it's already legal for Oklahomans to go to other states and order wine and have it shipped here. This would just allow Oklahoma wineries to compete.

[Bunty]

How do kids survive wine being left off at wrong addresses in other states?

[Bunty]

I saw an article in the gazette, talking about the possibility of coolers in liquor stores. The Gazette is not exactly a bastion of Conservative thought, and this is what they said about the debate;

Conventional wisdom has ALWAYS been that the biggest opponent to any change in the state's liquor laws is the owner's of Byron's. What does anyone else think about that?

I thought Senate Bill 383 would give liquor stores the option, not the requirement to sell chilled strong beer. Or do they just don't want the bother and expense of adding something new in order to keep up with the competition who did.

[bille]

It's worth mentioning that it's already legal for Oklahomans to go to other states and order wine and have it shipped here. This would just allow Oklahoma wineries to compete.

Since when? I thought it was illegal to ship any kind of booze into OK. I remember a bill last year (that I thought passed) that allowed OK wineries to ship to customers within OK but that's it.

And yes, as you surely know, I am one of those that's against them continuing passing legislation that's pro wine and further distances the wineries abilities to prosper while leaving out breweries. Worse, when this stuff does pass and the same arguments are made in the name of beer later on its met with fierce opposition. So aggravating.

[jerrywall]

Its legal to ship wine to Oklahomans if you order it in person from the winery. This bill only equalized it to allow Oklahoma wineries to have the same benefits as out of state wineries.

[bchris02]

Anytime you want to restrict freedom, simply say "it's for the kids" and the sheeple will fall in line.

[bluedogok]

Ugh, more nonsense from anti-consumer choice legislators. This is about a bill to allow Oklahoma wineries ship to wine to people who have visited the winery. Read this joke of an argument:

Ritze told Kirby he’s worried minors might get their hands on wine sent to the wrong house.
"I get mail from people all the time that are not — to my address, to my — someone I don't even know who lives in the area," Ritze said.
"Do you open that mail that comes to you on a wrong address? If you get mail and it comes to you, that's a federal offense," Kirby said. "If my mail accidentally comes to your address, it has my name on it and you open it, that's a federal offense."
Russ said there’s no guarantee shipments would reach someone of legal drinking age.
"UPS is not required to check that," Russ said. "There's no way to guarantee that this could be a 21-year-old person."
UPS and Fed Ex’s policies require a signature from someone 21 or older for wine shipments. UPS leaves checking ID to the driver’s discretion. Fed Ex requires government-issued photo ID.

Thats right, they are worried that the few people who visit wineries and order wine to be delivered to their house is going to end up in minors hands and will do unthinkable things with it!!! Ahhh, could you imagine what might happen?!
Id be interested to know if Central Liquor has ever donated to Ritze and Russ.

Wine Shipment Vote Unlikely This Year | Public Radio Tulsa

That is an absolute crock of you know what by that legislator Every wine shipment that I have ever mail ordered or my bosses in Austin had sent to the office (which was a lot as both bosses were wine aficionados) had to be signed for and I had to show ID (I was closest to the door). If it was delivered to the house they never left it, I had to go to the FedEx office to pick it up the first time and after that I had it sent to the office. There is a big difference to FedEx/UPS (and DHL when they were still doing end point delivery) and the winery/distillery because of liability that I have never seen a delivery company not enforce it. It is not treated like "regular mail" by those carriers.

[onthestrip]

This is a Journal Record article on a wine shipments by state wineries law. There is some proof here on how the state's wholesalers exert their influence.
“(The bill) has nothing to do with purchasing online,” Kirby said. “There’s some miscommunication that this will cause Internet purchasing. It’s strictly on-site and in person. It’s also not so much about out-of-state (shipments). It’s more about growing the in-state wine business.”
The Oklahoma Grape Industry Council is not supporting the bill because of a previous agreement with wholesalers in the state. In 2014, the OGIC tried to run a bill similar to Kirby’s existing version. The council asked for the bill to be withdrawn in lieu of an interim study that determined ways that it and wholesalers could advance the state’s wine industry. One method involves two bills in this year’s session, Senate Bill 256 and Senate Bill 420. The other method is working with wholesalers on a $49,500 grant, which will be used for a marketing campaign.

Sipping away: Weather deters wine measure as author makes changes | The Journal Record

[bille]

SB424 passed the senate today!

[bchris02]

What about SB383? When will it go before the full Senate?

[David]

SB424 passed the senate today!

By a pretty large margin, too.

[AP]

With all of the legislation proposed, I wonder why no one proposed anything regarding sales of liquor in grocery stores.

[bchris02]

With all of the legislation proposed, I wonder why no one proposed anything regarding sales of liquor in grocery stores.

I believe its because doing so would require a constitutional amendment. Cold beer and breweries selling direct can be done by legislative action.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^
And a constitutional amendment would require a petition drive and a public referendum. Get to work, AP!

[bchris02]

Today the state senate votes on cold normal-strength beer. If you want it to happen, call your senator.

http://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/

[bille]

Today the state senate votes on cold normal-strength beer. If you want it to happen, call your senator.

http://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/

Indeed, call and/or email your state senator right now!

[bchris02]

The bill has not been voted on yet but it has been amended to allow grocery and convenience stores to sell normal-strength beer in the event the state constitution is amended. While I fully support that change, I wonder what the implications will be when it comes to chances of the bill actually passing.

[David]

Is the overall vote still on for today? I assume we're talking about SB383, right? If I'm reading it right it looks like that amendment was added last Thursday.

[David]

Incidentally, I was able to find a senate chamber live stream, assuming you can listen to it for very long without falling asleep.

[bradh]

The bill has not been voted on yet but it has been amended to allow grocery and convenience stores to sell normal-strength beer in the event the state constitution is amended. While I fully support that change, I wonder what the implications will be when it comes to chances of the bill actually passing.

that only makes sense to allow that. I do not understand why allowing C-stores and groceries to sell regular beer cold is a big deal.

Maybe that's a stepping stone to wine eventually getting in there as well.

[bchris02]

I agree that it's not a big deal. If there is a "liquor lobby" like many on here have claimed, it's possible that amendment might strike up meaningful opposition where previously there wasn't much.

[jerrywall]

The bill has not been voted on yet but it has been amended to allow grocery and convenience stores to sell normal-strength beer in the event the state constitution is amended. While I fully support that change, I wonder what the implications will be when it comes to chances of the bill actually passing.

That could sink this.

[Dustin]

The bill has not been voted on yet but it has been amended to allow grocery and convenience stores to sell normal-strength beer in the event the state constitution is amended. While I fully support that change, I wonder what the implications will be when it comes to chances of the bill actually passing.

Well this is exciting. Hopefully it passes. Hopefully wine sales in grocery stores will be next.

Once legislators see kids don't actually steal high-point beer, take it to the parking lot, drink the whole case, and get behind the wheel, their opposition should dwindle. Although, these are Oklahoma legislators I'm talking about.

[bchris02]

Let's say this passes and next year a constitutional amendment passes to abolish 3.2 beer, the normal-strength beer that replaces it would still have to go through the distribution system that currently supplies the liquor stores, would it not? If that is the case, would the Neifah's sink loads of money into opposing this?