Oklahoma liquor laws

[bchris02]

Contact your House representative if you want OK breweries to be able to sell directly to consumers.

What the Ale: Let's change the law and let breweries sell their beers - Tulsa World: What The Ale

[bchris02]

Want better alcohol laws? Call these people today. : oklahoma

Contact the Alcohol, Tobacco & Controlled Substances House Committee about your support for modernization

[bchris02]

Want better alcohol laws? Call these people today. : oklahoma

Contact the Alcohol, Tobacco & Controlled Substances House Committee about your support for modernization

[jerrywall]

They really screwed the pooch with SB383. Took something that could have been a simple policy/law change and turned it into something that requires major constitutional changes and a petition/vote. Jeez louise!

[bchris02]

They really screwed the pooch with SB383. Took something that could have been a simple policy/law change and turned it into something that requires major constitutional changes and a petition/vote. Jeez louise!

I agree. I don't know why they couldn't have just left the bill in its original form. It likely would have passed and we would see cold beer at Byron's by the end of the year. Here's to hoping though this gets the conversation started that finally leads to the end of 3.2 beer in a few years. Modern liquor laws will not only be good for the consumer in Oklahoma but will help the state's image.

[RadicalModerate]

I seem to recall that some liquor reform measure was once passed by A Vote of The People (after the people representing The People jumped through all of the appropriate hoops) . . . but it got overturned by some court, that probably had almost as many Lobbyists for The Liquor Distribution Cartel slithering in under their doors as do the LawMakers. (sorry . . . recently started watching "House of Cards" on Netflix and it seems to be reinforcing my pre-conceived notions about how political stuff works.)

[betts]

I agree. I don't know why they couldn't have just left the bill in its original form. It likely would have passed and we would see cold beer at Byron's by the end of the year. Here's to hoping though this gets the conversation started that finally leads to the end of 3.2 beer in a few years. Modern liquor laws will not only be good for the consumer in Oklahoma but will help the state's image.

I see very little evidence that many of our state legislators care about our state's image, which leads me to wonder how many of the voters care either.....sadly.

[Bunty]

I see very little evidence that many of our state legislators care about our state's image, which leads me to wonder how many of the voters care either.....sadly.

Probably a lot of them seldom go out of state to see how other states handle their various regulations for the more sensible and/or seldom, if ever, buy alcohol. I also think in most cases, unless legislators are suffering along with you, they're not going to do much about the issues you feel lack of attention to them is hurting you, though you might be able to over ride that, if you got thousand$ up to the limit of $5000 to donate to their reelection campaign fund.

I would like to call out Rep. Cory Williams as one of those rare legislators, who can care about the state's image. He expressed concern that the state's proposed anti-gay bills were adversely affecting the state's economic image. He used his influence to get Payne County to vote yes to legalize liquor by the drink on Sunday. As a Democrat, he isn't afraid to raise conflicts with some the bills Republicans try to pass. Yet doesn't suffer much from it from the voters. He faced no challengers for reelection last Nov. It surely reflects well upon the image of the voters in his district as well.

[bluedogok]

They really screwed the pooch with SB383. Took something that could have been a simple policy/law change and turned it into something that requires major constitutional changes and a petition/vote. Jeez louise!

Maybe that was the intent of those who proposed additions.....

[jerrywall]

Maybe that was the intent of those who proposed additions.....

I had the same thought... I'd like to hope not.

[bchris02]

I had the same thought... I'd like to hope not.

Yeah that's the first thing I thought of when I heard that it was amended. It went from something that was assured to pass to something that is very unlikely to pass without a lot of different pieces falling into place.

[Dustin]

SB 424 and 383 passed the house.

[adaniel]

SB 424 and 383 passed the house.

[bchris02]

SB 424 and 383 passed the house.

If 383 passed the House with the amendment, is in now in Mary Fallin's hands? Is there any other roadblocks it could encounter before it gets to her desk?

[jerrywall]

If 383 passed the House with the amendment, is in now in Mary Fallin's hands? Is there any other roadblocks it could encounter before it gets to her desk?

It passed committee vote. Now it goes to conference.

[Dustin]

Sorry, I mean't they passed the House Alcohol, Tobacco, and Controlled Substances Committee... Now they go to the House for a vote...

[adaniel]

Sorry, I mean't they passed the House Alcohol, Tobacco, and Controlled Substances Committee... Now they go to the House for a vote...

I guess my praise hands pic was premature. Sorry...I've just been itching to use that on something here LOL.

[Urbanized]

[bille]

I like that 424 has been moving along with what seems to be little opposition. I hate that 383 was changed when it appeared to also have momentum and be the most likely bill to get passed with little opposition. The only rep to oppose said she spoke with "several" liquor stores and convenience stores who were afraid they'd be put out of business by not being able to compete. She was certainly referring to the un-amended bill but it still sheds light on the thought process from many of these businesses "screw the product and the consumers, I could lose money!"

At any rate we're moving on attempting to tackle something nobody had envisioned a couple months ago and perhaps with everybody at the table to discuss maybe we can iron everything (or most of it) out and be able to put it up to a vote next year. Bottle openers, refrigerated beers, and misc sold at liquor stores and "high point" beer and wine at the grocers in one swoop? Sounds impossible but awesome, at least to us okies anyway.

[bchris02]

Bottle openers, refrigerated beers, and misc sold at liquor stores and "high point" beer and wine at the grocers in one swoop? Sounds impossible but awesome, at least to us okies anyway.

Yet reality in 45 other states.

Does anybody think allowing liquor store owners to open more than a single location would be something that would help get the liquor stores on board? What about expanded hours?

[jerrywall]

Does anybody think allowing liquor store owners to open more than a single location would be something that would help get the liquor stores on board? What about expanded hours?

Not sure about the expanded hours. On more than one location? Maybe, but it's a good way to get Oklahoma money sent out of state if corporations are allowed to own liquor stores. How much more money do we want to pump into Wal-Mart/Costco VS in state locally owned businesses? The overwhelming majority of liquor store owners put their savings, retirements, and personal assets towards creating a business with a specific set of rules. Changing those rules on them now is not going to be welcomed by them, even if necessary.

I think it's interesting that there's now a push in Colorado by local beer brewers to change the laws back so that Wal-Mart et al couldn't carry strong beer. What they found is not that shocking. Local brewers seem to think that adding in grocery beer sales means that suddenly there are thousands of new venues pushing their products. But the truth is, all it means is that there are thousands of new venues pushing their competitors' products. And by competitors I mean national and foreign brewers who have shelving and priority contracts with the grocery chains. Those national chains won't be promoting Oklahoma beers, and folks are naive to think otherwise.

[jerrywall]

She was certainly referring to the un-amended bill but it still sheds light on the thought process from many of these businesses "screw the product and the consumers, I could lose money!".

As opposed to "screw the small business owner and his kids being able to eat, I need more convenient access to alcohol"? I can understand the small business owner trying to protect their business. I'm amazed that folks seem so angry about that.

[bchris02]

Not sure about the expanded hours. On more than one location? Maybe, but it's a good way to get Oklahoma money sent out of state if corporations are allowed to own liquor stores. How much more money do we want to pump into Wal-Mart/Costco VS in state locally owned businesses? The overwhelming majority of liquor store owners put their savings, retirements, and personal assets towards creating a business with a specific set of rules. Changing those rules on them now is not going to be welcomed by them, even if necessary.

I am not talking about allowing national chains to come in and run liquor stores. I would not be in favor of that. What I am referring to is if a store like Byron's wanted to open a second location they could do so. Right now, I believe liquor stores must be a sole proprietorship and they are only allowed a single location. I don't think liquor stores would be on board with allowing Wal-Mart to sell chilled beer and wine 7 days per week until 2AM each night without getting something in return to help them compete.

If I was in charge of this process, I would propose the following.

-Single-strength beer chilled in both liquor and grocery stores, 7 days per week between 10AM and 2AM
-Oklahoma wines in grocery stores. All other wines in liquor stores
-Accessories sold in liquor stores (bottle openers, etc)
-Allow liquor stores to have multiple locations but keep requirement for them to be locally-owned

I think this would be a fair compromise. Of course from a liberty perspective the Missouri model would be best, but I can't see everybody getting on board with that.

[bille]

As opposed to "screw the small business owner and his kids being able to eat, I need more convenient access to alcohol"? I can understand the small business owner trying to protect their business. I'm amazed that folks seem so angry about that.

Honestly I could care less about convenience, at least in terms of grocery access to wine/high point beer or even chilled beer at the liquor store. As a homebrewer and beer fan I've always been after the refrigeration from a freshness angle. Additionally, as a state we're missing out on a lot of great beer distributed all around us because of our refrigeration law.

I know we've gone back and forth about this before but out of all the liquor stores I've been to in this state I find it hard to believe that installing a couple thousand dollars worth of refrigeration will bankrupt them. Besides, it won't be a requirement, merely an option. I'm sure when it's passed many won't bother with it and that's fine, I just won't be shopping there.

What I find aggravating is the argument against it is akin to finding out that refrigeration of produce will slow the rate at which it spoils but small business owners are opposed to ANYBODY being able to install refrigeration because it will cost them money to do so and for those that are willing to invest (for the grower and the consumer) in order to have a better product it will give an "unfair" advantage so it's better that everybody has the same faster spoiling products. That makes no sense!

[jerrywall]

Honestly I could care less about convenience, at least in terms of grocery access to wine/high point beer or even chilled beer at the liquor store. As a homebrewer and beer fan I've always been after the refrigeration from a freshness angle. Additionally, as a state we're missing out on a lot of great beer distributed all around us because of our refrigeration law.

I know we've gone back and forth about this before but out of all the liquor stores I've been to in this state I find it hard to believe that installing a couple thousand dollars worth of refrigeration will bankrupt them. Besides, it won't be a requirement, merely an option. I'm sure when it's passed many won't bother with it and that's fine, I just won't be shopping there.

What I find aggravating is the argument against it is akin to finding out that refrigeration of produce will slow the rate at which it spoils but small business owners are opposed to ANYBODY being able to install refrigeration because it will cost them money to do so and for those that are willing to invest (for the grower and the consumer) in order to have a better product it will give an "unfair" advantage so it's better that everybody has the same faster spoiling products. That makes no sense!

I agree with most of this. And I've found that the overwhelming majority of the liquor store owners support refrigeration. I know we did when we had a shop.