Oklahoma liquor laws

[Jersey Boss]

Ah, that would be why I don't remember. I was in grade school then. I do remember when they put the restrictions on 3.2 beer after 2am.

Whipper Snapper. Lol

[Bunty]

It changed when liquor by the drink was approved by the voters in 1984. I used to work part time at a pizzeria in Norman that had a bar in it. We would stock the bar from a liquor store and I remember that it closed at 10 back then.

What needed fixed that changing the closing time from 10pm to 9pm fixed?

[Bunty]

While Sam stated in the article that he has been coming and going at 9:30 for 37 years, 37 years ago liquor stores were open until 10 in Oklahoma.

The station should have sought out the viewpoint of a younger liquor store operator as well, who was for it.

[bchris02]

KFOR tends to always report from the most conservative angle possible. Their reporting will always attempt to spin things and mold opinion towards the status quo or what the Baptists or Mark Woodward want.

[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.

[jerrywall]

What needed fixed that changing the closing time from 10pm to 9pm fixed?

Increase in bar business after 9?

[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.

[Dustin]

SB383 passed the House! Now on to conference.

SB424 up next.

[Dustin]

It passed.

[Dustin]

Both passed! I'm actually surprised SB383 passed due to the amendments added on to it.

[bchris02]

SB383 passed the House! Now on to conference.

SB424 up next.

383 passed the entire house?

[jerrywall]

383 passed the entire house?

Looks it. But it still has to go to conference, and then get voted on again, from what I understand. And I've been hearing that most likely wouldn't happen this year (I'm not sure why). And if it does pass all that, it still then has to go to a vote of the people. So It's still a road out.

[bille]

I've heard that 383 could end up being split into 2 or 3 separate votes due to all the proposed changes. In short we have a long way to go with that one and I won't hold my breathe that it can get done (and done right) the first time out the gate.

424 passing with momentum is great news. There's all transparency there so either you're against it or you aren't. Many people don't fully understand how much of a game changer 424 is.

[Bunty]

It's so silly and trivial to hold a state wide vote to decide if liquor store owners should sell chilled beer. If we were really a free people, liquor store owners would have been granted this right to decide for him or herself decades ago without a vote needed.

[bchris02]

It's so silly and trivial to hold a state wide vote to decide if liquor store owners should sell chilled beer. If we were really a free people, liquor store owners would have been granted this right to decide for him or herself decades ago without a vote needed.

It is my understanding that the chilled beer provision could be implemented without a vote. However, the portion of the bill moving the state to single-strength would require constitutional changes.

[bille]

It's so silly and trivial to hold a state wide vote to decide if liquor store owners should sell chilled beer. If we were really a free people, liquor store owners would have been granted this right to decide for him or herself decades ago without a vote needed.

Not that many decades ago our state was still in the midst of prohibition aftermath. The vote is needed <now> because it'll involve a change to the state's constitution.

It is my understanding that the chilled beer provision could be implemented without a vote. However, the portion of the bill moving the state to single-strength would require constitutional changes.

This. 383 was a very simple bill and honestly I thought it had a way better chance of passing sans opposition but apparently some lonely convenience store owners think they'll lose their bud light customers to the liquor stores if it were to pass. Too bad somebody didn't explain it better to those guys.

The bill has changed so much now the liquor stores that originally supported it don't now. It's mind-numbing trying to understand just how many things would have to change for all affected parties to give their blessing. Worse, one of my favorite sources has begun bashing the bill claiming passage will allow more booze in the hands of minors and drunks. Ugh..

[td25er]

These laws are stupid. What is the purpose of differentiating whether a beer is chilled or not, or whether it's 3.2% or higher? The idiots who came up with them are probably the same idiots who inspired 'Footloose'.

Right now I can drive to any liquor store, drink a fifth of whatever 5 dollar plastic bottle crap in the parking lot, and then drive off and kill somebody.

Or I can drive to any liquor store, drink a 6 pack of warm "good" beer in the parking lot, and then drive off and kill somebody.

Or I can drive to any gas station and drink a 12 pack of cold pee water light and then drive off and kill somebody.

It's the same end result. If people want to drink, they will drink. It makes the state look bad. There were 2 dudes behind me at a convenience store last Friday making fun of our 3.2 beer. Oklahoma has a bad enough reputation with our education and obesity problems.

[jerrywall]

Not that many decades ago our state was still in the midst of prohibition aftermath. The vote is needed <now> because it'll involve a change to the state's constitution.



This. 383 was a very simple bill and honestly I thought it had a way better chance of passing sans opposition but apparently some lonely convenience store owners think they'll lose their bud light customers to the liquor stores if it were to pass. Too bad somebody didn't explain it better to those guys.

The bill has changed so much now the liquor stores that originally supported it don't now. It's mind-numbing trying to understand just how many things would have to change for all affected parties to give their blessing. Worse, one of my favorite sources has begun bashing the bill claiming passage will allow more booze in the hands of minors and drunks. Ugh..

Actually, it seems the changes (and hence the forced delay) on 383 were intentional. They wanted to make some extensive changes, and they are aware it's a long process. But by a version passing both chambers and it going to conference, now opens the door for working through some complex reforms over the next year and then trying to get those reforms on the ballot in 2016 (when they would have the best chance at passing).

From the Senator's mouth (well, facebook) -

Stephanie Bice - "And to answer the questions asked: for SB383, the goal was to get it to conference and let it stay there for the interim so we can work on new language for possibly repealing 3.2 beer, selling wine in grocery stores and changing licensing restrictions. As such, this is a TREMENDOUS amount of work that cannot be effectively done this session, but the passage of the bill on the House Floor gives me the platform from which to work from , as well as a vehicle to use for the request for a referendum (vote of the people) in 2016."

Personally, I would have loved to get cold beer in liquor stores in the short term, and work on the other changes in the long term. But I can see the logic at least.

[bchris02]

JerryWall,

If put to a vote of the people do you think reform of this magnitude would pass? I know a lot of it will depend on voter turnout. On election day, the liquor and convenience store industry probably doesn't represent enough votes to effectively defeat reform. If they are able to defeat it, it will be before it makes it to the ballot. If reform is defeated at the ballot box, it will be because MADD groups and religious consevatives are energized to preserve the status quo. Do you see this happening?

[onthestrip]

Actually, it seems the changes (and hence the forced delay) on 383 were intentional. They wanted to make some extensive changes, and they are aware it's a long process. But by a version passing both chambers and it going to conference, now opens the door for working through some complex reforms over the next year and then trying to get those reforms on the ballot in 2016 (when they would have the best chance at passing).

From the Senator's mouth (well, facebook) -



Personally, I would have loved to get cold beer in liquor stores in the short term, and work on the other changes in the long term. But I can see the logic at least.

Cant understand why Bice would propose a law without the intention of getting it passed. Im thinking that If you arent ready for it to become a law, then dont propose one

[jerrywall]

JerryWall,

If put to a vote of the people do you think reform of this magnitude would pass? I know a lot of it will depend on voter turnout. On election day, the liquor and convenience store industry probably doesn't represent enough votes to effectively defeat reform. If they are able to defeat it, it will be before it makes it to the ballot. If reform is defeated at the ballot box, it will be because MADD groups and religious consevatives are energized to preserve the status quo. Do you see this happening?

It depends on which vote. Liquor by the drink took 3 votes to pass. I know the 2am cutoff for 3.2 beer is fairly recent (1995) but I don't recall if that was a vote or not. Sales on Election Days passed just a few years back, so that is a positive sign. I think in a stronger turnout race (like the Presidential race in 2016) there is a better chance of positive reform passing verses a midterm election.

[bchris02]

It depends on which vote. Liquor by the drink took 3 votes to pass. I know the 2am cutoff for 3.2 beer is fairly recent (1995) but I don't recall if that was a vote or not. Sales on Election Days passed just a few years back, so that is a positive sign. I think in a stronger turnout race (like the Presidential race in 2016) there is a better chance of positive reform passing verses a midterm election.

I would like to think enough younger voters are fed up with the nation's most restrictive liquor laws that they would be more energized to get out and vote for change than the older Baptists who want to preserve the status quo. I could be wrong but I have only met one person that likes the current laws. Even my mom, who is extremely anti-drinking, thinks the cold beer restriction is ridiculous.

[Rover]

OK isn't the only state with stupid liquor laws. Lot's of states have their versions of stupidity. Utah and Pennsylvania are probably the worst (Liquor stores are state owned in PA) Did you know that in Texas police can arrest people for public drunkenness while they are actually sitting quietly in bars?


Here's another view: America?s booze laws: Worse than you thought.

[Dubya61]

OK isn't the only state with stupid liquor laws. Lot's of states have their versions of stupidity. Utah and Pennsylvania are probably the worst (Liquor stores are state owned in PA) Did you know that in Texas police can arrest people for public drunkenness while they are actually sitting quietly in bars?


Here's another view: America?s booze laws: Worse than you thought.

You're right, but for some, it's all about the narrative and facts be damned.

[bille]

These laws are stupid. What is the purpose of differentiating whether a beer is chilled or not, or whether it's 3.2% or higher? The idiots who came up with them are probably the same idiots who inspired 'Footloose'.

I'm not sure where the warm part of the law came in but the 3.2%abw cap is leftover from prohibition times, and like I mentioned above, a distinction that was only meant as a stopgap until the 21st amendment could be ratified. In short it should have been done away with YEARS ago.

Actually, it seems the changes (and hence the forced delay) on 383 were intentional. They wanted to make some extensive changes, and they are aware it's a long process. But by a version passing both chambers and it going to conference, now opens the door for working through some complex reforms over the next year and then trying to get those reforms on the ballot in 2016 (when they would have the best chance at passing).

From the Senator's mouth (well, facebook) -



Personally, I would have loved to get cold beer in liquor stores in the short term, and work on the other changes in the long term. But I can see the logic at least.

I'm aware the changes were intentional but they weren't part of the plan initially. I'm glad all these things are being brought out and discussed, they are certainly well overdue for an update, but like you I was hoping that refrigeration for beer at liquor stores could be passed in the meantime as I fear the changes to the constitution could be a long battle. I'm crossing my fingers that isn't the case but I have to remember where we are and how people argue against the passage of these kinds of things.

Cant understand why Bice would propose a law without the intention of getting it passed. Im thinking that If you arent ready for it to become a law, then dont propose one

When proposed, at least my understanding, was that it was intended only for refrigeration of beer in liquor stores. A lofty goal but one many felt obtainable. Additionally a goal that WOULDN'T require a constitution change and thus a vote by the people.

OK isn't the only state with stupid liquor laws. Lot's of states have their versions of stupidity. Utah and Pennsylvania are probably the worst (Liquor stores are state owned in PA) Did you know that in Texas police can arrest people for public drunkenness while they are actually sitting quietly in bars?

That's true and ongoing are proposed changes to many of these silly laws, at least the ones specifically inhibiting. There are several states with proposed changes this year, as there have been in recent years, and will continue for the foreseeable future. A key difference here in OK is our laws are hindering our local businesses and breweries so much more than in other states. Additionally they are keeping outside breweries from distributing or even the potential for expanding brewery operations into our state.

The 3.2abw cap also directly affects our state's brewpubs (and lack of). It's no coincidence that the brewpubs in our state are unable to flourish with such a restrictive cap and likewise why there aren't any new brewpubs opening up in what would otherwise be considered a great place to open a brewpub.