Oklahoma liquor laws

[bille]

OKCRT,
I've seen several comments (and heard them as well) that 3.2 beer is just a watered down version of "strong" beer. Actually, that's not the case. I have home brewed and the alcohol content has to do with the brewing, not the additional water. At home I brewed five gallon batches regardless of the alcohol level. Not jumping on you, but your comment reminded me of my home brewing days, not the "good old days" because I really didn't enjoy it even though the beer was very good. Too much effort and little or no savings. Much easier to go to the store!
C. T.

Actually those beers are technically watered down. Then again so are the regular strength versions. One of the key ways to brew massive amounts of lager beer and have it taste the same every time is by brewing high gravity versions of the beer and then dilute it down to the needed ABV. In reality the beer that those guys are brewing is a 6 or even 7% version that then gets diluted down to 5% or 4% in OK currently. The process also allows them to max out the brewing equipment yet yield more beer. It's my understanding that most large scale lager breweries use this type of process.

[bille]

Is everybody still in shock?

792 passed!

[jerrywall]

We just voted in something without knowing how it will be implemented. Worked out great with the ACA. Let's see how it works here.

[Bill Robertson]

We just voted in something without knowing how it will be implemented. Worked out great with the ACA. Let's see how it works here.

That scared me from the first time I read it. I hope they don't really screw things up.

[onthestrip]

Is everybody still in shock?

792 passed!

Not near as much as Oklahomies saying no to 790.

[Bellaboo]

We just voted in something without knowing how it will be implemented. Worked out great with the ACA. Let's see how it works here.

I believe I read where another statute derives how it is implemented. IIRC, it will become completely in on October 1, 2018.

[jerrywall]

I believe I read where another statue derives how it is implemented. IIRC, it will become completely in on October 1, 2018.

Look up thread. Even Senator Bice states that the reason for the delay is to work out the details. For example, the loss of 3.2 beer means no beer at state parks, on the rivers, or tailgating. Plus, I know of several beer only establishments that will be SOL. There are a lot of more details that weren't explained to use before we voted because they haven't negotiated them yet. We basically handed the state legislature a blank check to write our liquor laws over the next two years, however they see fit. I think it's funny that plenty of folks who supported this don't trust the legislature in other areas.

[FighttheGoodFight]

Well already getting challenged.

http://kfor.com/2016/11/09/liquor-as...s-in-oklahoma/

[OKCRT]

Well already getting challenged.

http://kfor.com/2016/11/09/liquor-as...s-in-oklahoma/

They can challenge all they want. The people have spoken loud and clear! This issue wasn't even close.

[jerrywall]

They can challenge all they want. The people have spoken loud and clear! This issue wasn't even close.

Hrm, won't change the legality. I'm not clear if they have legal footing, but it's sort of like Oklahoma's gay marriage ban, which was passed by a clear and loud vote of the people.

[jn1780]

Luckily, our legislatures have several other states to get ideas from when they write the law. As long as they don't rewrite the playbook we will be fine.

[Uptowner]

3.2 beer is a human rights issue now?

[jerrywall]

3.2 beer is a human rights issue now?

Of course not, although equality in business could possibly be considered one. If it's soundly written it shouldn't be an issue, and if it's unconstitutional it should be ruled so and redone.

[kevinpate]

They can challenge all they want. The people have spoken loud and clear! This issue wasn't even close.

Which doesn't actually matter a fig.

If the opponents have a good argument, even a vote that's 98% in favor wouldn't matter.

Not saying they have a solid argument, but not willing to say they do not without reading it first.

[dcsooner]

They can challenge all they want. The people have spoken loud and clear! This issue wasn't even close.

Oklahoma will find a way to circumvent the will of the people and stay in the 19th century

[OKCRT]

Which doesn't actually matter a fig.

If the opponents have a good argument, even a vote that's 98% in favor wouldn't matter.

Not saying they have a solid argument, but not willing to say they do not without reading it first.

They better have an overwhelming reason because I don't think a Judge is going to go against the peoples wishes on this issue unless it is totally biased against a certain group, which it isn't. The old guard has to open it up now. They had a monopoly for years on certain items and of course they don't want to share the pie.

[jerrywall]

They better have an overwhelming reason because I don't think a Judge is going to go against the peoples wishes on this issue unless it is totally biased against a certain group, which it isn't. The old guard has to open it up now. They had a monopoly for years on certain items and of course they don't want to share the pie.

Considering that anyone could open a store, I don't see how that would fit the definition of a monopoly. Plenty of competition.

Of course, with the new law, they'll be competing against places that can have multiple locations, extended hours, extended days of operation, that can obtain loans and have protection behind a corporation, and employ younger folks to sell liquor products, and sell unlimited non liquor items. None of which they get. How is that not bias?

There's a reason why Wal-Mart spent so much money to get 792 passed.

[jerrywall]

On this note, from back in August - http://kfor.com/2016/08/01/group-ask...allot-measure/

District Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons denied an injunction Monday that was sought by the Retail Liquor Association of Oklahoma. However, Timmons says she has questions about the constitutionality of the proposal and will schedule a hearing later to decide that issue.

[kevinpate]

They better have an overwhelming reason because I don't think a Judge is going to go against the peoples wishes on this issue unless it is totally biased against a certain group, which it isn't. ...

Again, the wishes of the majority of the people are not part of the equation.
If what the majority wants was a deciding factor, anything a majority favors would be constitutional. We are not, and have never been, a body where the majority perspective carries the day in all respects.

Again, not saying the challengers will carry the day. I am only noting that many times something a majority wants ends up not happening because if it stood, it would trample the rights of others who are not in the majority.

[bradh]

Look up thread. Even Senator Bice states that the reason for the delay is to work out the details. For example, the loss of 3.2 beer means no beer at state parks, on the rivers, or tailgating. Plus, I know of several beer only establishments that will be SOL. There are a lot of more details that weren't explained to use before we voted because they haven't negotiated them yet. We basically handed the state legislature a blank check to write our liquor laws over the next two years, however they see fit. I think it's funny that plenty of folks who supported this don't trust the legislature in other areas.

People tailgate with 3.2 beer?!

[jerrywall]

People tailgate with 3.2 beer?!

The ones following the law do. I have no idea if the police ever check.

[barrettd]

The ones following the law do. I have no idea if the police ever check.

I actually never knew that was part of the law, or that there were laws involving tailgating. I mean, it makes sense, but it's just something I never really considered.

I'm optimistic the liquor folks will come back to the table and work with Senator Bice and the other legislators involved to make this palatable for all parties. If everyone leaves the table a little bit disappointed, that's probably a good thing.

[Jeepnokc]

Considering that anyone could open a store, I don't see how that would fit the definition of a monopoly. Plenty of competition.

Of course, with the new law, they'll be competing against places that can have multiple locations, extended hours, extended days of operation, that can obtain loans and have protection behind a corporation, and employ younger folks to sell liquor products, and sell unlimited non liquor items. None of which they get. How is that not bias?

There's a reason why Wal-Mart spent so much money to get 792 passed.

I have been thinking about this argument a while. The fact is that they are not equal. Liquor stores still sell liquor which wine and beer license can't. There is nothing to prevent a liquor store owner from opening up a wine and beer shop and owning as many as he would like and sell other items also. But...if he wants to sell liquor, he has more regulation. If we are going to truly make it a level playing field, then allow the grocery stores to sell liquor also and let the liquor stores sell other items and have multiple stores and extended hours.

[jerrywall]

I actually never knew that was part of the law, or that there were laws involving tailgating. I mean, it makes sense, but it's just something I never really considered.

To be clear, I'm talking about OU Campus, which is a dry campus, except for game days, where they allow 3.2 beer around the stadium.

[Bullbear]

I have been thinking about this argument a while. The fact is that they are not equal. Liquor stores still sell liquor which wine and beer license can't. There is nothing to prevent a liquor store owner from opening up a wine and beer shop and owning as many as he would like and sell other items also. But...if he wants to sell liquor, he has more regulation. If we are going to truly make it a level playing field, then allow the grocery stores to sell liquor also and let the liquor stores sell other items and have multiple stores and extended hours.

I agree with this 100%. For me it seems the liquor stores are up in arms because their monopoly is falling a bit but they still have it on Liquor itself and will now have later hours to sell liquor so in some ways its a win. It does take away some Beer and Wine revenue yes but you can't have it all.