OKC Chamber now supporting grocery store wine/beer sales

[betts]

Maybe with the Chamber behind this there's a little more hope:
New kid in town

Texas-based Whole Foods Market, the world's largest natural and organic food retailer, is opening its first Oklahoma City location next year.

In addition to organic foods, the markets are also known for offering an extensive wine selection, which has caused many to speculate that lawmakers will be pressured to change the law so Whole Foods can offer wine and strong beer.

Williams said the chamber wanted to look at changing state alcohol laws long before Whole Foods announced it was coming to Oklahoma City.

“That's just a coincidence,” Williams said. “We have members on both sides of this issue. We just want to see how we can work this out.”

Williams said the chamber wants local governments to be able to decide whether grocery stores in their communities can sell wine and strong beer.

“That way, if there are some parts of the state that don't want it, they wouldn't have to have it,” Williams said.



Read more: http://newsok.com/legislators-likely...#ixzz19JlFFo6N

[Spartan]

The Chamber has member businesses who are liquor businesses, but by and large, the Chamber has never opposed modern liquor laws, it just never made it a top legislative priority. I still doubt it will be made a legislative priority for them, but now you can at least add their name and weight to a list of supporters.

[soonerguru]

Helleluckinfujah.

The legislature will do nothing however.

Is there anyway we can make this an initiative petition, or does that require legislative approval?

[betts]

A petition was attempted and garnered far below the minimum required number of signatures, which floored me. I would think that an initiative like this would mushroom, in terms of informing friends via e-mail to sign the petition, but that did not happen.

It would not hurt, however, to write one's congresspeople and encourage them to support this.

[soonerguru]

A petition was attempted and garnered far below the minimum required number of signatures, which floored me. I would think that an initiative like this would mushroom, in terms of informing friends via e-mail to sign the petition, but that did not happen.

It would not hurt, however, to write one's congresspeople and encourage them to support this.

Betts,

Maybe the wrong people were running the petition.

[LordGerald]

The Chamber getting behind it actually hurts. The OKC Chamber is the enemy of our state legislature. Our state legislature and leadership are even more conservative than ever before and have already stated that they don't care about economic development. I'm afraid this thing is not going to happen this session or the next.

[king183]

The Chamber getting behind it actually hurts. The OKC Chamber is the enemy of our state legislature. Our state legislature and leadership are even more conservative than ever before and have already stated that they don't care about economic development. I'm afraid this thing is not going to happen this session or the next.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with this 100%. Knowing both groups quite well, the Chamber and the legislature are going to be major allies, with the exception of a couple issues. The only other exception is that of a few state reps who despise the Chamber and "corporate welfare." Overall, however, I think the Chamber and the legislature are going to move forward on a number of big initiatives and work well together. Now, that's a separate issue from whether you think the initiatives are good or not; but it's just absurd to say the Chamber is an "enemy."

Lastly, LordGerald's assertion that our leaders has "already stated that they don't care about economic development" is flat out wrong, and probably made up.

I'm willing to bet that within the next two sessions, a measure is passed to bring it to the vote of the people. And then it will pass with 75-80%.

[onthestrip]

The Chamber getting behind it actually hurts. The OKC Chamber is the enemy of our state legislature. Our state legislature and leadership are even more conservative than ever before and have already stated that they don't care about economic development. I'm afraid this thing is not going to happen this session or the next.

I usually have this attitude too but there is reason for optimism. Speaker Kris Steele has stated his intentions to focus first on economic issues and Job creation.

[soonerguru]

I usually have this attitude too but there is reason for optimism. Speaker Kris Steele has stated his intentions to focus first on economic issues and Job creation.

Yes. And then a whole bunch of crazies picketed outside his meeting in Bartlesville. The crazies, of course, stated that they better represent the rank and file Republican voters in this state -- and they're probably right.

Here's hoping Steele's words are followed by deeds, but I'm not optimistic given the climate in this state right now. Also, there's greater incentive for the reactionary wing to pass the abortion bills, English-only bills and other things because Gov. Henry won't be around to veto them.

[Bunty]

A petition was attempted and garnered far below the minimum required number of signatures, which floored me. I would think that an initiative like this would mushroom, in terms of informing friends via e-mail to sign the petition, but that did not happen.

I don't there's much interest in this state to reform liquor laws. For instance, there seems little interest in Payne County to hold a election to make that county dry on Sundays.

But then, how did that question get on the state ballot allowing liquor stores to open on election days?

[Spartan]

The Chamber is typically fairly progressive compared to other lobbies, whereas that word obviously could not apply in any way to this legislature. It is going to be interesting.

[soonerguru]

The new legislature is often at loggerheads with the chamber with their anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant stances as well as other myopic vote getters.

[Spartan]

The new legislature is often at loggerheads with the chamber with their anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant stances as well as other myopic vote getters.

Or attention getters..

One of them brings praise on Oklahoma's business climate, the other brings national scorn for Oklahoma's social climate.

[okcpulse]

Deb Leftwich was the reason it didn't pass the Senate Business and Labor Committee last year. With her out of the picture, I hope the right people are on this committee to pass it. This is where good bills often get killed. It will go to the vote of the people.

It also inaccurate that the legislature as a whole has the social agenda in it's best interests. The House Speaker has express his support for pro-business legislation over social issues. I just hope these bribery charges keep Terril very very busy!

[Doug Loudenback]

Two related Oklahoman articles:

Yesterday, http://www.newsok.com/legislators-li...rticle/3526971 by John Estus: "Legislators likely will consider giving Oklahoma grocery stores strong beer, wine
Some liquor retailers oppose putting wine and strong beer in grocery stores, while some customers and members of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber want to look at changes state alcohol laws." Whether the following is legally true, I don't know:

It is unclear what type of legislation may be proposed this year on the matter, but a vote of the people likely will be needed because several state alcohol laws that would have to be changed to allow wine and strong beer in grocery stores are part of the state Constitution.

Today, also by Estus: http://www.newsok.com/wine-strong-be...ad_story_title : "Wine, strong beer idea questioned by Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission; The Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission worries putting wine and strong beer in grocery stores will cause alcohol abuse to increase."

Sounds like it's a tough sell. Roy Williams' approach strikes me as the most doable, but even then it surely seems like a long shot to get anything at all through the Legislature.

[betts]

Today, also by Estus: http://www.newsok.com/wine-strong-be...ad_story_title : "Wine, strong beer idea questioned by Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission; The Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission worries putting wine and strong beer in grocery stores will cause alcohol abuse to increase."

Yeah, I'm sure they do. I wonder who is on that Commission. I also wonder if there's any data about alcohol use/abuse in states that have wine in grocery stores versus those that don't.

[Doug Loudenback]

Betts, see http://www.ok.gov/able/Commissioners/index.html for members. Off topic, but when watching/listening to last week's council meeting, I though that you did an outstanding job.

[betts]

Thanks Doug, but I think I could have done a better job. That was totally extemporaneous, which is not my forte.

I did a little searching and I don't know if there's better data. There's a government agency called the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and looking at their data, it looks as if prohibiting sale of wine and beer in grocery stores is not the determining factor for alcohol abuse. North Dakota seems to lead all comers when it comes to alcohol abuse, and interestingly, they're one of the few states that prohibits the sale of wine and beer in grocery stores. Utah does well and prohibits sales, but I suspect it is religious beliefs rather than the law that is important there. The rest of the states that prohibit sales of wine and beer are scattered randomly statistically among states that don't. So, I'm thinking that Attorney Maisch had to do some stretching to come up with supportive data, and he had to go to Europe to find it.

[Kerry]

This is really very very simple. Alcohol use comes from three influences: parental use, peer pressure, and pure boredom. If you don't use alcohol in front of your kids they probably won't use it either. If your children's friends don't use alcohol they probably won't use it either, if children have better things to do they probably won't use it it either. It has very little to do with availability at grocery stores or liquor stores. Anyone who thinks the mirco-location of the purchase is a big factor is crazy or makes money off the situtation. However, I do love hearing stories about how the liquor distributors all of a sudden care about the damage their product can do to children.

Random distributor thought process: I think I will sell a product that destroys lives, homes, and families because I can make a lot of money. Plus, if I can control who can sell it I can make even more money. Now some people want take away my control over sales. Don't they care about the children?

[TheTravellers]

This is really very very simple. Alcohol use comes from three influences: parental use, peer pressure, and pure boredom. If you don't use alcohol in front of your kids they probably won't use it either. If your children's friends don't use alcohol they probably won't use it either, if children have better things to do they probably won't use it it either. It has very little to do with availability at grocery stores or liquor stores. Anyone who thinks the mirco-location of the purchase is a big factor is crazy or makes money off the situtation. However, I do love hearing stories about how the liquor distributors all of a sudden care about the damage their product can do to children.

Random distributor thought process: I think I will sell a product that destroys lives, homes, and families because I can make a lot of money. Plus, if I can control who can sell it I can make even more money. Now some people want take away my control over sales. Don't they care about the children?

Hmmm, I detect a bit of bias here from you, unless you truly are channeling a distributor - "Random distributor thought process: I think I will sell a product that destroys lives, homes, and families..." Alcohol does *not* have to destroy lives, homes, and families, and I suspect in the great majority of households that have/drink alcohol, it doesn't.

A few random comments on this whole thing:

Why in the world are people under 21 not even allowed in a liquor store here in OK? No open bottles, no drinking of alcohol happening, absolutely no reason I can figure out except [sarcasm]to protect the children's virgin eyes from the dazzling, hypnotic displays of alcohol that will turn them into raving lunatic addicts after the first drink.[/sarcasm]

How about instead of allowing wine and strong beer sales in grocery stores (which I support), you just allow liquor stores to chill the beer and wine and let them stay open whatever hours they want? Same difference as to allowing it to be sold everywhere, pretty much, and doesn't threaten the existence of the mom/pop liquor stores.

I haven't checked on the stats that someone else mentioned about greater/less alcohol abuse linking to the availability/lack thereof of wine and strong beer in grocery stores, but I'll bet that the stats don't really support the theory that alcohol abuse occurs more commonly in the states that allow looser liquor sales. And there's the whole issue of fudging/finding whatever stats you want to support your argument, so not sure how valid those will be anyway.

[Kerry]

Hmmm, I detect a bit of bias here from you, unless you truly are channeling a distributor - "Random distributor thought process: I think I will sell a product that destroys lives, homes, and families..." Alcohol does *not* have to destroy lives, homes, and families, and I suspect in the great majority of households that have/drink alcohol, it doesn't.

A few random comments on this whole thing:

Why in the world are people under 21 not even allowed in a liquor store here in OK? No open bottles, no drinking of alcohol happening, absolutely no reason I can figure out except [sarcasm]to protect the children's virgin eyes from the dazzling, hypnotic displays of alcohol that will turn them into raving lunatic addicts after the first drink.[/sarcasm]

How about instead of allowing wine and strong beer sales in grocery stores (which I support), you just allow liquor stores to chill the beer and wine and let them stay open whatever hours they want? Same difference as to allowing it to be sold everywhere, pretty much, and doesn't threaten the existence of the mom/pop liquor stores.

I haven't checked on the stats that someone else mentioned about greater/less alcohol abuse linking to the availability/lack thereof of wine and strong beer in grocery stores, but I'll bet that the stats don't really support the theory that alcohol abuse occurs more commonly in the states that allow looser liquor sales. And there's the whole issue of fudging/finding whatever stats you want to support your argument, so not sure how valid those will be anyway.

I was only pointing out the selective protection of children that the current retailers/distributors have. As for why the limit is 21 and minors are not allowed in liquor stores. Since they aren't allowed to buy anything there is no need for them to be there.

[kevinpate]

Not going to disagree Kerry, but we are a state where "It's for the children" and "Only wanton sinners would support this" often combine to shut down rational thought processes in the blink of an eye.

[proud2Bsooner]

Liquor laws are well-established in this state. Hence, you have liquor stores owned mostly by moms and pops. We have a lot less to gain, in my opinion, and more to lose by changing the laws. We would have scores of people going out of business, just so we could purchase wine and strong beer at Wal-Mart. Some people so worked up over trivialities such as Whole Freaking Foods (whom is already coming), and their ability to purchase wine at the grocery store, a mere convenience, that they have a scant thought about ending someone's livelihood (wine, I'm pretty sure, is a liquor store's bread and butter). Many of the same people (you "progressives" here) also whine and complain about Wal-Mart taking over the world. We need local ownership, and changing decades-old laws will end local ownership of liquor stores. Our liquor laws aren't broken.

[OKCMallen]

Liquor laws are well-established in this state. Hence, you have liquor stores owned mostly by moms and pops. We have a lot less to gain, in my opinion, and more to lose by changing the laws. We would have scores of people going out of business, just so we could purchase wine and strong beer at Wal-Mart. Some people so worked up over trivialities such as Whole Freaking Foods (whom is already coming), and their ability to purchase wine at the grocery store, a mere convenience, that they have a scant thought about ending someone's livelihood (wine, I'm pretty sure, is a liquor store's bread and butter). Many of the same people (you "progressives" here) also whine and complain about Wal-Mart taking over the world. We need local ownership, and changing decades-old laws will end local ownership of liquor stores. Our liquor laws aren't broken.

They're not broken if you don't like competition, anyway. The consumer base does not exist in order to support liquor stores. Liquor stores exist to provide booze to the consumer base. Right now they have a monopoly that the average retailer can't crack. If the liquor stores provide ANY benefit over what Walmart can, they'll stay in business. It's about economic efficiency. Not wasting money so that people can run a business that ONLY exists due to local law and NOT because it provides any meaningful good or benefit to the consumer.

Just a "convenience" you say? You can't buy cold 6.0 beer. Which means breweries that care about quality like the New Belgium brewery don't ship to Oklahoma AT ALL. Last time I checked, like every state around OK gets New Belgium beers. We don't. We don't get certain kinds of promotions and packaging because it's not worth it for big boy breweries to repackage in 3.2. That is nothing less than a stifling of interstate commerce. Good lord, we can't even buy a bottle of wine on a Sunday.

I'm not saying that we should have liquor in gas stations (although some states do, and you'd never know it because they haven't all killed each other in drunk driving accidents or drunken stupors). But buying a $7 bottle of wine in Homeland seems pretty reasonable.

[Kerry]

They're not broken if you don't like competition, anyway. The consumer base does not exist in order to support liquor stores. Liquor stores exist to provide booze to the consumer base. Right now they have a monopoly that the average retailer can't crack. If the liquor stores provide ANY benefit over what Walmart can, they'll stay in business. It's about economic efficiency. Not wasting money so that people can run a business that ONLY exists due to local law and NOT because it provides any meaningful good or benefit to the consumer.

I don't think it can be summed up any better than that.