If the liquor laws in OK were modernized...

[Mel]

I always found the public acceptance and enthusiasm for pubs, bars, boozers, whatever, kind of hypocritical with their equal loathing of drunkenness and all the harm and sorrow that has caused. Not just driving but alcoholic parents aren't much fun. Maybe it should be regulated a bit more. Would licensed drinkers be to far a push? Saying that, I do wish a could pick up my Hakutsuru Sake at the same time I'm getting supplies for making sushi and sashimi.

[Hawk405359]

How would you license drinkers?

[Bill Robertson]

Its also not called " strong beer" its normal beer, unlike the watered down **** here. I only buy Corona's here or i pickup a couple cases of Bud when i'm near the Texas border.

There's really not as much difference as most think. "Normal" Corona is 4.6 percent by volume. Oklahoma beer 3.2 percent by weight. When you do the conversion, 3.2 percent by weight would be 4.0 percent by volume. So it's 4.6 compared to 4.0. Only a .6 percent difference, not 1.4 percent. Most also refer to Texas beer as 6-point. All the Texas Bud or Coors varieties are between 4.0 and 5.9 percent by volume or 2.8 to 4.13 percent by weight.

[kevinpate]

How would you license drinkers?

Have them take a timed written tests after several shots of good rum?

[hrdware]

How would you license drinkers?

First we set up a training class that anyone who wants to drink must take. This class would educate drinkers on all OK laws regarding consumption of alcohol and when and where it is appropriate. A test would be given covering the laws that those persons would be held accountable for. The test would also include safety related questions such as, "You have had 10 beers over the course of a 4 hour football game. Are you in a safe condition to drive yourself home?". Upon passing the class, the drinker would be issued a certificate. The drinker must then fill out an application for a "Drinking License" and submit the application, certificate of course completion and $100 to the OSBI. OSBI would then have 60 days to do a background check on this person to check their mental health and driving record. Upon finding no reason the person should not be allowed to drink, the Drinking License shall be issued.

The drinker must be in possession of their Drinking License any time they wish to enjoy an adult beverage. Any Law Enforcement officer of the state may demand to see the Drinking License at any time they see someone drinking although no law is being broken. This drinking license is only good for 5 years and may be renewed for the cost of 85 for an additional 5 years.

We already have a system in place for licensing law abiding citizens to do legal things.....we just need to extend it.

[Bill Robertson]

First we set up a training class that anyone who wants to drink must take. This class would educate drinkers on all OK laws regarding consumption of alcohol and when and where it is appropriate. A test would be given covering the laws that those persons would be held accountable for. The test would also include safety related questions such as, "You have had 10 beers over the course of a 4 hour football game. Are you in a safe condition to drive yourself home?". Upon passing the class, the drinker would be issued a certificate. The drinker must then fill out an application for a "Drinking License" and submit the application, certificate of course completion and $100 to the OSBI. OSBI would then have 60 days to do a background check on this person to check their mental health and driving record. Upon finding no reason the person should not be allowed to drink, the Drinking License shall be issued.

The drinker must be in possession of their Drinking License any time they wish to enjoy an adult beverage. Any Law Enforcement officer of the state may demand to see the Drinking License at any time they see someone drinking although no law is being broken. This drinking license is only good for 5 years and may be renewed for the cost of 85 for an additional 5 years.

We already have a system in place for licensing law abiding citizens to do legal things.....we just need to extend it.

Sounds eerily like a carry license. And it doesn't actually sound like all that bad an idea.

[Mel]

How would you license drinkers?

It's the folks in pubs that aren't loud and making a jackhole of themselves. ;-) I really don't know. I was just pondering.

[ddavidson8]

There are PLENTY of thriving liquor stores in Houston.

[Just the facts]

Oklahoma has made the issue much harder than it needs to be, and it done to protect the liquor industry. All these other 'things' are just decorations.

[Soonerman]

Do any of you think that these stupid Laws are keeping stores like World Market from coming to OKC? Because they have stores in Kansas and Colorado and they have similar liquor laws that Oklahoma has.

[Just the facts]

Do any of you think that these stupid Laws are keeping stores like World Market from coming to OKC? Because they have stores in Kansas and Colorado and they have similar liquor laws that Oklahoma has.

It is probably a combination of things, but when take all together they have an effect. Oklahoma has a population density and per capita income problem but allowing wine sales could over come that. But having a population density, low per capita income, AND restricted wine sales makes it a no-go. Strike 1, you are still at-bat. Strike 2, you are still at-bat. Strike 3, you're out.

[Hawk405359]

First we set up a training class that anyone who wants to drink must take. This class would educate drinkers on all OK laws regarding consumption of alcohol and when and where it is appropriate. A test would be given covering the laws that those persons would be held accountable for. The test would also include safety related questions such as, "You have had 10 beers over the course of a 4 hour football game. Are you in a safe condition to drive yourself home?". Upon passing the class, the drinker would be issued a certificate. The drinker must then fill out an application for a "Drinking License" and submit the application, certificate of course completion and $100 to the OSBI. OSBI would then have 60 days to do a background check on this person to check their mental health and driving record. Upon finding no reason the person should not be allowed to drink, the Drinking License shall be issued.

The drinker must be in possession of their Drinking License any time they wish to enjoy an adult beverage. Any Law Enforcement officer of the state may demand to see the Drinking License at any time they see someone drinking although no law is being broken. This drinking license is only good for 5 years and may be renewed for the cost of 85 for an additional 5 years.

We already have a system in place for licensing law abiding citizens to do legal things.....we just need to extend it.

That'd go over as well as a wet fart in church, and is far too costly and needlessly complicated to allow legal adults to enjoy a glass of wine with their meal.

OSBI has enough on their plates without having to do background checks for the million and a half or so Oklahomans who would be interested in licenses, especially considering that their staff is under 500 people. They'd have to build another agency solely to do these needless background checks, and I don't think that's even something you have to do when getting a car, so why would you need one for a beer? Cops certainly have far more important things to do than troll every restaurant demanding to see drinker's licenses.

And what would be the result? People get driver's licenses and still break the law, why would it be any different from a drinking license? You revoke the license and they can't get a beer? Not likely, they'd just do what kids now do, have a buddy get it for them. The restaurant industry would hate it, considering alcohol is far more of a money maker than food is and you're telling them that their legal-aged customers have to spend $185 over 10 years, as well as time off work to take the course/test, not for a job that helps them get paid and contributes to the economy, but for the right to have a beer with a meal. Are we really at the point where what we eat and drink is considered something that the government should be able to force licenses to do?

All of it just sounds like a terrible idea to me.

Edit: It just occurs to me that I may have missed a sarcastic response comparing getting a drink with owning a firearm. If that is the case, then I apologize and admit that you got me there.

[Stew]

First we set up a training class that anyone who wants to drink must take. This class would educate drinkers on all OK laws regarding consumption of alcohol and when and where it is appropriate. A test would be given covering the laws that those persons would be held accountable for. The test would also include safety related questions such as, "You have had 10 beers over the course of a 4 hour football game. Are you in a safe condition to drive yourself home?". Upon passing the class, the drinker would be issued a certificate. The drinker must then fill out an application for a "Drinking License" and submit the application, certificate of course completion and $100 to the OSBI. OSBI would then have 60 days to do a background check on this person to check their mental health and driving record. Upon finding no reason the person should not be allowed to drink, the Drinking License shall be issued.

The drinker must be in possession of their Drinking License any time they wish to enjoy an adult beverage. Any Law Enforcement officer of the state may demand to see the Drinking License at any time they see someone drinking although no law is being broken. This drinking license is only good for 5 years and may be renewed for the cost of 85 for an additional 5 years.

We already have a system in place for licensing law abiding citizens to do legal things.....we just need to extend it.

You can never have too much government involvement. Perhaps the government could issue licenses for eating, sex and parenting since those activities too have detrimental consequences to society when done irresponsibly. We need government to fill a role of mentor or a benevolent big brother to save us from ourselves. As individuals we haven't a lick of sense and should be treated as such. That's is the only way we can be free in a responsible way.

[bchris02]

Do any of you think that these stupid Laws are keeping stores like World Market from coming to OKC? Because they have stores in Kansas and Colorado and they have similar liquor laws that Oklahoma has.

Partially yes. Another huge factor is Wal-Mart's dominance. These speciality stores need to be able to sell wine and import beer to be profitable in a market that is as value-conscious as OKC. If World Market comes to Oklahoma I expect Tulsa first followed by OKC if it's successful. Tulsa looks better on paper due to how marketing "experts" get their research i.e. Wikipedia.

[hrdware]

That'd go over as well as a wet fart in church, and is far too costly and needlessly complicated to allow legal adults to enjoy a glass of wine with their meal.

OSBI has enough on their plates without having to do background checks for the million and a half or so Oklahomans who would be interested in licenses, especially considering that their staff is under 500 people. They'd have to build another agency solely to do these needless background checks, and I don't think that's even something you have to do when getting a car, so why would you need one for a beer? Cops certainly have far more important things to do than troll every restaurant demanding to see drinker's licenses.

And what would be the result? People get driver's licenses and still break the law, why would it be any different from a drinking license? You revoke the license and they can't get a beer? Not likely, they'd just do what kids now do, have a buddy get it for them. The restaurant industry would hate it, considering alcohol is far more of a money maker than food is and you're telling them that their legal-aged customers have to spend $185 over 10 years, as well as time off work to take the course/test, not for a job that helps them get paid and contributes to the economy, but for the right to have a beer with a meal. Are we really at the point where what we eat and drink is considered something that the government should be able to force licenses to do?

All of it just sounds like a terrible idea to me.

Edit: It just occurs to me that I may have missed a sarcastic response comparing getting a drink with owning a firearm. If that is the case, then I apologize and admit that you got me there.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic while at the same time trying to point out that regulating things doesn't work well at all.

[bille]

If grocery stores could sell wine and high-point beer in Oklahoma, do you think it would really attract stores like Costco and a much needed mid-high end grocery chain like Publix? Or would it simply hurt the local liquor stores because Wal-Mart can now sell wine and strong beer. Stores like Costco, Trader Joe's, etc exist in other 3.2 or package-store only wine states so I don't 100% buy that excuse. Thoughts?

Yes and yes. The argument for the 'high-point beer' and wine sells in establishments other than a liquor store is a pretty loaded argument. Those pushing for this a year or two ago found that out and opted to take a step back and reevaluate the end goal with a board of diversified folks determined to educate themselves and the public on alcohol, the current laws and how they intend to move our state forward with the passing of more modern laws...at least that's what I like to think anyway.

If/when it becomes legal, sure, we'll see more of those stores come into the market and sure you could expect to see a percentage of liquor stores close up shop due to losses in revenue, however, it's my honest opinion that those that see losses so great they have no other choice than to close are going to be the stores that were/are only in it for the money and failed to write 'customer satisfaction' into their business plan by offering what the customers really want. The big box stores, etc. won't bother carrying a full line of brand X nor will they stay on top of all the seasonals, special releases, etc. Additionally most won't have more than one (if they even have one) beer, wine, and/or spirits connoisseur and that'll make a difference to a lot of people that are out shopping for $50 bottle of wine or spirits. Most of you that have been in any number of liquor stores know the difference between a dedicated store and one that just exists. #hint: many stores that exist have an uncanny ability to materialize in 7 Eleven commercial strips as of late..

The Bible does not forbid all alcohol consumption, simply drunkenness. Jesus himself drank wine. You have probably been told it was only grape juice but there is nothing to back that up in Scripture or extra-biblical evidence. It's simply a person's opinion. The anti-alcohol movement in this country is rooted entirely in the late 19th century temperance movement. Prohibition does not work as it's been tried before and it was such a disaster it was repealed very quickly. What needs to be encouraged is responsible drinking vs binge drinking which is largely a result of the fact alcohol is considered a taboo to young people.

Prohibition has in fact been tried before, failing experiments in other countries prior to AmericanProhibition V2.0 and yes, as in other attempts it was a disaster. Repealed very quickly? Eh, I wouldn't say that. Worse is we are still feeling the lingering effects of prohibition (hence the thread topic) and which brings me to...

Oklahoma has made the issue much harder than it needs to be, and it done to protect the liquor industry. All these other 'things' are just decorations.

Is that a fact? My understanding is the laws that bind our hands here, now are leftover remnants of prohibition. Now, defending of those archaic laws is being done in part to protect the industry, I do agree there. It's largely about money, it was back then when prohibition was repealed and it is now too as folks push to have laws relaxed, overturned, etc. The best step is going to be educating those pushing for these changes so that they can speak eloquently to those that aren't educated, those that have no desire to be educated, as well as those that are just opposed to change in general. Understanding and being able to explain potential outcomes with the passing of these types of laws is imperative.

There's really not as much difference as most think. "Normal" Corona is 4.6 percent by volume. Oklahoma beer 3.2 percent by weight. When you do the conversion, 3.2 percent by weight would be 4.0 percent by volume. So it's 4.6 compared to 4.0. Only a .6 percent difference, not 1.4 percent. Most also refer to Texas beer as 6-point. All the Texas Bud or Coors varieties are between 4.0 and 5.9 percent by volume or 2.8 to 4.13 percent by weight.

This is pet peeve of mine when discussing alcohol laws/reform/etc. Thanks for explaining it so I didn't have to!

[RadicalModerate]

Oklahoma has made the issue much harder than it needs to be, and it done to protect the liquor industry. All these other 'things' are just decorations.

Perhaps you meant: The Liquor Distribution Cartel?
(carry on . . .)

[jerrywall]

I always hate when people use "modernize" as a goal for liquor laws. Be specific. Because otherwise, "modernize" just means "the various laws I want".

I mean - look at the list of laws for states across the country - List of alcohol laws of the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's the "standard" or "modern" law sets? What's the example state? The most liberal laws? Why? Oklahoma sits somewhere in the moderate area of laws, between stupid restrictive, all state owned liquor sales, and fully liberal, anything goes liquor laws. In many ways, our laws are less confusing that more "modern" or "liberal" states. I remember trying to find a case of beer in Baltimore. And drinking club cards in Dallas metro? I mean, really?

Maybe modern means drive through frozen daiquiri stands?

My wish list? Refrigeration in liquor stores, and 7 days a week. Don't really care about grocery sales, since I pass 3 liquor stores heading to any grocery store, and I can get in and out of a liquor store quicker.

[Just the facts]

Yes - I meant the The Liquor Distribution Cartel.

[RadicalModerate]

I think that Oklahoma needs to look to Missouri and Wisconsin as models for the New State o' The Art liquor laws.
Maybe just Missouri. It's closer.

[bille]

I always hate when people use "modernize" as a goal for liquor laws. Be specific. Because otherwise, "modernize" just means "the various laws I want".

I mean - look at the list of laws for states across the country - List of alcohol laws of the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's the "standard" or "modern" law sets? What's the example state? The most liberal laws? Why? Oklahoma sits somewhere in the moderate area of laws, between stupid restrictive, all state owned liquor sales, and fully liberal, anything goes liquor laws. In many ways, our laws are less confusing that more "modern" or "liberal" states. I remember trying to find a case of beer in Baltimore. And drinking club cards in Dallas metro? I mean, really?

Maybe modern means drive through frozen daiquiri stands?

My wish list? Refrigeration in liquor stores, and 7 days a week. Don't really care about grocery sales, since I pass 3 liquor stores heading to any grocery store, and I can get in and out of a liquor store quicker.

I don't really take it that way. Honestly though, I looked up 'modern' before replying to make sure I understood the context. That said I still agree that OK as well as most other states' alcohol laws could use some reform. There are just too many things related to a lot of these laws from 10, 20, or 80 years ago that no longer apply or makes sense. Actually, it probably never made sense back then either but the education wasn't there for those making the decisions so we are dealing with the repercussions now. How they defined 'non-intoxicating' alcohol is a perfect example (that's a great story btw).

As far as your wish list goes I agree! I've said it many times that the first step is overcoming the refrigeration issue. Teaching the public that it's about quality/storage of the product and not so 'we' can have a chilled bottle of merlot or 12% barleywine to chug on the drive home isn't going to be easy but it's certainly the first hurdle imo.

[Just the facts]

I like the Florida laws.

[bchris02]

I have been thinking about this, and I wonder why Oklahoma doesn't model its liquor laws after neighboring Arkansas, also a conservative state.

Strong beer and Oklahoma-made wine in grocery stores. Everything else in package stores. Such a policy would be a boon for state wineries but would still preserve liquor stores as the exclusive place for wide selection and hard liquor. Anybody disagree with that approach?

Arkansas also gives counties options of stricter alcohol laws than the state requires.

[RadicalModerate]

I'm glad you have been thinking about this. Perhaps you might direct those thoughts regarding a "model" for revamping our ancient and hackneyed "spirit control measures" slightly to the north? Like Missouri or Wisconsin . . . ? I mean, if you are going to dream of a day when The Local Liquor Cabal/Mafia/Cartel/etc. aren't continuing to perpetuate their interests with "effective lobbying" then dream big. Right? =)

[bchris02]

I'm glad you have been thinking about this. Perhaps you might direct those thoughts regarding a "model" for revamping our ancient and hackneyed "spirit control measures" slightly to the north? Like Missouri or Wisconsin . . . ? I mean, if you are going to dream of a day when The Local Liquor Cabal/Mafia/Cartel/etc. aren't continuing to perpetuate their interests with "effective lobbying" then dream big. Right? =)

Of course laws like Missouri or Wisconsin would be nice, but I have a difficult time believing they could pass in Oklahoma. In fact, I don't see the current laws changing any time soon. Even if it was put up for a vote, it would probably be a close vote and may not pass. Most of rural Oklahoma is still pretty heavily against alcohol consumption on religious grounds, and being that a change would require a statewide vote it couldn't pass without the support of the rural areas.

Our best bet near term is to lift the restriction on selling cold beer in liquor stores. That is probably the biggest inconvenience to the consumer regarding the current laws. A lot of craft breweries won't even sell in Oklahoma until that law is changed. It doesn't make since you can buy whiskey by the shot but not cold beer. People are FAR more likely to chug hard liquor in their cars than guzzle down a six pack. Another thing that baffles me is you can buy 3.2 beer singles, cold, at gas stations yet strong beer has to be warm to "prevent DUIs." Does anybody know if the legislature could do that or would that also require a change to the Constitution?