View Full Version : Liquor laws holding back Grocers to open



Pages : [1] 2

progressiveboy
04-29-2010, 11:48 PM
New Grocers struggling with Oklahoma's liquor laws. Saw this article in the Journal Record. It appears that the archaic laws in the State are holding back grocery retailers.



Lot Lines: Supermarkets show frustration at liquor laws (http://journalrecord.com/2010/04/29/lot-lines-supermarkets-show-frustration-at-liquor-laws-opinion/)

metro
04-30-2010, 09:05 AM
I still have yet to see an article I've with a retailer being quoted on anything about the liquor laws being the hold up. So far it's been local opinionist journalists.

okcpulse
04-30-2010, 10:36 AM
New Grocers struggling with Oklahoma's liquor laws. Saw this article in the Journal Record. It appears that the archaic laws in the State are holding back grocery retailers.



Lot Lines: Supermarkets show frustration at liquor laws (http://journalrecord.com/2010/04/29/lot-lines-supermarkets-show-frustration-at-liquor-laws-opinion/)

There is a discrepancy with the article. The columnist pointed out that Oklahoma is only one of five states to ban liquor and wine from being sold in grocery stores.

It should actually read Oklahoma is only one of five states that allow grocery stores to sell only 3.2 beer.

There are only a dozen states that allow grocery stores to sell liquor, wine and beer. The rest allow beer and wine only in grocery stores except a small handful of states do not allow any alcohol sales in supermarkets, mostly in the northeastern region of the U.S.

okclee
04-30-2010, 11:02 AM
Do we have a factual list of the states and their alcohol laws?

Minnesota is much like Oklahoma, selling 3.2 beer in grocery stores only.

venture
04-30-2010, 11:34 AM
It is Wiki, but here is a list: List of alcohol laws of the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alcohol_laws_of_the_United_States_by_state )

If people are worried about the validity of the list, all the sources are at the bottom of the page so feel free to check each one. lol

ddavidson8
04-30-2010, 12:18 PM
Of all the complaints about Oklahoma being backwards, this is the one I think holds the most weight. We're trying to draw conventions and buisness to OKC but we can't sell regulary budweiser? Get a million dollar CEO here and tell him we only have domestic near beers and look at the look on his face.

Thunder
04-30-2010, 01:35 PM
Both Oklahoma City’s and Tulsa’s grocery industries are quite stable. In fact, neither city lost any major supermarkets during the retail downturn of the past year. Furthermore, as more people are cutting back expenses and are not eating out as much, Oklahoma supermarkets have seen improving sales over the past two years.

Albertsons. :LolLolLol

okcpulse
04-30-2010, 01:45 PM
Of all the complaints about Oklahoma being backwards, this is the one I think holds the most weight. We're trying to draw conventions and buisness to OKC but we can't sell regulary budweiser? Get a million dollar CEO here and tell him we only have domestic near beers and look at the look on his face.

If that were true and we apply the same logic to Salt Lake City, then Salt Lake City would also have a problem drawing convention and business.

Utah is the only other state that does not sell regular Budweiser, or any of the other major domestic brews.

venture
04-30-2010, 02:20 PM
If that were true and we apply the same logic to Salt Lake City, then Salt Lake City would also have a problem drawing convention and business.

Utah is the only other state that does not sell regular Budweiser, or any of the other major domestic brews.

Salt Lake City has other things that would probably counter any draw back to liquor laws. If want to use that comparison then which would you pick...convention in city with mountains, ski resorts, etc...or one with flat prairie land? Not say we don't have other things to draw, but OKC =! SLC.

blake
04-30-2010, 02:37 PM
Of all the complaints about Oklahoma being backwards, this is the one I think holds the most weight. We're trying to draw conventions and buisness to OKC but we can't sell regulary budweiser? Get a million dollar CEO here and tell him we only have domestic near beers and look at the look on his face.


Why would a "million dollar CEO":

1. Be in a supermarket buying beer
2. Care

kevinpate
04-30-2010, 02:41 PM
Given the number of grocers in place, whether Wally worlds Target, IGA, Crest, moma and pops, Homeland etc., etc., etc., that seem to function ok without the alcohol sales, it's hard to see how operating sans alcohol sales could be a big ol' stumbling block.

Sell wine, or don't, i don't have a dawg in the fight. But it seems there's simply got to be bigger issues standing in the way given we have no shortage of places to buy food.

skyrick
04-30-2010, 04:08 PM
I drove a beer truck in OKC from 1975-79 (Dale Distributing-Miller Brewery) and I remember sometime in there that Byron Gambulous tried to do some legal maneuvering so that he could purchase real Coors (not 3.2) from a dsitributor other than the local Coors franchise (the name of my distinguished former competitor escapes me now.) His contention was that since the product he was interested in was in EXCESS of 3.2% by volume, it was an alcoholic beverage and could thus be sold by any of the liquor distributors instead of the exclusive franchises granted by the major breweries. If I recall correctly, the State agreed with that contention. The Big 3, (Coors, Miller & Bud) stated that if they could not have absolute control over distributorship of what we Okies mistakenly call "strong" beer, they would withdraw their product from the market in Oklahoma, which they did. Oklahoma ABC permits franchising 3.2 beer so they continued to sell their near beer (3.2) to groceries and convenience stores.

In fairness to Coors, at that time their beer was not pasteurized and had to be kept refrigerated from brewery to retail outlet. Their contention is that it would hinder their quality control efforts if they had to monitor numerous wholesalers around the state instead of a relative handful of franchises.

Once that happened it opened the floodgates for a few canny businessmen. From 1980-88 I drove a truck for Rich Distributing. With the Big 3 out of the liquor stores we owned the "strong" beer business in OKC. Our product line was anything other than Miller, Bud, Coors. We had Little Kings, Moosehead, Dos Equis, PBR, Black Label, Ringnes, Heineken, St Pauli Girl, Rheinlander, Guinness, Bass, Harp, Corona, Chihuahua, Tecate, Pearl, Beck's, Grolsch, Foster's, etc. etc. etc.

A question for current residents: Is there still no regular Coors, Bud and Miller available in liquor stores?

BTW, I remember while growing up in OKC that we called real beer "Strong" or "6 point". Real beer is closer to 3.8-4.2 % alcohol by volume. Only the German double-bocks and a couple of others approach 6%. When I was in the biz I remember Kulminator from Germany held the record, close to 7%.

okcpulse
04-30-2010, 04:20 PM
I drove a beer truck in OKC from 1975-79 (Dale Distributing-Miller Brewery) and I remember sometime in there that Byron Gambulous tried to do some legal maneuvering so that he could purchase real Coors (not 3.2) from a dsitributor other than the local Coors franchise (the name of my distinguished former competitor escapes me now.) His contention was that since the product he was interested in was in EXCESS of 3.2% by volume, it was an alcoholic beverage and could thus be sold by any of the liquor distributors instead of the exclusive franchises granted by the major breweries. If I recall correctly, the State agreed with that contention. The Big 3, (Coors, Miller & Bud) stated that if they could not have absolute control over distributorship of what we Okies mistakenly call "strong" beer, they would withdraw their product from the market in Oklahoma, which they did. Oklahoma ABC permits franchising 3.2 beer so they continued to sell their near beer (3.2) to groceries and convenience stores.

In fairness to Coors, at that time their beer was not pasteurized and had to be kept refrigerated from brewery to retail outlet. Their contention is that it would hinder their quality control efforts if they had to monitor numerous wholesalers around the state instead of a relative handful of franchises.

Once that happened it opened the floodgates for a few canny businessmen. From 1980-88 I drove a truck for Rich Distributing. With the Big 3 out of the liquor stores we owned the "strong" beer business in OKC. Our product line was anything other than Miller, Bud, Coors. We had Little Kings, Moosehead, Dos Equis, PBR, Black Label, Ringnes, Heineken, St Pauli Girl, Rheinlander, Guinness, Bass, Harp, Corona, Chihuahua, Tecate, Pearl, Beck's, Grolsch, Foster's, etc. etc. etc.

A question for current residents: Is there still no regular Coors, Bud and Miller available in liquor stores?

BTW, I remember while growing up in OKC that we called real beer "Strong" or "6 point". Real beer is closer to 3.8-4.2 % alcohol by volume. Only the German double-bocks and a couple of others approach 6%. When I was in the biz I remember Kulminator from Germany held the record, close to 7%.

Yes, franchising is still not allowed. However, laws concerning wineries and wine tasting events have been relaxed.

twade
04-30-2010, 04:56 PM
Two huge hurdles stand in the way of getting liquor laws relaxed in Oklahoma.

1) Liquor stores

All you have to do is look at Lubbock, TX. The "Strip" kept Lubbock from becoming wet for years. There is a lot of money tied up in liquor stores, and they don't want people encroaching on their territory. Hell in Norman, there is one on about every street corner.

2) Rural districts

The reason these bills never get out of committee is because rural areas, believe it or not, will be hurt by relaxing the laws. This last bill didn't get out of committee because it only applied to Oklahoma and Tulsa, and senators for rural areas believed that the grocery and liquor stores in their districts would be hurt by people driving to OKC or Tulsa for their goods.

I'm notably leaving out a certain segment of the religious community that has held onto the idea of temperance, but I don't they would be able to keep the laws from being changed. I think money, more importantly where the money is located, is the dominate factor.

BDP
04-30-2010, 05:10 PM
With the press we have been getting recently about our other laws, I think that liquor laws may be the least of our worries when it comes to attracting to new businesses to the state.

okcpulse
04-30-2010, 06:35 PM
With the press we have been getting recently about our other laws, I think that liquor laws may be the least of our worries when it comes to attracting to new businesses to the state.

Uughh... how many times to we have to beat this dead horse.

You guys act like every soul that lives outside Oklahoma's borders are liberal, enlightened super-beings, and that every company outside of Oklahoma is a liberal think tank.

The only legislation the business community will every give a crap about is legislation that will effect our bottom line. I work for a Fortune 500 company in Houston, and the only time I hear about Oklahoma's legislation is when I go on Newsok.com.

BDP
05-01-2010, 01:56 PM
You got to be kidding. Our new laws have been top news all week and some articles on it were some of the most shared this week. For a few days it was hard to turn on the national news, read any poltical papers, forums, or editorials without seeing a discussion on it and most of it was not pretty. It was even hard to log onto any social media and not see several postings from people around the country who were sharing articles on it. You may not like it, but it does matter, especially in a state that carries so much bad image baggage to begin with.

Most Fortune 500 companies are extremely dependent on their human resources. They want to be where they can hire the best. This generally means well educated people whose services and knowledge are in high demand. These people generally got to where they are in a broader goal to achieve a high quality of life. Now there is always a bottom line factor, of course, but not at the expense of access to the resources they need to be a successful company, which, most importantly, includes a well qualified workforce. There is a reason, as a state with one of the cheapest costs of doing business in the nation, there are only 4 fortune 500 companies here, and that's because cost isn't the only variable in P&L analysis. Revenue is just as important, and today's top companies depend on well educated and well qualified human resources to generate that revenue.

Now, do you really want to say that a company is going to ignore the fact that if they locate in Oklahoma they will have to compete for the services of well educated, highly demanded human resources against companies in others states that don't protect doctors who intentionally lie to their patients? That immediately puts them at a significant disadvantage. They have to convince these people to live here and we should be doing things to be more competitive in this arena, rather than less competitive. Not to mention the grave physical, emotional, and financial risk at which this puts all of Oklahoma's potential mothers and their families.

This has nothing to do with liberal versus conservative political posturing or whether not any company has political tendencies that may or may not gel with the culture here. This is about simple quality of life, which, in most people's opinion is not aided by legislation that outright protects fraudulent medical practices. It's simply insane, disgusting, offensive, and no doubt will have much more affect on corporate relocation and the 3rd party firms that research and negotiate these re-locations than not having wine in our grocery stores ever will.

When it comes to safety and civil liberties, I don't think you can beat that horse to death. And to say it has no negative economic impact on the state to enact laws that put the citizens at risk is just willful ignorance.

BG918
05-01-2010, 06:23 PM
You got to be kidding. Our new laws have been top news all week and some articles on it were some of the most shared this week. For a few days it was hard to turn on the national news, read any poltical papers, forums, or editorials without seeing a discussion on it and most of it was not pretty. It was even hard to log onto any social media and not see several postings from people around the country who were sharing articles on it. You may not like it, but it does matter, especially in a state that carries so much bad image baggage to begin with.

Most Fortune 500 companies are extremely dependent on their human resources. They want to be where they can hire the best. This generally means well educated people whose services and knowledge are in high demand. These people generally got to where they are in a broader goal to achieve a high quality of life. Now there is always a bottom line factor, of course, but not at the expense of access to the resources they need to be a successful company, which, most importantly, includes a well qualified workforce. There is a reason, as a state with one of the cheapest costs of doing business in the nation, there are only 4 fortune 500 companies here, and that's because cost isn't the only variable in P&L analysis. Revenue is just as important, and today's top companies depend on well educated and well qualified human resources to generate that revenue.

Now, do you really want to say that a company is going to ignore the fact that if they locate in Oklahoma they will have to compete for the services of well educated, highly demanded human resources against companies in others states that don't protect doctors who intentionally lie to their patients? That immediately puts them at a significant disadvantage. They have to convince these people to live here and we should be doing things to be more competitive in this arena, rather than less competitive. Not to mention the grave physical, emotional, and financial risk at which this puts all of Oklahoma's potential mothers and their families.

This has nothing to do with liberal versus conservative political posturing or whether not any company has political tendencies that may or may not gel with the culture here. This is about simple quality of life, which, in most people's opinion is not aided by legislation that outright protects fraudulent medical practices. It's simply insane, disgusting, offensive, and no doubt will have much more affect on corporate relocation and the 3rd party firms that research and negotiate these re-locations than not having wine in our grocery stores ever will.

When it comes to safety and civil liberties, I don't think you can beat that horse to death. And to say it has no negative economic impact on the state to enact laws that put the citizens at risk is just willful ignorance.

Well said, and I fully agree. Our state legislature is being very anti-business with its new laws. The best solution is to vote them out next election.

I want to see wine/beer in the groceries like many others but would really like to see more independent microbreweries. Legislation that allows brewpubs to brew/sell 3.2+ beer on the premises would potentially encourage such brewpubs to open. You could see a COOP Ale Works brewpub or Marshall's brewpub in Tulsa, among others. The current microbreweries like Bricktown and Coach's only can brew/sell 3.2 beer.

JIMBO
05-01-2010, 06:48 PM
WOW! We just went from how Oklahoma liquer laws affect business decisions to; state abortion law in only 17 posts. This must be some sort of record.

Bunty
05-01-2010, 07:18 PM
And if Stillwater voters drive their mayor out of office on a recall May 11 based largely on him being publicly intoxicated and asking a woman to show him her breasts, both charges unfounded and lacking proof, then out of staters will think they got Hooterville going on in the Oklahoma.

plmccordj
05-01-2010, 07:58 PM
Wouldn't this post be more relevant in the politics area?

venture
05-01-2010, 08:16 PM
Wouldn't this post be more relevant in the politics area?

This whole forum has become a politics forums. Not that Pete or the other mods have noticed. They would actually have to read and visit the site for that.

Larry OKC
05-02-2010, 12:46 AM
And if Stillwater voters drive their mayor out of office on a recall May 11 based largely on him being publicly intoxicated and asking a woman to show him her breasts, both charges unfounded and lacking proof, then out of staters will think they got Hooterville going on in the Oklahoma.

But isn't "Hooterville" what he was allegedly trying to see...LOL (sorry, but just couldn't resist)

okcpulse
05-02-2010, 02:01 AM
You got to be kidding. Our new laws have been top news all week and some articles on it were some of the most shared this week. For a few days it was hard to turn on the national news, read any poltical papers, forums, or editorials without seeing a discussion on it and most of it was not pretty. It was even hard to log onto any social media and not see several postings from people around the country who were sharing articles on it. You may not like it, but it does matter, especially in a state that carries so much bad image baggage to begin with.

Most Fortune 500 companies are extremely dependent on their human resources. They want to be where they can hire the best. This generally means well educated people whose services and knowledge are in high demand. These people generally got to where they are in a broader goal to achieve a high quality of life. Now there is always a bottom line factor, of course, but not at the expense of access to the resources they need to be a successful company, which, most importantly, includes a well qualified workforce. There is a reason, as a state with one of the cheapest costs of doing business in the nation, there are only 4 fortune 500 companies here, and that's because cost isn't the only variable in P&L analysis. Revenue is just as important, and today's top companies depend on well educated and well qualified human resources to generate that revenue.

Now, do you really want to say that a company is going to ignore the fact that if they locate in Oklahoma they will have to compete for the services of well educated, highly demanded human resources against companies in others states that don't protect doctors who intentionally lie to their patients? That immediately puts them at a significant disadvantage. They have to convince these people to live here and we should be doing things to be more competitive in this arena, rather than less competitive. Not to mention the grave physical, emotional, and financial risk at which this puts all of Oklahoma's potential mothers and their families.

This has nothing to do with liberal versus conservative political posturing or whether not any company has political tendencies that may or may not gel with the culture here. This is about simple quality of life, which, in most people's opinion is not aided by legislation that outright protects fraudulent medical practices. It's simply insane, disgusting, offensive, and no doubt will have much more affect on corporate relocation and the 3rd party firms that research and negotiate these re-locations than not having wine in our grocery stores ever will.

When it comes to safety and civil liberties, I don't think you can beat that horse to death. And to say it has no negative economic impact on the state to enact laws that put the citizens at risk is just willful ignorance.

I never said I agree with what the legislature is doing. But Oklahoma is not the only state wrestling with controversial legislation. Our state is in the headlines now. Tomorrow, there will be another, and then another. There are 50, and not a single state agrees with the other completely when it comes to controversy.

I agree with you that the legislature is indeed being very non-productive. If they cannot produce good legislation, they're fired. It's no wonder why Oklahoma has term limits.

However right now, BDP, you are witnessing the most aggressive form of political segregation this nation has ever seen. And your social boards and media types are so disgustingly biased, conservative or liberal, that I am disgusted with politics. Life is so much more beautiful and enjoyable without the nastiness of American politics and social trends. I tossed this right wing vs. left wing crap in the Asplundh wood-chipper after November 2008. A bunch of mouthy f**ks on television is a real turn off, we are much better than the jargon we are allowing ourselves to be exposed.

If we truly, truly love Oklahoma, then take action. Do something. Don't accept what people across the country are saying. Focus and push a solution... in a non-partisan manner. That is how Oklahoma City transformed. I kid you not, if partisan politics were involved, then Oklahoma City would still be in 1992.

stephy
05-02-2010, 10:14 AM
then Oklahoma City would still be in 1992.

Some of you people are beyond delusional about this city. It is still in 1992.

No real beer, no good shopping, no good jobs, no fios.

Redneck, hicky entertainment.

Medieval laws foring rape and incest victims to undergo intrusive medical procedures so they can see the abomination growing in them and causing them to relive the horror that put it there.

I'm almost astonished that there aren't still witchcraft trials here.

okcpulse
05-02-2010, 10:35 AM
Some of you people are beyond delusional about this city. It is still in 1992.

No real beer, no good shopping, no good jobs, no fios.

Redneck, hicky entertainment.

Medieval laws foring rape and incest victims to undergo intrusive medical procedures so they can see the abomination growing in them and causing them to relive the horror that put it there.

I'm almost astonished that there aren't still witchcraft trials here.

Yeah, because all of the laws are Oklahoma City's fault. I agree with several on this board that the state is holding Oklahoma City back. There is some truth to that.

Oklahoma City is home to Oklahoma's first openly gay law maker. Senator Andrew Rice, OF OKLAHOMA CITY, is pushing for better liquor laws.

The abortion bill was authored by a woman from the rural district the encompasses the town of Lindsay.

As far as shopping goes, it's only a matter of time for that changes. It is what it is.

And as far as redneck, hicky entertainment... please do list. I had no idea that arts festivals, film festivals, Thunder basketball, RedHawks baseball, Oktoberfest, the Medieval Fair and likes are considered "redneck".

bluedogok
05-02-2010, 11:06 AM
Yeah, because all of the laws are Oklahoma City's fault. I agree with several on this board that the state is holding Oklahoma City back. There is some truth to that.

Oklahoma City is home to Oklahoma's first openly gay law maker. Senator Andrew Rice, OF OKLAHOMA CITY, is pushing for better liquor laws.

The abortion bill was authored by a woman from the rural district the encompasses the town of Lindsay.
...and Oklahoma isn't the only state facing this city vs. rural population struggle when it comes to politics, pretty much every state is facing it in some form as most states populations have moved from a rural majority to a city majority. Here is a blog about the issue at the "The Reinvented City," last weekend, a conference sponsored by the Nieman Foundation, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and the Harvard Graduate School of Design. In it some ex-mayors (including Seattle's Greg Nickels) advocate abolishing the states.
The Naked City: A cities-vs.-states smackdown (http://marynewsom.blogspot.com/2010/04/cities-vs-states-smackdown.html).
Planetizen.com - The Reinvented City (http://www.planetizen.com/node/43926)

Some states that have had larger cities have always tilted a bit more to the city but it is happening even moreso in the traditional rural states like Oklahoma. With the populations so concentrated in the cities but the representation usually favoring rural areas (in numbers) or suburban areas that tend to vote more "rural-like" there will always be this divide.
Even a state like New York has its issues in that NYC has always had issues with the legislature in Albany and I don't think anyone can accuse NYC/New York state of being "hickville".

Bunty
05-02-2010, 12:34 PM
Some of you people are beyond delusional about this city. It is still in 1992.

No real beer, no good shopping, no good jobs, no fios.

Redneck, hicky entertainment.

Medieval laws foring rape and incest victims to undergo intrusive medical procedures so they can see the abomination growing in them and causing them to relive the horror that put it there.

I'm almost astonished that there aren't still witchcraft trials here.

Sorry, but Oklahoma has really come a long way since the "Tin Drum vs Tin Badge Debate" of 1999. That and the loony fiasco to ban Penthouse magazine in Tulsa were more embarrassing to live thru than what's been going on now. And nothing in Tulsa suggesting a desire to get rid of witches has happened in a long time.

Hopefully, the new abortion laws will be thrown out with the State Capitol hopefully concentrating more on getting Oklahoma even more in company with the more civilized states of the union.

Oklahoma legislators swear to uphold the Oklahoma Constitution. If they put on a display of bad judgment in passing unconstituional laws, costing taxpayer money, then the voters should have the good sense to vote them out.

BG918
05-02-2010, 03:02 PM
Oklahoma legislators swear to uphold the Oklahoma Constitution. If they put on a display of bad judgment in passing unconstituional laws, costing taxpayer money, then the voters should have the good sense to vote them out.

Exactly, all we can do.

kevinpate
05-02-2010, 03:13 PM
S...
Oklahoma legislators swear to uphold the Oklahoma Constitution. If they put on a display of bad judgment in passing unconstituional laws, costing taxpayer money, then the voters should have the good sense to vote them out.

However, as the common refrain of a politico is generally "I'm just representing the folk in my district", and as it is very common for a politico to be reelected time and again, one could argue the masses don't really care what is constitutional or not constitutional, they care more about a result.

That's not new to the current majority in the state by any means, but they are somewhat more inclined to see where the lines are, and where the lines might be moved to as well. Such is politics

progressiveboy
05-03-2010, 07:30 AM
You got to be kidding. Our new laws have been top news all week and some articles on it were some of the most shared this week. For a few days it was hard to turn on the national news, read any poltical papers, forums, or editorials without seeing a discussion on it and most of it was not pretty. It was even hard to log onto any social media and not see several postings from people around the country who were sharing articles on it. You may not like it, but it does matter, especially in a state that carries so much bad image baggage to begin with.

Most Fortune 500 companies are extremely dependent on their human resources. They want to be where they can hire the best. This generally means well educated people whose services and knowledge are in high demand. These people generally got to where they are in a broader goal to achieve a high quality of life. Now there is always a bottom line factor, of course, but not at the expense of access to the resources they need to be a successful company, which, most importantly, includes a well qualified workforce. There is a reason, as a state with one of the cheapest costs of doing business in the nation, there are only 4 fortune 500 companies here, and that's because cost isn't the only variable in P&L analysis. Revenue is just as important, and today's top companies depend on well educated and well qualified human resources to generate that revenue.

Now, do you really want to say that a company is going to ignore the fact that if they locate in Oklahoma they will have to compete for the services of well educated, highly demanded human resources against companies in others states that don't protect doctors who intentionally lie to their patients? That immediately puts them at a significant disadvantage. They have to convince these people to live here and we should be doing things to be more competitive in this arena, rather than less competitive. Not to mention the grave physical, emotional, and financial risk at which this puts all of Oklahoma's potential mothers and their families.

This has nothing to do with liberal versus conservative political posturing or whether not any company has political tendencies that may or may not gel with the culture here. This is about simple quality of life, which, in most people's opinion is not aided by legislation that outright protects fraudulent medical practices. It's simply insane, disgusting, offensive, and no doubt will have much more affect on corporate relocation and the 3rd party firms that research and negotiate these re-locations than not having wine in our grocery stores ever will.

When it comes to safety and civil liberties, I don't think you can beat that horse to death. And to say it has no negative economic impact on the state to enact laws that put the citizens at risk is just willful ignorance. Agree! Very good points.

ddavidson8
05-03-2010, 08:35 AM
The CEO would be drinking low point beer at a bar. You don't think they order Mich Ultra or Miller 64 or whatever they're called? They watch their weight too.

Anyway, I think buisnesses like Kroger and Safeway (Randall's) have made valid points in why they don't open in Oklahoma.

blake
05-03-2010, 09:07 AM
The CEO would be drinking low point beer at a bar. You don't think they order Mich Ultra or Miller 64 or whatever they're called? They watch their weight too.

Anyway, I think buisnesses like Kroger and Safeway (Randall's) have made valid points in why they don't open in Oklahoma.

If he is drinking a Mich Ultra, then I doubt he really cares about beer that much.

Nermel
05-03-2010, 06:34 PM
I'd like to see liquor stores be allowed to stay open past 9pm, and on Sundays. If you can goto a bar until 2am, and drink whatever you want, why not be allowed to purchase it for use at home?

Bunty
05-03-2010, 08:39 PM
If conservatives want smaller government and for it to keep out of the hair of business, then they should prove it by abolishing the Oklahoma law that bans car sales on Sundays. I have yet to hear what was the true motivation behind the serious need to make such an oppresive law against the car business in Oklahoma.

ljbab728
05-04-2010, 12:03 AM
I'd like to see liquor stores be allowed to stay open past 9pm, and on Sundays. If you can goto a bar until 2am, and drink whatever you want, why not be allowed to purchase it for use at home?

I don't have a strong opinion about that but the difference is that you can buy liquor in a liquor store during the posted legal hours and then still use it at home after 9PM or on Sundays. With a little planning that should never be a problem unless you have a last minute craving for a margarita on Sunday and you're out of tequila.

Larry OKC
05-04-2010, 12:36 AM
^^^
Many businesses used to be closed on Sundays and had short 9 to 5 type hours. You adapt and plan ahead in situations like that. For some reason the only time I think of going by Chick-filet & Hobby Lobby is on Sundays when they are closed...LOL

Bunty
05-04-2010, 04:03 AM
So why do car dealers need a law to keep them closed on Sundays while Hobby Lobby does not? However, under Oklahoma law Chick-filet can open on Sundays if it wants to because what it sells is food.

Larry OKC
05-04-2010, 04:43 AM
Not sure why there is a Sunday car sales ban...Hobby Lobby and Chick filet CAN be open but choose not to. Don't think anything in state law forbids/allows Sunday sales based on the sell of food. Hobby Lobby could be open just as many other retailers that don't sell food are open on Sundays.

Bunty
05-04-2010, 12:19 PM
You're right. And Oklahoma law also states: (Yippee, horse racing is not banned on Sundays by the state.)

21-908. The following are the acts forbidden to be done on the first day of the week, the doing of any of which is Sabbath-breaking:

1. Servile labor, except works of necessity or charity.

2. Trades, manufactures, and mechanical employment.

3. All horse racing or gaming except as authorized by the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Horse Racing Act.

4. All manner of public selling, or offering or exposing for sale publicly, of any commodities, except that meats, bread, fish, and all other foods may be sold at any time, and except that food and drink may be sold to be eaten and drank upon the premises where sold, and drugs, medicines, milk, ice, and surgical appliances and burial appliances and all other necessities may be sold at any time of the day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21-909. It is a sufficient defense in proceedings for servile labor on the first day of the week, to show that the accused uniformly keeps another day of the week as holy time, and does not labor upon that day, and that the labor complained of was done in such manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21-911. Every person guilty of Sabbath-breaking is punishable by a fine of not more than Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) for each offense.

dedndcrusr
05-04-2010, 01:43 PM
...and how is it constitutional to create laws that restrict business based on specific religious beliefs? I guess if you belong to a religion that holds saturday as the Sabbath you're screwed.

Also, how does my ability to purchass chilled, high-point beer in a grocery store, or on Sunday, violate anyone else's rights?

Midtowner, you're the legal guru. How does this work?

Midtowner
05-04-2010, 01:49 PM
...and how is it constitutional to create laws that restrict business based on specific religious beliefs? I guess if you belong to a religion that holds saturday as the Sabbath you're screwed.

Also, how does my ability to purchass chilled, high-point beer in a grocery store, or on Sunday, violate anyone else's rights?

Midtowner, you're the legal guru. How does this work?

Ex Parte Hodges, 65 Okla.Crim. 69, 83 P.2d 201 (1938).


1. The Legislature has power to impose upon the public the civil duty of observing one day in seven as a day of rest, but it is beyond its power to impose the observance of Sunday as a religious duty.

There hasn't been a substantial challenge to these laws as far as I can tell in a very long time though.

brownb01
05-04-2010, 03:29 PM
Keep in mind...the law is not that you can't buy strong beer in grocery stores.

True you can't buy it in the grovery store, but you can buy it in the liquor store. And it can't be cold.

Stupid law...I agree.

however, if they Big US brewers wanted to bring strong Bud or Coors (for example) they could...and sell it in liquor stores. They choose not too.

Larry OKC
05-04-2010, 04:07 PM
You're right. And Oklahoma law also states: (Yippee, horse racing is not banned on Sundays by the state.)

21-908. The following are the acts forbidden to be done on the first day of the week, the doing of any of which is Sabbath-breaking:

1. Servile labor, except works of necessity or charity.

2. Trades, manufactures, and mechanical employment.

3. All horse racing or gaming except as authorized by the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Horse Racing Act.

4. All manner of public selling, or offering or exposing for sale publicly, of any commodities, except that meats, bread, fish, and all other foods may be sold at any time, and except that food and drink may be sold to be eaten and drank upon the premises where sold, and drugs, medicines, milk, ice, and surgical appliances and burial appliances and all other necessities may be sold at any time of the day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21-909. It is a sufficient defense in proceedings for servile labor on the first day of the week, to show that the accused uniformly keeps another day of the week as holy time, and does not labor upon that day, and that the labor complained of was done in such manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21-911. Every person guilty of Sabbath-breaking is punishable by a fine of not more than Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) for each offense.

WOW, I stand corrected. If I am reading this correctly, a lot of retailers may be in violation then.

skyrick
05-04-2010, 04:50 PM
Keep in mind...the law is not that you can't buy strong beer in grocery stores.

True you can't buy it in the grovery store, but you can buy it in the liquor store. And it can't be cold.

Stupid law...I agree.

however, if they Big US brewers wanted to bring strong Bud or Coors (for example) they could...and sell it in liquor stores. They choose not too.

See my post (#12) earlier in this thread for the reasons they choose not to.

GreasyAintEasy
05-05-2010, 11:03 AM
Keep in mind...the law is not that you can't buy strong beer in grocery stores.

True you can't buy it in the grovery store, but you can buy it in the liquor store. And it can't be cold.

Stupid law...I agree.

however, if they Big US brewers wanted to bring strong Bud or Coors (for example) they could...and sell it in liquor stores. They choose not too.

Bud, Miller, and Coors love our liquor laws. In central Oklahoma we only have two distributors (Premium Beers with AB brands, and Capitol with Coors and Miller) competing for market share in grocery stores and gas stations where the vast majority of beer is sold. In other states they're competing with all the craft brewers and imports. I'm guessing the AB, Premium and Capitol have just as much to do with the status quo as the liquor stores.

brownb01
05-05-2010, 02:46 PM
I drove a beer truck in OKC from 1975-79 (Dale Distributing-Miller Brewery) and I remember sometime in there that Byron Gambulous tried to do some legal maneuvering so that he could purchase real Coors (not 3.2) from a dsitributor other than the local Coors franchise (the name of my distinguished former competitor escapes me now.) His contention was that since the product he was interested in was in EXCESS of 3.2% by volume, it was an alcoholic beverage and could thus be sold by any of the liquor distributors instead of the exclusive franchises granted by the major breweries. If I recall correctly, the State agreed with that contention. The Big 3, (Coors, Miller & Bud) stated that if they could not have absolute control over distributorship of what we Okies mistakenly call "strong" beer, they would withdraw their product from the market in Oklahoma, which they did. Oklahoma ABC permits franchising 3.2 beer so they continued to sell their near beer (3.2) to groceries and convenience stores.

In fairness to Coors, at that time their beer was not pasteurized and had to be kept refrigerated from brewery to retail outlet. Their contention is that it would hinder their quality control efforts if they had to monitor numerous wholesalers around the state instead of a relative handful of franchises.

Once that happened it opened the floodgates for a few canny businessmen. From 1980-88 I drove a truck for Rich Distributing. With the Big 3 out of the liquor stores we owned the "strong" beer business in OKC. Our product line was anything other than Miller, Bud, Coors. We had Little Kings, Moosehead, Dos Equis, PBR, Black Label, Ringnes, Heineken, St Pauli Girl, Rheinlander, Guinness, Bass, Harp, Corona, Chihuahua, Tecate, Pearl, Beck's, Grolsch, Foster's, etc. etc. etc.

A question for current residents: Is there still no regular Coors, Bud and Miller available in liquor stores?

BTW, I remember while growing up in OKC that we called real beer "Strong" or "6 point". Real beer is closer to 3.8-4.2 % alcohol by volume. Only the German double-bocks and a couple of others approach 6%. When I was in the biz I remember Kulminator from Germany held the record, close to 7%.

yep...all correct. And no, you cannot get "Strong" coors, bud or miller. You can however, get ANYTHING else....at a liquor store.

fuzzytoad
05-05-2010, 02:55 PM
yep...all correct. And no, you cannot get "Strong" coors, bud or miller. You can however, get ANYTHING else....at a liquor store.

not *ANYTHING*

There's a number of breweries that refuse to ship to Oklahoma due to restrictions on refrigeration and the negative impact that warm-temp storage has on the taste of beer... Fat Tire comes immediately to mind...

metro
05-05-2010, 04:34 PM
What is all that about grocers won't come here, etc. etc. WF announced they're coming today!!

king183
05-06-2010, 11:47 AM
What is all that about grocers won't come here, etc. etc. WF announced they're coming today!!

I hear only crickets. When Whole Foods announced they were coming yesterday, this is exactly what I thought about. People who were saying our liquor laws are preventing us from getting stores like WF didn't know what they were talking about. If they can make a profit doing business here, they'll come here. That's what matters. Clearly they think they can do good business without selling wine or liquor in their stores.

I'm all for reforming our liquor laws, but let's try to use facts in these discussions rather than personal opinion masquerading as fact.

mugofbeer
05-06-2010, 11:53 AM
I hear only crickets. When Whole Foods announced they were coming yesterday, this is exactly what I thought about. People who were saying our liquor laws are preventing us from getting stores like WF didn't know what they were talking about. If they can make a profit doing business here, they'll come here. That's what matters. Clearly they think they can do good business without selling wine or liquor in their stores.

I'm all for reforming our liquor laws, but let's try to use facts in these discussions rather than personal opinion masquerading as fact.

For the purpose of the discussion, I would make the proposal that WF is a different kind of grocer. They have wonderful produce, wonderful meat and fish, excellent prepared foods and grains. I bet most of these are significantly higher profit margin departments than normal grocery goods. WF doesn't have many of the same brands as other grocers so there is only indirect competition between them and Homeland or Wal Mart.

If Kroger or Safeway were studying whether or not to (re)enter the market, they would have different considerations and would have to consider each product in the store.

bluedogok
05-06-2010, 09:56 PM
As stated previously, Oklahoma isn't the only state facing this issue....

The Denver Post - Colorado grocery-liquor bill iced (http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_15027450)

Denver Business Journal - Bill to let Colorado grocers sell liquor pulled; fight likely moves to ballot (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/05/03/daily42.html)

Ezrablum
05-06-2010, 10:12 PM
If you had ever been into a Trader Joes or a Whole Foods, you would know what an integral part of their concept beer and wine sales are. Good beer and good wine goes hand in hand with good food. Trader Joes was famous for it's 2 Buck Chuck. I honestly don't see them coming here, and our liquor laws are a big part of it.

mugofbeer
05-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Personally, I see no need for grocery stores to sell liquor per se. Beer and wine, OK. There are a large number of "Mom and Pop" liquor stores and for grocery stores to compete would put most of them out of business. The big controversy in Colorado is just this issue. Grocery stores can sell 3.2 beer but no wine. The current Colorado law says only one grocery store in the state per grocery company can sell liquor (ie. 1 for Safeway, 1 for King Soopers, etc). The grocers want to sell liquor while the liquor store owners argue it will put most of them out of business. I am all for protecting the "mom & Pop" stores.

bluedogok
05-06-2010, 10:26 PM
If you had ever been into a Trader Joes or a Whole Foods, you would know what an integral part of their concept beer and wine sales are. Good beer and good wine goes hand in hand with good food. Trader Joes was famous for it's 2 Buck Chuck. I honestly don't see them coming here, and our liquor laws are a big part of it.
Not in all their stores, the Whole Foods stores in Boston do not have beer or wine. It seems Massachusetts beer/wine/liquor laws are still under the package store concept without the 3.2 beer option. There are other states that have screwed up liquor laws as well, in fact most states have some screwey-ness in their liquor laws. Dallas is a prime example and their "dry precincts" crap.

skyrick
05-07-2010, 06:30 AM
If you had ever been into a Trader Joes or a Whole Foods, you would know what an integral part of their concept beer and wine sales are. Good beer and good wine goes hand in hand with good food. Trader Joes was famous for it's 2 Buck Chuck. I honestly don't see them coming here, and our liquor laws are a big part of it.

Same for Central Market. I can't imagine one without their incredible beer and wine selection.

kevinpate
05-07-2010, 06:45 AM
If you had ever been into a Trader Joes or a Whole Foods, you would know what an integral part of their concept beer and wine sales are. Good beer and good wine goes hand in hand with good food. Trader Joes was famous for it's 2 Buck Chuck. I honestly don't see them coming here, and our liquor laws are a big part of it.

Perhaps not TJ, but WF is coming, notwithstanding present laws on sale of wine, beer and other spirits. I suspect they see a shot at success all the same.

metro
05-07-2010, 08:53 AM
If you had ever been into a Trader Joes or a Whole Foods, you would know what an integral part of their concept beer and wine sales are. Good beer and good wine goes hand in hand with good food. Trader Joes was famous for it's 2 Buck Chuck. I honestly don't see them coming here, and our liquor laws are a big part of it.

Strawman argument Ezra - we've hashed this out a million times, Colorado, some parts in Texas, namely dry counties in Dallas, NYC, Boston, etc. all have stores that don't sell beer/wine. Some of them sell 3.2 beer just like our grocers do here. Again, I've never ONCE seen an article where these retailers say this is the reason preventing them from coming.

DelCamino
05-07-2010, 09:00 AM
Metro is right.

A check of liquor laws by states verifies there are many Trader Joe's stores, as well as Whole Foods Markets, located within states that prohibit wine sales in grocery stores:

Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware, New Jersey, New York, Massachusettes, Pennsylvania, Utah, etc.

An easy check of the Trader Joe's website/store locations reveals this.

I want wine sales in grocery stores. But the current law isn't keeping these retailers from opening a store in Oklahoma City. It doesn't help, granted, but it's not preventing them being here.

BG918
05-07-2010, 09:34 AM
I think they locate in those places because they are large cities with a lot of wealth, so they can make up the loss of not having beer/wine sales. The profit margins in a smaller market like OKC or Tulsa would probably have to be bolstered by selling high-margin wine/beer which is not allowed in Oklahoma. That could keep Trader Joe's away, especially now that both cities will have Whole Foods.