Eh.. I'm not sure I agree. We have 48 states with DIFFERENT liquor laws, is about all you can say. Should we only have state owned liquor stores? What about not allowing liquor stores to sell cases of beer (only individual bottles). How about county by country laws and rules? No confusion there, of course.

The only thing you can say is that 48 states allow cold beer. But there are worse states out there in regard to liquor laws. People get myopic sometimes when obsessed about being anti-Oklahoma.

I can't agree with this more. At least our laws are consistently bad lol. The county by county rules that Texas has is just crazy.

Then I'll never understand how selling chilled beer in grocery and convenience stores was ever allowed, unless 3.2% beer was classified as a non-intoxicating beverage at the time. If true, another indication how crazy Oklahoma alcohol laws can be.

It's my understanding that 3.2 was classified as non-intoxicating to circumvent prohibition.

If anyone wants to drink cold beer in their car or in the parking lot, 3.2 beer is already available for that activity and it's more readily available and accessible than higher point beers, so using that to keep cold beer out of liquor stores is pretty silly.

If buying the refrigerators is the problem, I'd gladly finance any store that doesn't have the resources for it, as I'd be pretty confident the increase in sales will pay it off very quickly with a nice return.

I'm pretty sure the resistance from stores and from Central is just based on fear that cold beer in liquor stores is a stepping stone to high point beer and wine in grocery stores. Theses businesses have depended on the state's regulation of competition in their industry for a long time. Any amount of change or ease of regulations will cause concern and anxiety, even if some of the change has a great chance of helping them in the near future.

And, as Jerrywall pointed out, I am also pretty sure that many breweries and wineries avoid the state not just because of refrigeration laws, but because of our distribution regulations.

I can't agree with this more. At least our laws are consistently bad lol. The county by county rules that Texas has is just crazy.

Not just counties, constable districts within counties.

Until a few years ago, most of far north and pretty much all of south Dallas was completely dry. The dividing line was the footprint of old Dallas before it started annexing areas after the 1910's. The wet/dry boundaries were never updated until 2010, and a lot of Dallas County is still "moist" and not completely wet.

So no, very few states have completely given up on prohibition.

It's my understanding that 3.2 was classified as non-intoxicating to circumvent prohibition.

If anyone wants to drink cold beer in their car or in the parking lot, 3.2 beer is already available for that activity and it's more readily available and accessible than higher point beers, so using that to keep cold beer out of liquor stores is pretty silly.

Exactly. The difference between 3.2 beer and full-strength beer has a lot more to do with taste than alcohol content anyways.

I can't agree with this more. At least our laws are consistently bad lol. The county by county rules that Texas has is just crazy.

While Texas is certainly no bastion of libertarianism when it comes to liquor laws (I found out this weekend that you can't buy beer in a gas station after midnight), I don't understand how anybody could say they aren't preferable to Oklahoma's laws.

Not just counties, constable districts within counties.

Until a few years ago, most of far north and pretty much all of south Dallas was completely dry. The dividing line was the footprint of old Dallas before it started annexing areas after the 1910's. The wet/dry boundaries were never updated until 2010, and a lot of Dallas County is still "moist" and not completely wet.

So no, very few states have completely given up on prohibition.

I remember the first time I had to buy a membership card to get a beer at Chili's in the Dallas metro...

I think Oklahoma legislators on the House side just want to kick the problem with Oklahoma alcohol laws down the road for yet another year as we all become old, or older and older waiting for major changes. The liquor store owner's excuse for not wanting chilled beer legalized is the height of ridiculousness.

Lawmakers who wrote cold beer bill do ?not? want it to pass | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2015/04/09/lawmakers-who-wrote-cold-beer-bill-do-not-want-it-to-pass/)

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

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

When did it change to 9pm?

When did it change to 9pm?

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

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

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

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

Whipper Snapper. Lol

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

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

While Sam stated in the article that he has been coming and going at 9:30 for 37 years, 37 years ago liquor stores were open until 10 in Oklahoma.
The station should have sought out the viewpoint of a younger liquor store operator as well, who was for it.

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

It's my understanding that 3.2 was classified as non-intoxicating to circumvent prohibition.
Exactly. The Cullen Harrison act redefined beer up to 3.2abw as "non-intoxicating" as a stopgap until the 21st amendment could be ratified. The only thing I can find as to why they went with 3.2 is that many of the light lagers selling prior to prohibition were around that percentage.


Exactly. The difference between 3.2 beer and full-strength beer has a lot more to do with taste than alcohol content anyways.
Process, ingredients, and style can certainly trick a palate though. I'd bet most wouldn't be able to distinguish the difference between low point and full strength, mainly because the macro swill many people drink and refer to as beer is usually just a percentage or less difference. Which brings me to the issue of defining "non-intoxicating" (now called low point). The purpose of establishing the definition and the number was temporary and has long outlived it's use and it's time that we do away with it.

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

Increase in bar business after 9?

Process, ingredients, and style can certainly trick a palate though. I'd bet most wouldn't be able to distinguish the difference between low point and full strength, mainly because the macro swill many people drink asked refer to as beer is usually just a percentage or less difference. Which brings me to the issue of defining "non-intoxicating" (now called low point). The purpose of establishing the definition and the number was temporary and has long outlived it's use and it's time that we do away with it.

It depends on the beer. I can't tell a difference between 3.2 Bud Light and real Bud Light. Same with Coors and Miller. Its a little easier to distinguish full-strength Budweiser from 3.2 Budweiser. The 3.2 versions of brews like Stella Artois, Shiner, PBR, Killians Irish Red, etc are so watered down they are undrinkable.

If one has to drink 3.2 beer the new COOP beers are pretty decent.

SB383 passed the House! Now on to conference.

SB424 up next.

It passed.

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

SB383 passed the House! Now on to conference.

SB424 up next.

383 passed the entire house?

383 passed the entire house?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's so silly and trivial to hold a state wide vote to decide if liquor store owners should sell chilled beer. If we were really a free people, liquor store owners would have been granted this right to decide for him or herself decades ago without a vote needed.
Not that many decades ago our state was still in the midst of prohibition aftermath. The vote is needed <now> because it'll involve a change to the state's constitution.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

JerryWall,

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

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

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



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

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

JerryWall,

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

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

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

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

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


Here's another view: America?s booze laws: Worse than you thought. (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/06/america_s_booze_laws_worse_than_you_thought.html)

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


Here's another view: America?s booze laws: Worse than you thought. (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/06/america_s_booze_laws_worse_than_you_thought.html)

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


Cant understand why Bice would propose a law without the intention of getting it passed. Im thinking that If you arent ready for it to become a law, then dont propose one
When proposed, at least my understanding, was that it was intended only for refrigeration of beer in liquor stores. A lofty goal but one many felt obtainable. Additionally a goal that WOULDN'T require a constitution change and thus a vote by the people.

OK isn't the only state with stupid liquor laws. Lot's of states have their versions of stupidity. Utah and Pennsylvania are probably the worst (Liquor stores are state owned in PA) Did you know that in Texas police can arrest people for public drunkenness while they are actually sitting quietly in bars?
That's true and ongoing are proposed changes to many of these silly laws, at least the ones specifically inhibiting. There are several states with proposed changes this year, as there have been in recent years, and will continue for the foreseeable future. A key difference here in OK is our laws are hindering our local businesses and breweries so much more than in other states. Additionally they are keeping outside breweries from distributing or even the potential for expanding brewery operations into our state.

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

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

This should be resolved if SB 424 passes, would it not?

A key difference here in OK is our laws are hindering our local businesses and breweries so much more than in other states. Additionally they are keeping outside breweries from distributing or even the potential for expanding brewery operations into our state.

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

Ours isn't even close to the most stupid. In Florida the brewers have to sell their product to wholesalers and then buy it back in order to sell it themselves.

Texas: No one is permitted to consume more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.

Utah: Wine used in wine tastings must not be swallowed.

Pennsylvania: The law states that a man may not buy alcohol without written permission from his wife.

Ohio: The wine brand “Fat Bastard” is banned for sale within OH borders, to “protect impressionable children”.

New Mexico: Selling, serving, or giving alcohol to a minor is a Class 4 felony and punishable by up to 18 months in prison.

New Hampshire: It is illegal to be served alcohol unless you are sitting down.

Kentucky: It is illegal to ship alcohol to Kentucky, even if it’s just a bottle of wine for your mother, unless you want to be charged with a felony and go to jail for the next five years

Indiana: It is illegal for liquor stores to sell milk and cold soft drinks. However, they are allowed to sell soft drinks at room temperature.

Iowa: It is illegal to start a tab at a bar in Iowa.

California: It is illegal to sell alcohol beverages within 5 feet of a cash register in a store that sells both alcohol and motor fuel.

There are plenty of other screwed up liquor laws all over the US.

This should be resolved if SB 424 passes, would it not?
No, not the way I understand it. 424 will allow for direct sales but those sales are not for on premise consumption.

Ours isn't even close to the most stupid. In Florida the brewers have to sell their product to wholesalers and then buy it back in order to sell it themselves.

There are plenty of other screwed up liquor laws all over the US.

I won't bother discussing those other laws because they are silly laws which all states have that were passed forever ago and for the most part aren't enforced. That said, the first one from Florida, yeah, we'd have to do that too. In fact if you've ever been to Roughtail's tap room that's exactly what they have to do. I believe it's the same for Choc. In fact, if any of our state's brewpubs brewed beer >3.2abw they'd also have to go through a distributor first before being able to sell on premise.

edit: and fwiw, Florida breweries are currently allowed to have taprooms were they can sell direct ALL of their products. It's some kind of tourist exemption that they are fighting to get turned into an actual law (big breweries <bud> would rather the craft breweries not be able to do this as they own a lot of distributors and direct sales hurt them in many ways). Regardless it's currently legal for Florida breweries to sell direct to consumers via tap rooms and it has been for quite some time. Here in OK, brewery taprooms can only sell beer that's 3.2abw or less. In the case of Roughtail and Choc, their taprooms (or restaurant) is a separate business from the brewery.

There are screwed up laws all across the US, but the only two states that come close to rivaling OK in terms of direct impact on the consumer are Utah and Pennsylvania.

Alabama and Mississippi had horrible laws until the late '00s but they modernized recently.

No, not the way I understand it. 424 will allow for direct sales but those sales are not for on premise consumption.

The one thing I will say about 424, is if I was still a retailer I would drop any beer from my shelves that was being sold direct as well. Why support a direct competitor?

My guess is that Rover is understandably chapped that certain posters continue to shove their agenda on this (and several other) threads.

With that in mind, this is all very informative. Thank you for the update bille.

The one thing I will say about 424, is if I was still a retailer I would drop any beer from my shelves that was being sold direct as well. Why support a direct competitor?

I think as long as they don't undercut retailers, I don't think it will hurt them that much. The reality is that what you're describing is what every small retailer faces today.

The one thing I will say about 424, is if I was still a retailer I would drop any beer from my shelves that was being sold direct as well. Why support a direct competitor?

For small batch brewery only releases this is the best option, especially since distro laws here require all distributors to get a fair shake at the product and that makes it to where everybody is dividing up a such a small release it turns into just a nightmare for distributors and many retailers alike. Besides it makes zero sense to be able to tour a brewery, sample their beers yet not be able to buy a beer or growler to take with them. Breweries aren't going to forgo the distributors and retailers for the large production stuff, no brewery has the time/desire/ability to self distribute.

I think as long as they don't undercut retailers, I don't think it will hurt them that much. The reality is that what you're describing is what every small retailer faces today.

I what way? A small retailer isn't supporting their competitors by selling their products. (Edit: On rethinking, I'm guessing you're referring to other industries.)

It's less about being hurt. There isn't a liquor retailer in the state with the exception of a very, very, very small few that can carry every product. There just isn't room. We had a fairly large shop and we had to make choices on what to carry. And there isn't a single liquor product that's irreplaceable from a retail/sales perspective. Retailers choose which products to carry, merchandise, stock, and promote. If I'm a retailer, and one of my suppliers decides to sell direct to consumers (even at the same price point), why should I invest my money and space into their product, when I can use those resources towards someone else?

Personally, I'm all for 424, but I do hope the local breweries keep in mind the only reason they've been able to exist and make any money. Package retail sales and bar sales. Period. Because those are the only sales avenues at the moment. Any success they've experienced is due to bars and liquor stores taking chances, and putting money into non-returnable purchases of their products. Switching into direct sales and brew pubs transitions these breweries from suppliers to direct competitors. I've seen this happen in other industries. It's a different animal for everyone involved. At the minimum, it will make many retailers less willing to take chances on new beers from local breweries.

For small batch brewery only releases this is the best option, especially since distro laws here require all distributors to get a fair shake at the product and that makes it to where everybody is dividing up a such a small release it turns into just a nightmare for distributors and many retailers alike. Besides it makes zero sense to be able to tour a brewery, sample their beers yet not be able to buy a beer or growler to take with them. Breweries aren't going to forgo the distributors and retailers for the large production stuff, no brewery has the time/desire/ability to self distribute.

And I'm all fine with that. It doesn't change the fact that it's still turning a supplier into a competitor. Growlers are a little different. And the idea that the breweries intend to offer special brewery only products is a little concerning.

I was told by one of the beer guys at BYRONS that there is a 45 day embargo on sales to retailers after the beer hits the distributor. If the brewery were to be able to sell directly, this would be unfair competition for the retailer as their product would not be as fresh.

If I'm a retailer, and one of my suppliers decides to sell direct to consumers (even at the same price point), why should I invest my money and space into their product, when I can use those resources towards someone else?

That would certainly be up to you, but many retailers have to make this decision every day and, honestly, if every small retailer stopped selling products that are available from the manufacturers and brands directly, then many would have to change their business model entirely and stop selling many major brands. Honestly, I think it's crappy that so many brands have done that to their retailers, but most retailers are not protected by similar regulations that protect liquor retailers from increased competition in Oklahoma.

I was told by one of the beer guys at BYRONS that there is a 45 day embargo on sales to retailers after the beer hits the distributor. If the brewery were to be able to sell directly, this would be unfair competition for the retailer as their product would not be as fresh.

That sounds like a dumb law regardless of the impact on competition.

I was told by one of the beer guys at BYRONS that there is a 45 day embargo on sales to retailers after the beer hits the distributor. If the brewery were to be able to sell directly, this would be unfair competition for the retailer as their product would not be as fresh.

That's not true. The 45 days is a requirement that the breweries must give distributors an intent to sell on an upcoming release. The beer doesn't set for 45 days and in many cases probably hasn't been packaged or even brewed when that 45 days is given. Believe me, unless a brewery is purposely aging a beer they don't want it sitting around the brewery taking up space in the warehouse, walk-in, or conditioning tanks.

Why can't we do what guys like No Label in my hometown of Katy, TX and St. Arnold's in Houston are able to do, charge a cover, hand out tokens for samples, and have brewery "tours" for 3 hours on Saturdays? I think it's even expanded now, doesn't seem to have hurt either the brewers or the liqour stores down there.

My guess is that Rover is understandably chapped that certain posters continue to shove their agenda on this (and several other) threads.

There isn't any narrative or agenda. The liquor laws in Oklahoma are archaic and among the most restrictive in the nation on the consumer. Only Utah and arguably Pennsylvania are more restrictive. The state is largely missing out on the brewpub explosion happening in other states because of these laws. Pointing out stupid laws in other states doesn't change that fact.

Spare me. Yes it is an agenda. Do you think posters on here are stupid? I hate that we cannot have an honest conversation on here regarding anything without you chiming in reminding everyone what a ****hole this place is and what it is "lacking" and how it was better in Charlotte blah blah blah and contributing nothing.

Furthermore you do realize people here post on other social media outlets? You have registered on MULTIPLE forums under other names saying offensive and nasty things about what you think of people here. Its seriously not that hard to figure out who it is. Just ridiculous, I wish you would just move already, for your own sake.

/rant

Why can't we do what guys like No Label in my hometown of Katy, TX and St. Arnold's in Houston are able to do, charge a cover, hand out tokens for samples, and have brewery "tours" for 3 hours on Saturdays? I think it's even expanded now, doesn't seem to have hurt either the brewers or the liqour stores down there.

We do brewery tours and samples now.

We do brewery tours and samples now.

Really? How are they set up? I wasn't under the impression it's the same as down in Texas. Down there you can pay $5 and get tokens and a sample glass. If you buy a pint glass or bring one you've already bought from the brewery, you can get a pint instead of a small sample. These usually last 2-3 hours with live music and food trucks, they are great events that happen weekly. If these are happening in OKC weekly then I'm either not paying attention or it's not the same scale.

We do brewery tours and samples now.

Yeah but at a significant cost to the breweries. They can charge for the tour and/or a tasting glass but that's about it. Usually any cost associated with a tour would cover the expense of the souvenir glass only. They can only give out 12oz worth of samples and of course they can't charge for those. Here is the time I'd typically go on a rant about what the wineries are allowed to do but you've heard that rant before.

Yeah but at a significant cost to the breweries.

If giving out an equivalent of one free beer to someone is a significant cost to the brewery, they should have a lot more sympathy for retailer concerns.

Yeah but at a significant cost to the breweries. They can charge for the tour and/or a tasting glass but that's about it. Usually any cost associated with a tour would cover the expense of the souvenir glass only. They can only give out 12oz worth of samples and of course they can't charge for those. Here is the time I'd typically go on a rant about what the wineries are allowed to do but you've heard that rant before.

So how do you suggest the sampling tours are done? If No Label in TX is charging $5 a head and giving out 4 tokens per person, and they pull say 500 or more people in there on a Saturday afternoon, is that not something that we should hope our brewers could do here? Oh and you can bring your kids/dogs/whatever to these events.

So how do you suggest the sampling tours are done? If No Label in TX is charging $5 a head and giving out 4 tokens per person, and they pull say 500 or more people in there on a Saturday afternoon, is that not something that we should hope our brewers could do here? Oh and you can bring your kids/dogs/whatever to these events.

I watch for deals like this...

Brewery Tasting Tour and Drinks - Roughtail Brewing Company | Groupon (http://www.groupon.com/deals/roughtail-brewing-company)

If giving out an equivalent of one free beer to someone is a significant cost to the brewery, they should have a lot more sympathy for retailer concerns.

Perhaps loss on potential earned income would have been a better way to put it? Either way it adds up if you factor giving away that much over time. Additionally you have to pay staff to come work on Saturdays/Sundays (or do it yourself) on days you'd otherwise be brewing (not while tours are going on) or you'd be off work, all to give product away. At best you're bringing in a little income with merchandise sales. My point is, if it was such a great thing for breweries they'd all have open taprooms all weekend, every weekend. As you're surely aware that's not the case at all.