Senator Bice's SB383 is the one to support, unless it gets trashed by special interests.

Thanks, I'll watch and support it. Just read the whole SJR 68 and it seems sorta reasonable, but still kinda screws breweries and does separate things for beer wholesalers vs. other wholesalers. Also not sure what the point of "resting" beer for a 24 hour period at a "beer wholesaler" is...

Also not sure what the point of "resting" beer for a 24 hour period at a "beer wholesaler" is...

It keeps a wholesaler from selling items not actually in their inventory. It could be a keg kept on hand in a brewery then sold by the third party(the wholesaler) that ships directly from the Brewer withou having being actually purchased and moved into the distributors warehouse
It's a trick the distributors use at places like central. The broker stores his wares in the wholesalers warehouse. The wholesaler them piecemeals the stock from the brokers(also owned by the same people who own the wholesale business). Essentially buying it from themselves while leaving the broker's stock to sit and remain as a liquid(no pun intended) and fluctuating commodity that can increase or decrease in value from month to month.

They essentially ALL use loopholes to their advantage. Therefore invested in the status quo.

Aren't our Loquor laws easy and fun?? :)

As for Texas having half the liquor stores per capita--- when wine and beer is available in grocery stores - who cares? Except liquor store owners - legal drug dealers - who want their monopoly ("turf"). Swine.

AB can leave the state but please bring and leave Breckenridge back before you do.

You lose AB you start to loose a lot of the craft brewers they are garbling up.

As for Texas having half the liquor stores per capita--- when wine and beer is available in grocery stores - who cares? Except liquor store owners - legal drug dealers - who want their monopoly ("turf"). Swine.

Sally Kern, is that you?

I nominate this for the most idiotic post of the month. Beer, wine and spirits are all alcohol and all have the same effect and repercussions but this person wants to demonize every liquor store owner in the state.

It's this kind of myopic, small minded, backwards thinking that you would expect from Sally...

Sally Kern would likely support leaving the laws the way they are because they protect the moral fabric of Oklahoma. She would oppose grocery stores selling beer and wine and if the state could return to prohibition she would probably support it. I doubt zookeeper is Sally Kern.

Sally Kern would likely support leaving the laws the way they are because they protect the moral fabric of Oklahoma. She would oppose grocery stores selling beer and wine and if the state could return to prohibition she would probably support it. I doubt zookeeper is Sally Kern.

Did you read his post bchris? You're defending him calling liquor store owners legal drug dealing swine?

...and by the way, SB 383 died in last years legislative session when it was not signed in to law. The only current bill concerning liquor stores is SJR 68..

Did you read his post bchris? You're defending him calling liquor store owners legal drug dealing swine?

...and by the way, SB 383 died in last years legislative session when it was not signed in to law. The only current bill concerning liquor stores is SJR 68..

No, you didn't understand what he said. He was saying Sally Kern would probably oppose grocery store sales of wine and beer and would most likely support the status quo.

My problem is the liquor store owners in Oklahoma want to protect their turf just like drug dealers do. Any competition must be defeated! To me, the status quo is what is small-minded backwards thinking.

Sally Kern. That is just too funny. Have you read my posts before the one you nominated as "Idiotic Post of the Month?"

Regardless of what happens AB would never leave a market, any market...that's ludicrous. When they say this bill would "shut down a business" it means this would force AB to sell their distribution centers if beer becomes single-strength in the state. No where are they saying they'd "leave" or quit selling their products here.




...and by the way, SB 383 died in last years legislative session when it was not signed in to law. The only current bill concerning liquor stores is SJR 68..

False. SB424 and SB383 are still up for consideration. We're likely to see more initiative petitions too.

No, you didn't understand what he said. He was saying Sally Kern would probably oppose grocery store sales of wine and beer and would most likely support the status quo.

My problem is the liquor store owners in Oklahoma want to protect their turf just like drug dealers do. Any competition must be defeated! To me, the status quo is what is small-minded backwards thinking.

Sally Kern. That is just too funny. Have you read my posts before the one you nominated as "Idiotic Post of the Month?"

I understood exactly what he said, just like I understood when you called liquor store owners legal drug dealing swine. you said it, so own it... that sounds just like something she would say.

...and I get it. You support another round of local small businesses losing their livelihood to big box retailers and Walmart becoming the largest wine retailer in the state while demonizing the little guy by calling them drug dealers...

I stand by what I said... idiotic post of the month, Sally...

False. SB424 and SB383 are still up for consideration. We're likely to see more initiative petitions too.

Really? I may be wrong but show me... Here's the current status of SJR68, show me SB383...

Bill Information (http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sjr68&Session=1600)

Many of my relatives & friends who visit Oklahoma continue to laugh & scoff at the liquor laws of our state; below are samples of conversational concerns:


1. Have to purchase the stronger beer from the liquor stores--non refrigerated.
2. Can't purchase the mixers in liquor stores where you purchase liquor.
3. Can't purchase wine or strong beer in the grocery stores.

You hear comments about the frustration out-of-state visitors & guests have about these archaic laws.

Rather than attempt to explain the complicated history; it's best to simply 'smile' and maintain silence.

Twenty-two counties passed liquor by the drink back in 1985; 34 of Oklahoma's 77 counties currently restrict the sale of liquor by the drink every day of the week.

Could changes lead to increased tourism revenue:

April 2015: State legislature passes two popular Oklahoma liquor laws | FOX23 (http://www.fox23.com/news/local/state-legislature-passes-two-popular-oklahoma-liqu/67084478)

Let's hope Oklahoma can make some changes in 2016.

34 of Oklahoma's 77 counties currently restrict the sale of liquor by the drink every day of the week.


I thought it was 24 or 25.

Really? I may be wrong but show me... Here's the current status of SJR68, show me SB383...

Bill Information (http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sjr68&Session=1600)Bill Information (http://newlsb.lsb.state.ok.us/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=Sb383)

Yeah, SB383 shows as still alive if you search last year's session or this years.

http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SB383&Session=1500
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SB383&Session=1600

As for Texas having half the liquor stores per capita--- when wine and beer is available in grocery stores - who cares? Except liquor store owners - legal drug dealers - who want their monopoly ("turf"). Swine.

Yeah, I mean who cares about lowered availability and the loss of 3500 Oklahoma owned businesses and shifting that money to Wal-Mart, if it means we can pick up our drugs of choice with our baby formula? Right?

Who's the swine here?

Geeze, guys, turn the hostility down a notch. This isn't the politics subforum.

Yeah, I mean who cares about lowered availability and the loss of 3500 Oklahoma owned businesses and shifting that money to Wal-Mart, if it means we can pick up our drugs of choice with our baby formula? Right?

Who's the swine here?


Rest assured that liquor stores still exist, and thrive, in states with much looser laws than Oklahoma. They can sell snacks, smokes, and mixers to help make additional revenue. Isn't competition and the free market a good thing?

Rest assured that liquor stores still exist, and thrive, in states with much looser laws than Oklahoma. They can sell snacks, smokes, and mixers to help make additional revenue. Isn't competition and the free market a good thing?

If they allowed more alcohol products in grocery, but didn't allow liqour stores to sell say what a Spec's can in Texas, that's downright BS and if I was a liqour store owner you're damn right I'd be bitching.

Agree,

That's why we need to overhaul and fix the whole thing at one time; because if you don't, you'll see a lot of opposition. So, let's open Pandora's box to the free market.

Checkthat is on target:
Rest assured that liquor stores still exist, and thrive, in states with much looser laws than Oklahoma. They can sell snacks, smokes, and mixers to help make additional revenue. Isn't competition and the free market a good thing?

Can't do a phase in & fix, got to have all of the plumbing replaced or someone's commode will receive the bulk of the backup.

As bradh said:


...that's downright BS and if I was a liquor store owner you're damn right I'd be bitching.

If they allowed more alcohol products in grocery, but didn't allow liqour stores to sell say what a Spec's can in Texas, that's downright BS and if I was a liqour store owner you're damn right I'd be bitching.

The proposed legislation will allow liquor stores to expand their inventory to non-liquor items, I believe up to 20% of their overall sales.

Rest assured that liquor stores still exist, and thrive, in states with much looser laws than Oklahoma. They can sell snacks, smokes, and mixers to help make additional revenue. Isn't competition and the free market a good thing?

Meh, to what end? To funnel more money to Wal-Mart and OnCue? Cause let's be realistic, that's what will happen. I mean, if Wal-Mart and the free market is so amazing, I hope to see no more bitching about their wages and tax incentives on this site.

There are many places in Texas where I have trouble finding quality liquor stores. I've been in other states with the same problem. Yeah, I could go into a grocery store, which has limited selection (you're not gonna find Midas Gold in an HEB), but you're not gonna convince me there's not a trade off. We can update laws without selling out to big corporations at the cost of our locally owned small businesses. This isn't a horsewhip scenario.

The proposed legislation will allow liquor stores to expand their inventory to non-liquor items, I believe up to 20% of their overall sales.

Now the bigger question is will they remove the single store ownership limit. Or allow liquor stores to be corporations or partnerships (I'm sure the owners would like that protection)? Or allow stores to take out loans for start up or inventory? Or allow stores to be open until 2am? The playing field isn't just unlevel between Wal-Mart and the individual stores... the stores don't even have uniforms, helmets, or the rulebook.

Now the bigger question is will they remove the single store ownership limit. Or allow liquor stores to be corporations or partnerships (I'm sure the owners would like that protection)? Or allow stores to take out loans for start up or inventory? Or allow stores to be open until 2am? The playing field isn't just unlevel between Wal-Mart and the individual stores... the stores don't even have uniforms, helmets, or the rulebook.

Jerry I understand where you are coming from, but outside of your owning more than one location gripe (I agree), the other points haven't stopped places like Spec's in Texas from being successful.

Jerry I understand where you are coming from, but outside of your owning more than one location gripe (I agree), the other points haven't stopped places like Spec's in Texas from being successful.

Specs is also a corporation. Large corporate chains are doing fine. It's the small retailer that is getting pushed out. As more towns have become wet in Texas, boundaries and territories have shifted. Wal-Mart is suing the state to get the rights to open liquor stores (that'll change things even more). Costco partnered with WB Liquors to get stores open at their locations (those folks won the lottery).

Centennial is the opposite story as Specs. 40 stores through north Texas, went bankrupt. Total Wine is taking over much of the liquor business in Texas as well (out of state corporation, opening up 30 or so stores over Texas). Goody Goody gets like 25% of the liquor business in Dallas.

Basically, the independent and small shops are disappearing in Texas. That can be a good or a bad thing. But the point is there are consequences.

I think there are changes that make sense, but some changes seem to be desired for the sake of change, or to try to put on over on the "drug dealing swine".

Sodasopa!

For the record, I have a very specific liqour store that I support and pass up 3 others that are closer/more convenient to frequent that store. Why? Service and selection. If I don't get that somewhere else, I'll keep supporting Wild Turkey.

For the record, I have a very specific liqour store that I support and pass up 3 others that are closer/more convenient to frequent that store. Why? Service and selection. If I don't get that somewhere else, I'll keep supporting Wild Turkey.

Ditto. However, consumers like us are the exception. There's a reason the 5 top selling beers in the US are Bud Light, Coors Light, Budweiser, Miller Light, and Natural Light. As everyone keeps pointing out, Wal-Mart, 7/11, et all won't carry the selection that liquor stores do. And the majority of consumers will just pick up what's at Wal-Mart. That should really help our young craft beer industry in Oklahoma.

Now the bigger question is will they remove the single store ownership limit. Or allow liquor stores to be corporations or partnerships (I'm sure the owners would like that protection)? Or allow stores to take out loans for start up or inventory? Or allow stores to be open until 2am? The playing field isn't just unlevel between Wal-Mart and the individual stores... the stores don't even have uniforms, helmets, or the rulebook.

Some of these questions are answered in the bill.

And the answer is "no".

It's not like they're putting you out of business. It simply adds competition versus the state-protected turf you have now. This thread makes it easy to see who owns these stores.

And who is that?

And the answer is "no".

Not necessarily. Liquor stores can be in business with corporations the way the bill reads. Liquor license owners can also participate in 2 stores, and there does not appear to be a limit on beer and wine license holders. This bill isn't about making liquor stores equal to grocery and convenience stores. If that's your concern, you'll be disappointed. The bill is about modernization. Liquor stores will have to up their game, and offer a reason for customers to continue to patronize them. I plan on continuing to patronize my liquor store, because I know they'll get more of the brands I like and continue to offer a solid product.

Most of the loudest opposition of this bill comes from folks who either haven't read the bill or are worried their liquor stores will be run out of business. There are plenty of liquor stores that could probably stand to be eliminated. If they can't find a way to compete in a new market, maybe they should close up shop.

And the answer is "no".

Without trying to sound argumentative, what would your plan for modernization look like? I'm curious as to what changes you'd like to see, if any at all.

Not necessarily. Liquor stores can be in business with corporations the way the bill reads. Liquor license owners can also participate in 2 stores, and there does not appear to be a limit on beer and wine license holders. This bill isn't about making liquor stores equal to grocery and convenience stores. If that's your concern, you'll be disappointed. The bill is about modernization. Liquor stores will have to up their game, and offer a reason for customers to continue to patronize them. I plan on continuing to patronize my liquor store, because I know they'll get more of the brands I like and continue to offer a solid product.

I've read the bill repeatedly. I see nothing about allowing liquor stores to partner with corporations. The beer and wine license holders without limits (gee, how nice) are for Grocery stores and gas stations. It doesn't expand hours, so either a) there will be no beer available after 9pm, on Sundays, and on Holidays, or b) Beer and Wine license holders get more extra benefits. How is that modernization? What's the benefit to the state?

Without trying to sound argumentative, what would your plan for modernization look like? I'm curious as to what changes you'd like to see, if any at all.

I've covered that repeated in this thread, as recent as yesterday. But in summation, we should modernize by building up our base. And we should ask what the goals are for modernization. Is it just about increased availability and ease of access? Or is it about increasing variety, continuing to build our budding wine and craft beer industries, and such. I prefer the latter. Cold beer, single strength beer, in shop tastings, brewers being able to sell direct, growlers being filled and sold at stores, children able to enter liquor stores with parents, direct shipping of beers and wines from out of state, and such reforms would be significantly easier to pass, and build on the base we already have, and grow the industry.

Giving money to Wal-Mart to send back to Arkansas doesn't.

Most of the loudest opposition of this bill comes from folks who either haven't read the bill or are worried their liquor stores will be run out of business. There are plenty of liquor stores that could probably stand to be eliminated. If they can't find a way to compete in a new market, maybe they should close up shop.

And to be clear, I don't oppose this bill. I do think there is more stuff to be done that this bill doesn't address and there are some better proposals out there. When I spoke about concerns of closing liquor stores, I was talking about the hurdles of "modernization" in general, and then it all got derailed when someone described liquor store owners as drug dealing swine.

I've read the bill repeatedly. I see nothing about allowing liquor stores to partner with corporations.

This is the passage I'm interpreting as allowing corporations to partner with liquor stores. It's entirely possible I'm reading it wrong.

C. The holder of a license specified in subsection B of this
section may enter into an agreement with a corporation, limited
liability company or similar business entity that would otherwise be
prohibited from obtaining a license in this state under this
section, provided that the corporation, limited liability company or
similar business entity:
1. Has operated as the holder of a substantially equivalent
license in another state for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding its application to be added as a corporate partner;
2. Will actively participate in the day-to-day operations of
the license holder;
3. Will secure all necessary permits with the state; and
4. Will not maintain more than a fifty percent (50%) equity
interest in the license holder at any time.

This is the passage I'm interpreting as allowing corporations to partner with liquor stores. It's entirely possible I'm reading it wrong.

C. The holder of a license specified in subsection B of this
section may enter into an agreement with a corporation, limited
liability company or similar business entity that would otherwise be
prohibited from obtaining a license in this state under this
section, provided that the corporation, limited liability company or
similar business entity:
1. Has operated as the holder of a substantially equivalent
license in another state for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding its application to be added as a corporate partner;
2. Will actively participate in the day-to-day operations of
the license holder;
3. Will secure all necessary permits with the state; and
4. Will not maintain more than a fifty percent (50%) equity
interest in the license holder at any time.

If I'm reading it right - Subsection B refers to "Wine and Spirits Wholesaler's License". So basically letting corporations get involved in wholesaling liquors and wine.

I've covered that repeated in this thread, as recent as yesterday. But in summation, we should modernize by building up our base. And we should ask what the goals are for modernization. Is it just about increased availability and ease of access? Or is it about increasing variety, continuing to build our budding wine and craft beer industries, and such. I prefer the latter. Cold beer, single strength beer, in shop tastings, brewers being able to sell direct, growlers being filled and sold at stores, children able to enter liquor stores with parents, direct shipping of beers and wines from out of state, and such reforms would be significantly easier to pass, and build on the base we already have, and grow the industry.

Giving money to Wal-Mart to send back to Arkansas doesn't.

That's fair enough. I'm mainly happy there's at least some momentum for change right now. Nothing is going to satisfy everyone, but as a consumer, I think this bill is a big step in the right direction.

If I'm reading it right - Subsection B refers to "Wine and Spirits Wholesaler's License". So basically letting corporations get involved in wholesaling liquors and wine.

You're absolutely right.

That's fair enough. I'm mainly happy there's at least some momentum for change right now. Nothing is going to satisfy everyone, but as a consumer, I think this bill is a big step in the right direction.

What worries me is that people seem to think that grocery and gas stations selling beer is going to suddenly result in us getting new craft beers into the state. It won't, and will likely hurt those efforts. The reason we don't have as many beers as some other states is not our laws but our market.

What worries me is that people seem to think that grocery and gas stations selling beer is going to suddenly result in us getting new craft beers into the state. It won't, and will likely hurt those efforts. The reason we don't have as many beers as some other states is not our laws but our market.

I tend to believe this

What worries me is that people seem to think that grocery and gas stations selling beer is going to suddenly result in us getting new craft beers into the state. It won't, and will likely hurt those efforts. The reason we don't have as many beers as some other states is not our laws but our market.

That is possible but the laws certainly do nothing to help facilitate the craft beer scene:


Many of the concerns were focused on the state’s “three tiered system” and the challenges it places on the beer makers. Following Prohibition, states began developing three tiered systems in the alcohol industry to regulate the newly legal trade. The three tiers of the alcohol industry are producers, distributors, and retailers. In general, the idea is that producers can only sell their products to distributors. In turn, distributors can only sell to retailers. Lastly, only retailers can sell directly to consumers. “Producers” is a fairly broad term that applies to breweries, wineries, distilleries, and importers of alcohol.

In the wake of the recent craft beer popularity boom, states across the country have moved to make their three tiered systems laws more accommodating to the craft beer market. However, even with these changes, many independent breweries face difficult challenges. In Oklahoma, for example, customers can only purchase their products at restaurants and liquor stores.

The State Of The Brewnion: Oklahoma's Craft Brewers Call For Legislative Action | Brew Studs (http://www.wearebrewstuds.com/stories/news/sotb-oklahomas-craft-brewers-want-legislative-action/)

I should clarify that I only agreed with this part of jerrywall's last post


The reason we don't have as many beers as some other states is not our laws but our market.

I took that as meaning not local brewers but many of the out of state ones we clamor for.

What worries me is that people seem to think that grocery and gas stations selling beer is going to suddenly result in us getting new craft beers into the state. It won't, and will likely hurt those efforts. The reason we don't have as many beers as some other states is not our laws but our market.

I really would be happy with refrigeration in liquor stores, and, if I'm really greedy, longer hours for liquor stores as well as opening on Sundays and holidays as they choose. I will continue to shop at my liquor store, and the only nice thing about grocery stores having beer and wine would be the accessibility when the liquor stores are closed (because of the current laws).

Any proposed legislation that has Anheuser-Busch stating it could "force their exit from Oklahoma" can't be all that bad. Although I doubt they'll ever leave.

Change is coming sooner or later and all the bellyaching in the world won't stop it. It's just the way things are these days.

AB says it would force their exit from Oklahoma, really?

The few times I've purchased beer in the liquor stores; don't recall seeing AB products (IIRC) because they don't allow their beer products on the shelves (un-refrigerated). Foster's Lager & Corona are served to my out-of-town relatives & guests.

Don't really understand the commercials aired and paid for by AB stating that the prices would go up.
Only purchase their 3.2 beer in the grocery stores.

I recall them saying (number of years ago) that if one more state did away with 3.2 beer--they would stop producing it. Those 6-8 states that sell it would be out of luck.

My high challenged area; could someone explain this logic to me about prices going up?

The few times I've purchased beer in the liquor stores; don't recall seeing AB products on the shelf (IIRC) because they don't allow their beer products on the shelves (un-refrigerated). Foster's Lager & Corona are served to my out-of-town relatives & guests.


AB doesn't sell their regular products in Oklahoma but I don't think it has anything to do with refrigeration. I believe it has more to do with them not wanting to go through the distribution system. They can be their own distributor of 3.2 beer, which is why they are opposing this law. They don't want to play by the same rules as other brewers in this state have to.

It's New Belgium that doesn't sell in Oklahoma due to refrigeration but word is that's about to change.

And in New Belgium's case that was a load of horse manure.

Right, and has been debunked here already before

Budweiser doesn?t want ?modern? alcohol laws in Oklahoma? | The Lost Ogle (http://www.thelostogle.com/2016/02/19/budweiser-doesnt-want-modern-alcohol-laws-in-oklahoma/)

Maybe Jerrywall can answer this, but why not leave 3.2 beer in place while still opening the market up for grocers and convenience stores to sell the stronger stuff? This could help pacify AB as they could continue to sell their current product until they are ready to make the switch. I believe Missouri did it this way. 3.2 beer still exists in Missouri, though its hard to find as most brewers, including AB, have moved on to selling their real product. Once real beer is available in grocery/convenience stores, AB will eventually sell their stronger product as consumers will demand it.

Another issue not talked about with the liquor laws is what happens to street festivals like Live on the Plaza, the Arts Festival, etc where people have open containers after the laws are changed? Unless this is accounted for, leaving 3.2 beer in place could assure that this doesn't suddenly become a big issue.

All this talk about alcohol sales being offered up to corporations is bunk right? You do realize that all the 3.2 beer sold in state is by two corporations right? Two corporations that don't have to pay the same OK state %13.5 liquor taxes or play by the same rules as everyone else right? One of those corporations (Budweiser) sends all its profits across seas back to BELGIUM where it's owned.

Yes. If this passes, a lot of those crumby little bottle shops next to 7-11 might close. Good riddance. There's too many crumby little bottle shops next to the 7-11's!!! Oh wait. Another handful of corporations (gas stations) that makes millions by participating in the 3.2 beer scam. Not paying liquor taxes either.

There's another giant thread on OKC talk about quality grocery stores in the metro. Everyone just begging for a superior grocer to enter the OKC market. Don't you think some of those favorable "corporations" like HEB, Winco, Or Costco would be more interested in our market if they could sell beer and wine just like EVERYWHERE ELSE they operate? I was a little shocked when I saw whole foods come to town, until I saw that they got a free building and don't have to pay rent or some other ridiculous incentive.

Don't you see that this hurts the evil wal-marts and similar "corporations?" And I'm sorry that some of these mini-mall liquor stores will be affected but it sounds like the majority of Oklahomans want progress.

AB doesn't sell their regular products in Oklahoma but I don't think it has anything to do with refrigeration. I believe it has more to do with them not wanting to go through the distribution system. They can be their own distributor of 3.2 beer, which is why they are opposing this law. They don't want to play by the same rules as other brewers in this state have to.

It's New Belgium that doesn't sell in Oklahoma due to refrigeration but word is that's about to change.

Recall reading that some of the larger beer companies refused to shelve their products in the liquor stores unless it's refrigerated. Don't recall seeing any Anheuser Busch beer in any liquor stores in Oklahoma City or Oklahoma.

IIRC Anheuser Bush (AB), Coors, Miller & Schlitz sells 3.2 beer in 5 states (Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota & Utah); this low point beer (beer with low alcohol content) is big business for those companies. Their low point beer is available in a majority of convenient & grocery stores refrigerated. Don't recall or know of any that will sell their products unless it's refrigerated.

I'll see if I can find the article (dated pre 2000) that mentioned if one of those five states were to switch to the stronger beer that they would stop producing it altogether and the other four states would be left in Limbo.

It's not like we haven't heard these threats before.

Don't forget the AB InBev also owns, imports, and brokers these brands into the U.S. so they're not exactly going to go bankrupt if they can exclusively distribute Busch Extra into OK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_InBev_brands

Don't forget the AB InBev also owns, imports, and brokers these brands into the U.S. so they're not exactly going to go bankrupt if they can exclusively distribute Busch Extra into OK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_InBev_brands

The old Procter & Gamble marketing strategy. So Corona is a grandchild of AB? Now, I can see a clear picture of why this is such a complex scheme. A real kaleidoscope of organizations disguised under one umbrella of linked organizations.

Some heavy hippo manure is what my grandfather would call it. No wonder we can't get anything passed here in Oklahoma regarding the liquor & alcohol related laws--a global legalized mafia.

Thanks for the info link Uptowner.

All this talk about alcohol sales being offered up to corporations is bunk right? You do realize that all the 3.2 beer sold in state is by two corporations right? Two corporations that don't have to pay the same OK state %13.5 liquor taxes or play by the same rules as everyone else right? One of those corporations (Budweiser) sends all its profits across seas back to BELGIUM where it's owned.

Yes. If this passes, a lot of those crumby little bottle shops next to 7-11 might close. Good riddance. There's too many crumby little bottle shops next to the 7-11's!!! Oh wait. Another handful of corporations (gas stations) that makes millions by participating in the 3.2 beer scam. Not paying liquor taxes either.


Oh, as a low info simpleton, I finally see what AB is talking about when it said in its ad the price of beer would go up. An 18 pack priced at $14.00 would become $15.89. There would be no more $2-2.50 beer by the bottle in Stillwater bars. So make the tax on 6 point beer the same as 3.2 beer. Oh, that is too much to ask for in this revenue starved state. Republicans realize a well amped up source of revenue. So divert it to education, and forget about a 1 cent rise in state sales tax.

Recall reading that some of the larger beer companies refused to shelve their products in the liquor stores unless it's refrigerated. Don't recall seeing any Anheuser Busch beer in any liquor stores in Oklahoma City or Oklahoma....

I see Bud displays in almost any liquor store I'm in. No idea what's in them, though, since I walk right past them to the good stuff.

It goes even deeper. Corona is a subsidiary of modelo groupa that owns modelo(obviously) Estrella, Pacifico, and many more. Not brokered into OKC by Budweiser but still owned by.

They're about to become ma' beer (ma bell) as they're positioned to buy SAB Miller (Miller coors) for 105 BILLION dollars. SAB Miller being a South African company that also bottles Coca Cola products in a dozen countries. If the takeover is completed the InBev/Budweiser/Miller/Coors/Coca-Cola beast will own half the gloves beer production.

You think they don't have some influence over lil' old okie politics?

Actually...all those brands. Plus Heineken. And any other brand you see in the grocery store. Is owned by either InBev-Anheiser Busch or SAB Miller. And brewed(watered down) specifically for the 4 or five states still being duped by the 3.2 tax gimmick markets.

I also appreciate the %1 sales tax school petition remark. Like we can't just tax the ***cking beer instead of making every dollar spent on food or necessities increase by %1 to fix our school budget??? Brain cells for brain cells man!