I thought SJR68 wouldn't need voter approval, just the Governors signature..

Nope. It requires vote of the people. Polls indicate it has massive support. But some legislators are earning their campaign donations from the liquor store owners by trying to slow it down.

I think it has to go back for the amendments to be voted on...

The title was stricken, so it goes to conference committee for any last changes. Both houses will then vote on that version, with no additional changes possible.

Nope. It requires vote of the people. Polls indicate it has massive support. But some legislators are earning their campaign donations from the liquor store owners by trying to slow it down.

Haha... that's just hilarious but since you're so knowledgeable about this, exactly which liquor store owners are we talking about? I'm sure the Walmart lobbyist who are driving this bus are trembling at the very thought...

Haha... that's just hilarious but since you're so knowledgeable about this, exactly which liquor store owners are we talking about? I'm sure the Walmart lobbyist who are driving this bus are trembling at the very thought...

^^ This. Funniest thing in the world. Any liquor store (of which there are maybe 5) with money to lobby, loves this bill. Especially since 2 of them have connections in the wholesaler side which would also benefit. The typical liquor store barely breaks even. The money getting flooded to Jolly and his ilk isn't from liquor retailers. It's from Wal-Mart, QuickTrip, and Budweiser.

^^ This. Funniest thing in the world. Any liquor store (of which there are maybe 5) with money to lobby, loves this bill. Especially since 2 of them have connections in the wholesaler side which would also benefit. The typical liquor store barely breaks even. The money getting flooded to Jolly and his ilk isn't from liquor retailers. It's from Wal-Mart, QuickTrip, and Budweiser.

Wait a minute, Budweiser? The same group who spent all that money on ads bashing Jolley? Now I'm thoroughly confused.

Wait a minute, Budweiser? The same group who spent all that money on ads bashing Jolley? Now I'm thoroughly confused.

Jolley changed the bill, giving in completely to Budweiser and giving them a great gift, and that's why the ads stopped. And now they support these bills.

Jolley changed the bill, giving in completely to Budweiser and giving them a great gift, and that's why the ads stopped. And now they support these bills.

I missed that part, sorry.

The title was stricken, so it goes to conference committee for any last changes. Both houses will then vote on that version, with no additional changes possible.

Thank you for the explanation. I thought title stricken and third reading meant it went back to committee again...

Alcohol debate in Oklahoma turns testy after comment about Native Americans | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2016/04/22/alcohol-debate-in-oklahoma-turns-testy-after-comment-about-native-americans/)

That representative is a jackass. I mean damn, the amount of stupidity in the legislature is astounding.

As an Irishman, I'm offended that no one in the legislature seems concerned about our propensity to alcoholism... We process it differently too, it fuels our freckles.

Alcohol debate in Oklahoma turns testy after comment about Native Americans | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2016/04/22/alcohol-debate-in-oklahoma-turns-testy-after-comment-about-native-americans/)

You what is also offensive? His website (Todd Russ, Oklahoma State House (http://toddruss.com/)) Sheesh...

Alcohol debate in Oklahoma turns testy after comment about Native Americans | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2016/04/22/alcohol-debate-in-oklahoma-turns-testy-after-comment-about-native-americans/)

Even if it were true, it's a moot point. Alcoholics are going to get drunk no matter what, whether it be 3.2 beer or full strength beer. It's just a dumb thing to say, but are we really surprised?

nm

You what is also offensive? His website (Todd Russ, Oklahoma State House (http://toddruss.com/)) Sheesh...

Go figure, he's a Pentecostal minister.

A RACIST Pentecostal minister. Unbelievable. He should be censured. If that type of ignorance had been directed toward African Americans, for instance, it would be national news right now. It's just as bad that it is directed towards Native Americans; perhaps worse because it perpetuates a stereotype.

Go figure, he's a Pentecostal minister.

He's a Dominionist and is behind some of the worst bills ever filed in the Oklahoma legislature. He would probably support a return to prohibition if it were possible.

This really goes to show that not all opposition to modern laws comes from special interests in the liquor industry. There is still a fundamentalist temperance movement alive and well in this state. All the liquor industry has to do is sponsor commercials about how modernization will destroy the moral fabric of Oklahoma and they will come out in droves to vote against it.

All the ________________ industry has to do is sponsor commercials about how _____________________ will destroy the moral fabric of Oklahoma and they will come out in droves to vote against it.

You can pretty much just fill in the blanks and you have the standard political game plan.

A RACIST Pentecostal minister. Unbelievable. He should be censured. If that type of ignorance had been directed toward African Americans, for instance, it would be national news right now. It's just as bad that it is directed towards Native Americans; perhaps worse because it perpetuates a stereotype.

He did mention African Americans:

"Russ then suggested that the African American Caucus should also oppose the resolution because of alcohol-related problems."

We finally found an Oklahoma GOP lawmaker who cares about blacks and Native Americans? | The Lost Ogle (http://www.thelostogle.com/2016/04/22/we-finally-found-an-oklahoma-gop-lawmaker-who-cares-about-blacks-and-native-americans/)

Completely disgusting a**hole, and I just let him know that via email.

So he only thinks Native Americans and African Americans can be alcoholics? As a white man I'm offended!

If his point was that a specific demographic was disproportionally affected by alcohol I could maybe see his point. If he was however making a point that a specific demographic had biological differences that differed the affects of alcohol? SMH.

If his point was that a specific demographic was disproportionally affected by alcohol I could maybe see his point. If he was however making a point that a specific demographic had biological differences that differed the affects of alcohol? SMH.

Thing is, his base probably agrees with him. It's a group that thrives on stereotyping people who are different from them.

He's a Dominionist and is behind some of the worst bills ever filed in the Oklahoma legislature. He would probably support a return to prohibition if it were possible.

This really goes to show that not all opposition to modern laws comes from special interests in the liquor industry. There is still a fundamentalist temperance movement alive and well in this state. All the liquor industry has to do is sponsor commercials about how modernization will destroy the moral fabric of Oklahoma and they will come out in droves to vote against it.

I'm not very worried about it, so far. Still confident that Tulsa, OKC and most of the larger small towns will bring in enough votes to counter the no votes.

That representative is a jackass. I mean damn, the amount of stupidity in the legislature is astounding.

I hope he got opposition for his reelection in Nov. Not all bad legislators do.

If his point was that a specific demographic was disproportionally affected by alcohol I could maybe see his point. If he was however making a point that a specific demographic had biological differences that differed the affects of alcohol? SMH.

Oh... Eugenics is a thing in the Oklahoma legislature again?

Neat! Promote that man to leadership!

Oh... Eugenics is a thing in the Oklahoma legislature again?

Neat! Promote that man to leadership!

What?

OK Supreme Court rules against alcohol initiative (http://newsok.com/article/5495709)


The liquor industry-backed proposal would have allowed expanded sales only in stores that are more than a half-mile from existing package stores.

The Supreme Court ruled the ballot title did not accurately disclose this detail and ordered it stricken it from the ballot.

Not as bad of a deal as you think...

Oklahoma Supreme Court invalidates Retail Liquor Association ballot measure

By: Tim Talley Associated Press May 3, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated an initiative petition that calls for a statewide vote on whether to allow wine to be sold in grocery stores.

In a 7-1 decision with one abstention, the Supreme Court ordered that the petition, filed by the Retail Liquor Association of Oklahoma, be stricken from the November general election ballot.

The petition was challenged by the Oklahoma Grocers Association, which alleged the ballot measure unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority and that the written explanation of its effect, called the gist, is insufficient and misleading.

The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the petition makes significant changes in the state’s liquor laws and that its gist does not provide enough information for voters to make an informed decision.

The Retail Liquor Association’s president, Bryan Kerr, owner of Moore Liquor in Moore, said he was disappointed in the high court’s ruling.

“That’s a shame. We really thought we had a valid petition,” Kerr said.

Organizers thought the measure’s gist, which is legally required to describe what the petition would do, provided a valid and thorough description of its effect.

“The citizens of Oklahoma won’t have the opportunity to vote on what we felt like was a sensible reform of our alcohol laws,” Kerr said.

Currently, liquor, wine and beer in excess of 3.2-percent alcohol can be sold only at package liquor stores, which are strictly licensed and regulated and closed on Sundays.

Among other things, the petition would have allowed grocery stores to qualify for licenses to sell wine for off-premises consumption and would permit retail package liquor stores to sell any item sold in convenience and grocery stores.

But other changes the petition would make “are recognizably absent from the gist,” according to the Supreme Court’s decision.

The petition prohibits a liquor license from being sold for a package liquor or grocery store within 2,500 feet of an existing store, “making many grocery stores ineligible for a retail grocery wine store license,” the decision states.

And only one license could be issued to entities with multiple stores, “again limiting a grocery store’s eligibility for a retail grocery wine store license,” it says.

Although the initiative petition was invalidated, a similar ballot measure that would permit grocery stores to sell wine and cold, strong beer is pending in the Legislature.

The measure is the result of months of negotiations among alcohol distillers, brewers, wholesalers, distributors and retail groups. A companion bill is reportedly more than 200 pages long.

Most of Oklahoma’s liquor laws were developed in the late 1950s and include a variety of statutes and constitutional amendments that cannot be changed without a vote of the people.

Oklahoma is one of only five states in which low-point beer is sold. Unlike strong beer, it can be refrigerated and purchased at grocery and convenience stores until 2 a.m. and on Sundays.

The RLAO was stupid if they thought anyone would go for that 2500' rule, where the hell have you ever seen a grocery store that didn't have a liqour store in the same complex?

In Texas. And all over the place in Oklahoma. I can think of only one in Edmond for example (where there is a liquor store with a grocery).

Who cares what's in Texas? Jesus Jerry I know you owned a liqour store but you defend this all to the death, you're like one of those Spurs fans who thinks they never lose a game in their own merit buy because of refs (and this has nothing to do with last night.).

2500' is damn near half a mile. Run the numbers. Are CVS and Walgreens considered grocery, because if they are and would be allowed wine like other states your stance is even weaker.

I'm just saying, you made a pretty wild statement. I could easily name a dozen or two grocery stores in OKC alone without liquor stores in the same complex, much less within half a mile. When you jump to hyperbole, you lose the high ground.

Oh good for you, you took an Internet posting for gospel. Fact is, the RLAO was asking for too much and got called on it and you know it. I actually side with the RLAO on the issue but come on, they were asking for too much.

Meh. Half a mile between liquor sources doesn't bug me. And OK, I won't take you at your word again. I won't apologize for giving an honest and accurate answer to a question you asked.

Your response is "meh" because you know it's asking a lot. Yeah I exaggerated I admit it, now it's time for you to admit the RLAO was asking for something that would have complicated matters. Oh wait, I can buy wine at this Homeland but not that one? Why? Would have been a gigantic CF.

So Whole Foods stays dry??

Your response is "meh" because you know it's asking a lot. Yeah I exaggerated I admit it, now it's time for you to admit the RLAO was asking for something that would have complicated matters. Oh wait, I can buy wine at this Homeland but not that one? Why? Would have been a gigantic CF.

I think it would have helped the bill pass. I'm pragmatic, unlike most here who seem to think reddit represents the voting block in Oklahoma.

So Whole Foods stays dry??

Nope, no liquor store within half a mile of Whole Foods.

Although it doesn't matter anyways. This proposal is dead, and the other ones, IMO, have less of a chance of passing.

This proposal is dead, and the other ones, IMO, have less of a chance of passing.

Why do you think this?

Also, I don't read reddit.

Why do you think this?

Also, I don't read reddit.

Because... several reasons...

A - There are folks in the state congress who do care about local businesses and keeping revenues in the state, not in bentonville.

B - There are voters who agree.

C - It would have been easier to get the support of MADD and the Southern Baptists with a compromise like this RLAO proposal, which, while creating hundreds if not thousands of new liquor outlets, still had some controls and limitations.

D - Would have been nice to have the money for the mental health and treatment programs.

E - Would have been nice to have the growlers and crowlers.

F - Would have been nice to have in store tastings.

G - Would have been nice to have the changes to help brewpubs and in state breweries.

But I'm just a Spurs fan, not someone who is actually informed and understands the differences in the proposals.

The 2500 foot part of the RLAO proposal was ridiculous, and I'm glad that petition effort was denied.

Blatant anti-consumer protectionism. If you can't compete with a store next door that sells the same products without special favors built into the state constitution, maybe there's a reason.

Blatant anti-consumer protectionism. If you can't compete with a store next door that sells the same products without special favors built into the state constitution, maybe there's a reason.

Most states have limits on the number or liquor outlets. It's less about protectionism, and more about limiting access.

However, if you're worried about protectionism, are you as mad about the 20% non liquor products for liquor stores? Or the limitation on hours they have and not grocery and gas stations? Or the much higher liquor license cost? The selective outrage is funny. Personally, I can go half a mile to a liquor store to get my fix.

Why is it only grocery and gas stations get the protection?


Deals were made to keep grocery stores and Budweiser happy (including something which will totally change distribution in this state).

However, if you're worried about protectionism, are you as mad about the 20% non liquor products for liquor stores? Or the limitation on hours they have and not grocery and gas stations? Or the much higher liquor license cost? The selective outrage is funny. Personally, I can go half a mile to a liquor store to get my fix.

All things that could potentially use more tweaking, sure, but from the consumer point of view the SJR & accompanying legislation solution is much better and will be far less arbitrarily confusing simply on account of the layout of existing stores.

All things that could potentially use more tweaking, sure, but from the consumer point of view the SJR & accompanying legislation solution is much better and will be far less arbitrarily confusing simply on account of the layout of existing stores.

How is it one sort of protectionism is "ridiculous" and the other just need tweaks?

Because... several reasons...

A - There are folks in the state congress who do care about local businesses and keeping revenues in the state, not in bentonville.

B - There are voters who agree.

C - It would have been easier to get the support of MADD and the Southern Baptists with a compromise like this RLAO proposal, which, while creating hundreds if not thousands of new liquor outlets, still had some controls and limitations.

D - Would have been nice to have the money for the mental health and treatment programs.

E - Would have been nice to have the growlers and crowlers.

F - Would have been nice to have in store tastings.

G - Would have been nice to have the changes to help brewpubs and in state breweries.

But I'm just a Spurs fan, not someone who is actually informed and understands the differences in the proposals.

I thought SJR68 was "better" than the RLAO proposal and included quite a bit of those changes listed above, guess I'll do some more reading...

Because... several reasons...

A - There are folks in the state congress who do care about local businesses and keeping revenues in the state, not in bentonville.

B - There are voters who agree.

C - It would have been easier to get the support of MADD and the Southern Baptists with a compromise like this RLAO proposal, which, while creating hundreds if not thousands of new liquor outlets, still had some controls and limitations.

D - Would have been nice to have the money for the mental health and treatment programs.

E - Would have been nice to have the growlers and crowlers.

F - Would have been nice to have in store tastings.

G - Would have been nice to have the changes to help brewpubs and in state breweries.

But I'm just a Spurs fan, not someone who is actually informed and understands the differences in the proposals.

Thank you for posting. Can you tell us what the other proposal won't do that this one would have?

Thank you for posting. Can you tell us what the other proposal won't do that this one would have?

Funding for mental health and treatment programs. In store tastings. Changes to help brewpubs and breweries. Liquor sales on Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor day. I'm sure a few other things I'm forgetting.

I thought SJR68 was "better" than the RLAO proposal and included quite a bit of those changes listed above, guess I'll do some more reading...

Not unless it's had extensive changes.... most of those were unique to the RLAO proposal.

Give me growlers and in store tastings or the hell with the whole thing.

Give me growlers and in store tastings or the hell with the whole thing.

The other thing that no one has really fought for would be the ability to bring children (in the company of an adult) into liquor stores. That would solve a lot of the issues, IMO.

The other thing that no one has really fought for would be the ability to bring children (in the company of an adult) into liquor stores. That would solve a lot of the issues, IMO.

Jerry, I am totally in your camp on this.

One of the biggest complains I have about this process, is that they could have done a cold, single strength beer bill, plus expanded hours, tastings, and such, without a state question and constitutional changes. Then they could have separately pushed through a grocery/gas station liquor bill, and the other more complicated changes, for a state question and a vote of the people.

The only reason I can think of? They don't think the state question would pass without the cold beer as an incentive, so they tied them together. So cold beer gets put at risk so they can get the other stuff through. Politics as usual.

One of the biggest complains I have about this process, is that they could have done a cold, single strength beer bill, plus expanded hours, tastings, and such, without a state question and constitutional changes. Then they could have separately pushed through a grocery/gas station liquor bill, and the other more complicated changes, for a state question and a vote of the people.

The only reason I can think of? They don't think the state question would pass without the cold beer as an incentive, so they tied them together. So cold beer gets put at risk so they can get the other stuff through. Politics as usual.

Agree totally with the above. Also agree with letting kids in liquor stores - this has baffled me forever since there is nothing open in the liquor stores that the kids could get into, the biggest problem would seem to me to be that they'd pull bottles out and they'd get broken while the parents aren't watching, but I'm sure "it's to protect the children" so they won't see any kind of alcohol before they turn 21, yeah, that's a good reason, just like abstinence is adequate for sex education.

Read SJR68 again, and yeah, it doesn't go nearly as far as I thought it would. Wish politics wasn't so full of crap compromises like this.

Read SJR68 again, and yeah, it doesn't go nearly as far as I thought it would. Wish politics wasn't so full of crap compromises like this.

Don't read SJR68 without the accompanying SB383 (if I'm remembering the right additional bill number). It's intended to be a two part set of changes, one part that the legislature can make and the other part that has to go to a vote of the people.

Reports show contributions from alcohol PACs (http://journalrecord.com/2016/05/04/reports-show-contributions-from-alcohol-pacs-capitol/)

Anyone have a Journal Record subscription?

Don't read SJR68 without the accompanying SB383 (if I'm remembering the right additional bill number). It's intended to be a two part set of changes, one part that the legislature can make and the other part that has to go to a vote of the people.

I started in on SB383 and got a little bit into it, and realized how huge it was. Luckily, The Thirsty Beagle did a quick summary of it that's pretty helpful:

http://www.thirstybeaglebeerblog.com/2016/05/sb-383-would-flip-oklahomas-alcohol-law.html

Good god, no wonder they've been working on it for a year.

That all looks pretty good to me... though I am curious about the section regulating homebrewers. To the best of my knowledge, right now, homebrew for personal consumption in OK is unregulated and requires no license. Am I correct that this bill would impose regulations and licensing requirements upon homebrewers? Any idea what the licensing fee would be?

Double post, please delete.

When are they voting on this?