^^^^^^^^^
Actually, only wine, cocktails and STRONG beer must be consumed inside designated area. But when you buy from one of the beer tents in the food court, you are buying 3.2 beer and you can walk anywhere with it; even away from the festival and down the street. Besides selling in grocery stores, this is one of the main reasons Oklahoma brewers created 3.2 product; they could not easily support events and sell (or even in some cases give away) strong beer, but 3.2 is a snap because it is subject to entirely different restrictions. This is certainly one of the things that needs to be worked out with ABLE if this law passes, as it could be tough on festivals like Live on the Plaza, Heard on Hurd, Festival of the Arts, etc.

I've always wondered this. What about college football games? Are police just turning a blind eye on game days?

3.2 ABW (Oklahoma low-point beer) is equivalent to 4.0 ABV. "High point" light domestics sold in other states and such are 4.2 ABV (i.e. Bud Light, Coors Light, Miller Lite, and the stuff you'd actually see for coin beers and cheap specials). A 12 oz. "high point" bottle of light beer sold in another state is essentially equivalent to 14 oz. of "low point" light beer sold in Oklahoma. Put another way, 7 "Oklahoma light beers" have an equivalent amount of alcohol to 6 "high-point light beers". Taste is another matter, of course, and is highly subjective. But in terms of the amount of alcohol involved or the "buzz" you get, the difference between low-point and high-point beers when discussing light domestics is fairly trivial.

3.2% VS the so called 6% sure does taste different to me.

I've always wondered this. What about college football games? Are police just turning a blind eye on game days?

No, if you're buying it on the street and walking around without it, 100% chance that it is 3.2 beer. The state essentially considers it a non-intoxicating food product and does not regulate or tax it, beyond regular sales tax. Different counties have different rules for it, but in OK County, for instance, there is a county permit of something like $300 per "bar location," which could mean a bar, a horse trough, whatever. A tavern could have multiple "bars," meaning you could buy 3.2 at the regular bar, a satellite bar, and the scantily-clad girl on the patio twisting caps, and each would need a $300 permit, but no state liquor license.

Many beers in Oklahoma have both 3.2 and strong versions available, especially those owned by AB/InBev, because they can masquerade as strong beer but be subject to looser regulation and less tax. Bud, Coors, Miller don't even try to play the strong beer game and are only 3.2. That is likely to change if this law passes.

TBH part of the intent of the two year implementation is to work out some of those details. Rules blocking happy hours and beer specials are ABLE rules and can be changed without a vote of the people. A lot of 792 is clearing the slate and making room for a rewrite of much of our rules.
That might mean Oklahoma will have to go to the polls by 2018 to make trivial sounding changes in alcohol laws. It had to do that in order to allow liquor stores to return to operating at regular hours on election days. Maybe, first, a vote needs to be taken to remove Oklahoma alcohol laws and regulations from the constitution. The state constitution should not spell out the details for specific laws and regulations. That's what statutes are for.

That might mean Oklahoma will have to go to the polls by 2018 to make trivial sounding changes in alcohol laws. It had to do that in order to allow liquor stores to return to operating at regular hours on election days. Maybe, first, a vote needs to be taken to remove Oklahoma alcohol laws and regulations from the constitution. The state constitution should not spell out the details for specific laws and regulations. That's what statutes are for.

That's what a lot of this is. For good or ill. Because it means we're voting without truly knowing the end result b

Dated rules have taprooms hopping

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record November 2, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – A brewery taproom isn’t allowed to sell food, which leaves some questions regarding how the city’s zoning applies.

Pivot Project developer Jonathan Dodson said he’s heard from some brewers interested in his team’s projects that they are hesitant about trying to open a place in the city.

The hesitation comes with the unclear zoning regulations on a taproom. A brewer doesn’t need to seek an alcoholic beverage consumption level 2 permit because the taproom can’t serve food. It can seek an ABC-3 permit, but that means it has the same hours as a bar. An ABC-3 allows for mixed-beverage sales as well.

The new interest in brewery taproom regulations came about within the last month when Senate Bill 424 went into effect and brewers could sell high-point beer by the glass. Previously, they could give a 12-ounce sample and sell their low-point beer by the glass.

“If it’s viewed as an ABC-3, a brewery couldn’t serve within 300 feet of a school or church,” Dodson said.

Dodson said that contention became a problem in Ward 6, where a school or church is on nearly every block. He said his team has a few sites where a brewery and taproom couldn’t open because of the distance requirement.

Dodson called Oklahoma City Councilwoman Meg Salyer, who organized a meeting with the city’s Planning Department and the Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission.

Randy Entz in the city’s current planning division said the department is trying to define the difference between a nano-brewery, a micro-brewery, and a craft brewery.

The city is also considering the elimination of ABC overlays altogether.

Planning Commission member Janis Powers asked the city to review how other cities handle alcohol zoning. She was troubled that an ABC overlay is permanently attached to a building. That allows the next user to not have to seek the commission’s approval and the business could be a nuisance.

The Planning Department is considering some type of permitting process that restaurant or bar owners could obtain. The permit would not be fixed with the property.

Dodson said the city will likely create a permitting process for the breweries with taprooms as well. The permit types will range from a brewery that’s also packaging on site, to just brewing and drinking on site.

Entz said he understands why the language needs to be reworked.

Dodson said brewers could have to spend a lot of money constructing their place, only to find out that an ABC-3 overlay is not allowed.

“We have a progressive enough group of people that are decision makers that could make this happen,” Dodson said.

Okay, so I've been reading through SB383 and now I have a headache... but... I need some help clarifying what I've read. So Section 78 describes how beer brewers will be required to designate a single distributor for their products that will have exclusive rights to distribute their products for the territory they control. If I'm reading this right, that means that any given retailer will only be able to get that brewer's products from that single distributor - there will be no competition, right? Maybe I missed it, but is there any language that requires beer distributors to play fair and keep beer prices stable? As it is right now, competition between distributors keeps a lid on prices; with exclusive distribution rights, a distributor could raise the price for their product and there would be no pressure to prevent this.

Okay, so I've been reading through SB383 and now I have a headache... but... I need some help clarifying what I've read. So Section 78 describes how beer brewers will be required to designate a single distributor for their products that will have exclusive rights to distribute their products for the territory they control. If I'm reading this right, that means that any given retailer will only be able to get that brewer's products from that single distributor - there will be no competition, right? Maybe I missed it, but is there any language that requires beer distributors to play fair and keep beer prices stable? As it is right now, competition between distributors keeps a lid on prices; with exclusive distribution rights, a distributor could raise the price for their product and there would be no pressure to prevent this.

You're correct. It also will be the case with liquor...so only one distributor for Crown Royal, Jack Daniels etc. and yes your concerns about the effect it will have on prices are very valid...

From my reading of SB383, the same does NOT apply to liquor or wine. Section 86(A) states:

Any manufacturer or subsidiary of a manufacturer who markets its products solely through a subsidiary or subsidiaries, a distiller, rectifier, bottler, winemaker or importer of alcoholic beverages, bottled or made in a foreign country, either within or without this state, may sell such brands or kinds of alcoholic beverages to every licensed wine and spirits wholesaler who desires to purchase the same, on the same price basis and without discrimination or inducements, and shall further be required to sell such beverages only to those persons licensed as wine and spirits wholesalers.

From my reading of SB383, the same does NOT apply to liquor or wine. Section 86(A) states:

The wording of that is indeed interesting but I can assure you that this bill will take us to a 3 tier system allowing exclusive agreements. Central Wholesale (the largest liquor wholesaler in the state) and RNDC (the largest spirit and wine broker in the state) will basically become one and they will be the the only company that will sell the products they represent. They will not sell any products that they don't represent. I know this to be fact. The word on the street is that Boardwalk Distributing will challenge the constitutionality of this aspect of the bill and that Centrals legal team is convinced it will stand up to the challenge...

If Oklahoma successfully passes State Question 792; it could be the end of 3.2 beer altogether.


Question 792 on Oklahoma's ballot would allow grocery stores and convenience stores to sell high-percentage alcohol beer as well as wine. It could also be the death of 3.2 beer in Oklahoma and the rest of the nation.

"If something happens and brewers decide to move away from the market, we need to make sure we're able to deal with the fallout from it," Sal Petilos, the executive director of Utah's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Utah braces for impact of Oklahoma’s 3.2 beer vote: http://fox13now.com/2016/10/27/utah-braces-for-impact-of-oklahomas-3-2-beer-vote/

Kind of sad for me, 3.2 beer suits me. Yes, I go to nice bars and enjoy craft beers, but it's limited to two or three. When I'm home, 3.2 is what I like. You have to understand, I don't drink coffee, tea, or soft drinks, beer and water are my drinks of choice and I really don't need strong beer for that. I even avoid the really strong craft beers (with the exception of Roughtail Hoptometrist),
C. T.

Keep in mind that 'could' and 'will' are not the same thing, and smart retailers sell what their customers want to buy. If you want 3.2 beer, you will still be able to get 3.2 beer. Might not be everywhere, but it will be available, as long as you purchase it. If the demand goes away, so will the product.

Keep in mind that 'could' and 'will' are not the same thing, and smart retailers sell what their customers want to buy. If you want 3.2 beer, you will still be able to get 3.2 beer. Might not be everywhere, but it will be available, as long as you purchase it. If the demand goes away, so will the product.Not so sure. Oklahoma, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota are the only 3.2 states. Oklahoma is the largest consumer of those states and the new law will go a long way towards doing away with 3.2 beer. Kansas is also working toward doing away with 3.2 beer. If Oklahoma allows "strong" Bud/Coors/Miller and their side brands it will likely become not economically feasable for those brewers to keep producing 3.2 beer.
http://www.taptrail.com/can-oklahoma-kill-3-2-beer/

The 3.2 ABW vs 6.0 ABV beer is silly to me.. wouldn't hurt my feeling to see 3.2 go away. when you consider if you measure 6.0 ABV by weight it is 4.7ABW there isn't enough difference to me to make it worth the trouble.

Not so sure. Oklahoma, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota are the only 3.2 states. Oklahoma is the largest consumer of those states and the new law will go a long way towards doing away with 3.2 beer. Kansas is also working toward doing away with 3.2 beer. If Oklahoma allows "strong" Bud/Coors/Miller and their side brands it will likely become not economically feasable for those brewers to keep producing 3.2 beer.
http://www.taptrail.com/can-oklahoma-kill-3-2-beer/

The only reason I could see 3.2 surviving is if they don't update the statues for festivals, tailgating, state parks, etc. There would still be a demand for 3.2 beer in that case.

The only reason I could see 3.2 surviving is if they don't update the statues for festivals, tailgating, state parks, etc. There would still be a demand for 3.2 beer in that case.Could be. But would that be enough volume for Bud/Coors/Miller to keep a manufacturing line open for 3.2?

Could be. But would that be enough volume for Bud/Coors/Miller to keep a manufacturing line open for 3.2?

No idea. I know locals brewers did produce 3.2 for exactly these reasons.

The 3.2 ABW vs 6.0 ABV beer is silly to me.. wouldn't hurt my feeling to see 3.2 go away. when you consider if you measure 6.0 ABV by weight it is 4.7ABW there isn't enough difference to me to make it worth the trouble.
Especially if it's mass produced beers because while most everyone calls them 6 point they're not. For instance, every bar I know calls PBR 6 point. Various web sites list PBR as 4.74 to 5.0 ABV. Strong Coors/Bud/Miller are really 5.0 ABV and thier light versions are 4.2 to 4.5 ABV. 3.2 beer is 4.0 ABV. There really isn't much difference.

You're correct. It also will be the case with liquor...so only one distributor for Crown Royal, Jack Daniels etc. and yes your concerns about the effect it will have on prices are very valid...

And this is the biggest concern of this question. If passed, I assume we will see higher prices in short time for liquor.

And this is the biggest concern of this question. If passed, I assume we will see higher prices in short time for liquor.

I see why this is a concern, but you'll still have competition amongst brands, right? So let's say some distributor signs an agreement with Brown-Forman to distribute Jack Daniels, that distributor jacks the wholesale price up 15%, and the retail price goes up correspondingly. Presumably sales decrease.

But Diageo let's say has a competing brand and they sign with a different distributor that doesn't jack up the price, and their sales increase since their competitors are now more expensive. Isn't Brown-Forman then going to have a stern talking-to with their distributor? Unless I'm misunderstanding, you still have competition in the mooted system, it's just that now the distilleries (or breweries) are competing with one another, instead of there being one wholesale price. The package stores will still be able to compete with one another on price, like they do now, right?

The only reason I could see 3.2 surviving is if they don't update the statues for festivals, tailgating, state parks, etc. There would still be a demand for 3.2 beer in that case.
I wonder how 3.2% beer is surviving in CO and MN, because they sure aren't selling as much of it as Oklahoma.

I see why this is a concern, but you'll still have competition amongst brands, right? So let's say some distributor signs an agreement with Brown-Forman to distribute Jack Daniels, that distributor jacks the wholesale price up 15%, and the retail price goes up correspondingly. Presumably sales decrease.

But Diageo let's say has a competing brand and they sign with a different distributor that doesn't jack up the price, and their sales increase since their competitors are now more expensive. Isn't Brown-Forman then going to have a stern talking-to with their distributor? Unless I'm misunderstanding, you still have competition in the mooted system, it's just that now the distilleries (or breweries) are competing with one another, instead of there being one wholesale price. The package stores will still be able to compete with one another on price, like they do now, right?

Ya but there are so few distributors in this state, what, like 2 or 3, that they will likely no just Jack Daniels but possibly every other whiskey. I dont know if that will happen but its a concern, and I know there could be better liquor reform options. Probably will still vote yes

I wonder how 3.2% beer is surviving in CO and MN, because they sure aren't selling as much of it as Oklahoma.

That's actually the point of some of the articles I've seen. Basically, Oklahoma's sales of 3.2 make if feasible for those other places to have it. Folks in Utah are actually afraid of losing all beer if this passes in Oklahoma.

No idea. I know locals brewers did produce 3.2 for exactly these reasons.
Didn't think of locals. I can see locals still producing it for events since it would be a more decent percentage of total output. I just can't see the big 3 wanting to brew, store and distribute 3.2 if Oklahoma and Kansas both drop consumption considerably. It would be fine by me if events had 3.2 local beers only. That is as long as they're not 10 bucks a pop.

That's actually the point of some of the articles I've seen. Basically, Oklahoma's sales of 3.2 make if feasible for those other places to have it. Folks in Utah are actually afraid of losing all beer if this passes in Oklahoma.

Not sure why they would lose beer entirely if they already have malt beverage over 3.2 available in state run liquor stores. I don't see why that would stop.

Not sure why they would lose beer entirely if they already have malt beverage over 3.2 available in state run liquor stores. I don't see why that would stop.

IDK but if you start drinking the stronger beer you will not likely want to go back to the 3.2. Not that much different but it taste more like beer should taste and the 3.2 is just a watered down version. It won't take beer drinkers long to forget about the 3.2 IMO.

OKCRT,
I've seen several comments (and heard them as well) that 3.2 beer is just a watered down version of "strong" beer. Actually, that's not the case. I have home brewed and the alcohol content has to do with the brewing, not the additional water. At home I brewed five gallon batches regardless of the alcohol level. Not jumping on you, but your comment reminded me of my home brewing days, not the "good old days" because I really didn't enjoy it even though the beer was very good. Too much effort and little or no savings. Much easier to go to the store!
C. T.

OKCRT,
I've seen several comments (and heard them as well) that 3.2 beer is just a watered down version of "strong" beer. Actually, that's not the case. I have home brewed and the alcohol content has to do with the brewing, not the additional water. At home I brewed five gallon batches regardless of the alcohol level. Not jumping on you, but your comment reminded me of my home brewing days, not the "good old days" because I really didn't enjoy it even though the beer was very good. Too much effort and little or no savings. Much easier to go to the store!
C. T.
Thank you! I wanted to bring this up but simply was hesitant to start another controversy. Now that its been said. I've been through both the Golden CO, Coors brewery once and the St Louis Mo, A-B brewery many times. They explain how everything in the process affects the final product. Just like you said, the alcohol content has to do with the process not "watering" the product down.

IDK but if you start drinking the stronger beer you will not likely want to go back to the 3.2. Not that much different but it taste more like beer should taste and the 3.2 is just a watered down version. It won't take beer drinkers long to forget about the 3.2 IMO.I have actually had a Texas Coors and an Oklahoma Coors side by side with only my wife knowing which was which. I couldn't tell the difference. I tried about ten times and went right at 50/50 guessing which was which. I'm not doubting that lots of people with more sensetive taste than mine can tell the difference. But I also bet there are a similar number like me that can't.

SoonerSoftail,
With me, it's the effect of the alcohol, not so much the taste when drinking the stronger brews. And of course, that's only if I drink a lot, not just one or two. A few exceptions, some of the local brewers have really strong beers, like Mustang Rocket Fuel which is 9.5 percent.
C. T.

Ya but there are so few distributors in this state, what, like 2 or 3, that they will likely no just Jack Daniels but possibly every other whiskey. I dont know if that will happen but its a concern, and I know there could be better liquor reform options. Probably will still vote yes

So it looks like there is a slight wording change between current law and the new language if SQ 792 is approved; Current law says:

Any manufacturer [...] shall be required to sell such brands or kinds of alcoholic beverages to every licensed wholesaler or Class B wholesaler who desires to purchase the same, on the same price basis and without discrimination or inducements, and shall further be required to sell such beverages only to those persons licensed as wholesalers or Class B wholesalers.
But the new law reads:

Any manufacturer [...] may sell such brands or kinds of alcoholic beverages to every licensed wine and spirits wholesaler who desires to purchase the same, on the same price basis and without discrimination or inducements, and shall further be required to sell such beverages only to those persons licensed as wine and spirits wholesalers.

So a manufacturer is no longer required to sell to just any wholesaler that wants to buy their product (but they're not prohibited from doing so either). I wish Sen. Bice was a member of this forum... I'd love to hear her reasoning for why the wording was changed this way. Anyway, if this does end up being a problem, at least it will be relatively easy to amend and fix after the fact.

^^ Budweiser.

^^ Budweiser.

This part of the law I quoted above is specifically addressing wine and spirits, and does not apply to brewers. Under the new law, brewers are required to use only one distributor for their products in a given territory - but that's a different section of the new law. Why would AB InBev care about liquor or wine?

That's actually the point of some of the articles I've seen. Basically, Oklahoma's sales of 3.2 make if feasible for those other places to have it. Folks in Utah are actually afraid of losing all beer if this passes in Oklahoma.

Yeah this is correct. Brewers and/or states with 3.2 sales are already making plans for there to possibly be no more 3.2 if Oklahoma passes the law. This is based on the fact that Oklahoma accounts for more than 50% of all 3.2 sales right now. Colorado is already in the process of phasing it out entirely. This article from Salt Lake City explains it pretty well:

http://fox13now.com/2016/10/27/utah-braces-for-impact-of-oklahomas-3-2-beer-vote/

If I had to guess there might be issues with strong beers since they're handled differently. I've not thought to ask Rice that. She's fairly responsive on Facebook to answering questions BTW. This may be a Wal-Mart concession, since out of state corporations can buy ownership stakes in distributors under the new law.

OKCRT,
I've seen several comments (and heard them as well) that 3.2 beer is just a watered down version of "strong" beer. Actually, that's not the case. I have home brewed and the alcohol content has to do with the brewing, not the additional water. At home I brewed five gallon batches regardless of the alcohol level. Not jumping on you, but your comment reminded me of my home brewing days, not the "good old days" because I really didn't enjoy it even though the beer was very good. Too much effort and little or no savings. Much easier to go to the store!
C. T.

Oh yes I know,that was just a figure of speech. Less alc. = watered down. If I am drinking full strength beer and run out and grab a 3.2 it dose taste watered down. But in reality I know that is not the case.

Oh yes I know,that was just a figure of speech. Less alc. = watered down. If I am drinking full strength beer and run out and grab a 3.2 it dose taste watered down. But in reality I know that is not the case.

OKCRT,
As I said, I wasn't jumping on you, it was just an opportunity to clear up the "watered down" comments I have seen. I enjoy my beer and it sounds like you do as well.
C. T.

Hang on a second...don't give it THAT much of a pass. Achieving 3.2 or less absolutely can and often does involve simple dilution. The process depends on the brewery. There are three common alcohol reduction techniques, and they are sometimes used in combination.


Boiling off - this doesn't necessarily mean applying high heat, since alcohol evaporates at a lower temp than water. But heat is definitely applied; sometimes in a vacuum to make it even more easy. It's much like distillation, except in this case the alcohol is the byproduct.
Reverse osmosis - the beer is passed through a filter that only allows water and alcohol molecules to pass through. The two liquids are then separated, and water is added back to the beer to reconstitute/rehydrate
Simple dilution - just adding water to the beer is the easiest technique, and it is indeed regularly used in the effort to reach 3.2 measurements.

Don't let 3.2 off the hook so easily. There is a reason it often tastes watered down; it's because many brands are just that. Slightly diluted versions of the real product.

Hang on a second...don't give it THAT much of a pass. Achieving 3.2 or less absolutely can and often does involve simple dilution. The process depends on the brewery. There are three common alcohol reduction techniques, and they are sometimes used in combination.


Boiling off - this doesn't necessarily mean applying high heat, since alcohol evaporates at a lower temp than water. But heat is definitely applied; sometimes in a vacuum to make it even more easy. It's much like distillation, except in this case the alcohol is the byproduct.
Reverse osmosis - the beer is passed through a filter that only allows water and alcohol molecules to pass through. The two liquids are then separated, and water is added back to the beer to reconstitute/rehydrate
Simple dilution - just adding water to the beer is the easiest technique, and it is indeed regularly used in the effort to reach 3.2 measurements.

Don't let 3.2 off the hook so easily. There is a reason it often tastes watered down; it's because many brands are just that. Slightly diluted versions of the real product.

Urbanized,
No argument, some of them may do that, but I was just wondering why they would "water" it down when the simple process of brewing can be used to control the alcohol. See below from Wikipedia.
C. T.

The alcohol in beer comes primarily from the metabolism of sugars that are produced during fermentation. The quantity of fermentable sugars in the wort and the variety of yeast used to ferment the wort are the primary factors that determine the amount of alcohol in the final beer.

Not only that, but simply stopping the fermentation process sooner. When I brew I check with a hydrometer through the process to decide when I want to bottle the beer. It definitely is below 3.2 early in the process, and I could bottle then.

Not only that, but simply stopping the fermentation process sooner. When I brew I check with a hydrometer through the process to decide when I want to bottle the beer. It definitely is below 3.2 early in the process, and I could bottle then.

JerryWall,
Hydrometer! For the life of me, I couldn't remember the term. I have one and I used it, but I had forgotten why. I found that for the most part, if I just followed the brewing instructions, the alcohol content was fairly close to where I wanted it, so with me, using the hydrometer was kind of a waste of time. I enjoyed every five gallons I brewed, but as I said, it wasn't fun for me. If I enjoyed it, I would have branched out and experimented with hops and other grains.
C. T.

Not only that, but simply stopping the fermentation process sooner. When I brew I check with a hydrometer through the process to decide when I want to bottle the beer. It definitely is below 3.2 early in the process, and I could bottle then.

You can do that of course, but not if you are trying to match the flavor profile of a strong beer with the same label as closely as possible, right? That's why mainstream macro brews prefer to brew full strength and then baking off some alcohol and/or diluting.

Urbanized,
No argument, some of them may do that, but I was just wondering why they would "water" it down when the simple process of brewing can be used to control the alcohol. See below from Wikipedia.
C. T.

The alcohol in beer comes primarily from the metabolism of sugars that are produced during fermentation. The quantity of fermentable sugars in the wort and the variety of yeast used to ferment the wort are the primary factors that determine the amount of alcohol in the final beer.

C.T., it's so that they can most closely approximate the flavor of the strong version of the same beer. If they use a different brewing process they would have a harder time hitting the mark. Instead they just brew the same beer and then bake off and/or filter out some alcohol and/or dilute with flavorless water.

Btw. I've reached out to Bice and asked her to come here, even though I disagree with her position. As I mentioned she seems to be engaged and active online so I'm hopeful she might swing by and answer some of these questions...

She has replied she has registered so folks who have questions be ready!

Thanks for doing that Jerry

Happy Sunday all. This thread is quite long, so for the sake of time - can you let me know which questions you would like me to answer?

I did see post I can address. It is the "may vs. shall" as it relates to distributors. Let me explain: Under the current distribution model, a manufacturer (let's say Apothic Red winery) must sell their product equally and at the same price basis to all wholesalers. My question was: why? Why is a manufacturer prohibited from choosing WHO they want to distribute their product? In the current system, a wholesaler can be negligent in taking care of the product or not promote it, and the manufacturer has zero say in refusing to sell it to them. Another issue with the current system relates to expired/recalled products. It is VERY difficult to recall items since you are selling them to all wholesalers, who can then sell to virtually every retailer. The wholesaler doesn't want to take back a product from the retailer because they can't be 100% sure they sold it to them.

Again, if you can post more questions here I will do my best to answer. Thank you to Jerry for alerting me to the discussion.

Regards,
SB

Thank you so much for coming here Senator. We disagree on this bill but I think more information is always a good thing ahead of Tuesday's vote.

Here's my question. Are there plans to address issues that will come up with 3.2 going away? For example state parks, the Illinois river, OU tailgating etc... I've seen the whole "we can address it next year" comments but that makes me nervous. Thanks.

Senator Bice, thank you very much for joining us here, and for your response! My main question, regarding your response to the may vs shall change for distributors, is what (if anything) would prevent a distributor from demanding to be the exclusive distributor for a liquor brand, thereby reducing competition for that brand and potentially leading to higher liquor prices?

Yes. This is the reason the bill is not slated to go into effect until Oct of 2018. We need time to 1) let counties decide how they want to proceed if 3.2 goes away and 2) address state parks, etc. OU Tailgating is - I believe - a city/campus ordinance - so not sure if that would be addressed or not.

Also, my apologies for not responding last night.

As for distributors: a distributor may be the exclusive vendor for a product - let's say Jack Daniels - but keep in mind, if they hike up the price and sales drop, the manufacturer is going to re-evaluate that relationship. The distributor is going to have to keep prices competitive or consumers will look at other alternatives.

Also - the distributor relationship for wine/spirits is different than beer wholesalers. The beer guys have a true "franchise" system, with assigned territories and you cannot pull a brand from them without cause. With the wholesalers, it's not necessarily that way. A manufacturer can "assign" a brand to a wholesaler, but if they aren't happy with the relationship, they can give notice and pull the brand within a short time frame and with no financial compensation to the wholesaler.

Last - someone brought up the 'consumption tax' issue in an earlier post. This is PRIORITY #1 for me to address next session. Since there is no consumption tax on 3.2 because it is considered "food", the tax would increase beer pricing. However, I am already looking at either reducing the tax or possibly moving all taxes upstream to the wholesale/distributor level.

Hope this helps.
SB

She has replied but the replies are stuck in moderation. Any help here?

She has replied but the replies are stuck in moderation. Any help here?

done! -M

OKCRT,
I've seen several comments (and heard them as well) that 3.2 beer is just a watered down version of "strong" beer. Actually, that's not the case. I have home brewed and the alcohol content has to do with the brewing, not the additional water. At home I brewed five gallon batches regardless of the alcohol level. Not jumping on you, but your comment reminded me of my home brewing days, not the "good old days" because I really didn't enjoy it even though the beer was very good. Too much effort and little or no savings. Much easier to go to the store!
C. T.

Actually those beers are technically watered down. Then again so are the regular strength versions. One of the key ways to brew massive amounts of lager beer and have it taste the same every time is by brewing high gravity versions of the beer and then dilute it down to the needed ABV. In reality the beer that those guys are brewing is a 6 or even 7% version that then gets diluted down to 5% or 4% in OK currently. The process also allows them to max out the brewing equipment yet yield more beer. It's my understanding that most large scale lager breweries use this type of process.

Is everybody still in shock?

792 passed!

We just voted in something without knowing how it will be implemented. Worked out great with the ACA. Let's see how it works here.

We just voted in something without knowing how it will be implemented. Worked out great with the ACA. Let's see how it works here.That scared me from the first time I read it. I hope they don't really screw things up.

Is everybody still in shock?

792 passed!

Not near as much as Oklahomies saying no to 790.