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.

I believe I read where another statute derives how it is implemented. IIRC, it will become completely in on October 1, 2018.

I believe I read where another statue derives how it is implemented. IIRC, it will become completely in on October 1, 2018.

Look up thread. Even Senator Bice states that the reason for the delay is to work out the details. For example, the loss of 3.2 beer means no beer at state parks, on the rivers, or tailgating. Plus, I know of several beer only establishments that will be SOL. There are a lot of more details that weren't explained to use before we voted because they haven't negotiated them yet. We basically handed the state legislature a blank check to write our liquor laws over the next two years, however they see fit. I think it's funny that plenty of folks who supported this don't trust the legislature in other areas.

Well already getting challenged.

http://kfor.com/2016/11/09/liquor-association-to-challenge-passage-of-measure-that-modernizes-liquor-laws-in-oklahoma/

Well already getting challenged.

http://kfor.com/2016/11/09/liquor-association-to-challenge-passage-of-measure-that-modernizes-liquor-laws-in-oklahoma/


They can challenge all they want. The people have spoken loud and clear! This issue wasn't even close.

They can challenge all they want. The people have spoken loud and clear! This issue wasn't even close.

Hrm, won't change the legality. I'm not clear if they have legal footing, but it's sort of like Oklahoma's gay marriage ban, which was passed by a clear and loud vote of the people.

Luckily, our legislatures have several other states to get ideas from when they write the law. As long as they don't rewrite the playbook we will be fine.

3.2 beer is a human rights issue now?

3.2 beer is a human rights issue now?

Of course not, although equality in business could possibly be considered one. If it's soundly written it shouldn't be an issue, and if it's unconstitutional it should be ruled so and redone.

They can challenge all they want. The people have spoken loud and clear! This issue wasn't even close.

Which doesn't actually matter a fig.

If the opponents have a good argument, even a vote that's 98% in favor wouldn't matter.

Not saying they have a solid argument, but not willing to say they do not without reading it first.

They can challenge all they want. The people have spoken loud and clear! This issue wasn't even close.

Oklahoma will find a way to circumvent the will of the people and stay in the 19th century

Which doesn't actually matter a fig.

If the opponents have a good argument, even a vote that's 98% in favor wouldn't matter.

Not saying they have a solid argument, but not willing to say they do not without reading it first.

They better have an overwhelming reason because I don't think a Judge is going to go against the peoples wishes on this issue unless it is totally biased against a certain group, which it isn't. The old guard has to open it up now. They had a monopoly for years on certain items and of course they don't want to share the pie.

They better have an overwhelming reason because I don't think a Judge is going to go against the peoples wishes on this issue unless it is totally biased against a certain group, which it isn't. The old guard has to open it up now. They had a monopoly for years on certain items and of course they don't want to share the pie.

Considering that anyone could open a store, I don't see how that would fit the definition of a monopoly. Plenty of competition.

Of course, with the new law, they'll be competing against places that can have multiple locations, extended hours, extended days of operation, that can obtain loans and have protection behind a corporation, and employ younger folks to sell liquor products, and sell unlimited non liquor items. None of which they get. How is that not bias?

There's a reason why Wal-Mart spent so much money to get 792 passed.

On this note, from back in August - http://kfor.com/2016/08/01/group-asks-judge-to-block-oklahoma-alcohol-ballot-measure/


District Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons denied an injunction Monday that was sought by the Retail Liquor Association of Oklahoma. However, Timmons says she has questions about the constitutionality of the proposal and will schedule a hearing later to decide that issue.

They better have an overwhelming reason because I don't think a Judge is going to go against the peoples wishes on this issue unless it is totally biased against a certain group, which it isn't. ...

Again, the wishes of the majority of the people are not part of the equation.
If what the majority wants was a deciding factor, anything a majority favors would be constitutional. We are not, and have never been, a body where the majority perspective carries the day in all respects.

Again, not saying the challengers will carry the day. I am only noting that many times something a majority wants ends up not happening because if it stood, it would trample the rights of others who are not in the majority.

Look up thread. Even Senator Bice states that the reason for the delay is to work out the details. For example, the loss of 3.2 beer means no beer at state parks, on the rivers, or tailgating. Plus, I know of several beer only establishments that will be SOL. There are a lot of more details that weren't explained to use before we voted because they haven't negotiated them yet. We basically handed the state legislature a blank check to write our liquor laws over the next two years, however they see fit. I think it's funny that plenty of folks who supported this don't trust the legislature in other areas.

People tailgate with 3.2 beer?!

People tailgate with 3.2 beer?!

The ones following the law do. I have no idea if the police ever check.

The ones following the law do. I have no idea if the police ever check.

I actually never knew that was part of the law, or that there were laws involving tailgating. I mean, it makes sense, but it's just something I never really considered.

I'm optimistic the liquor folks will come back to the table and work with Senator Bice and the other legislators involved to make this palatable for all parties. If everyone leaves the table a little bit disappointed, that's probably a good thing.

Considering that anyone could open a store, I don't see how that would fit the definition of a monopoly. Plenty of competition.

Of course, with the new law, they'll be competing against places that can have multiple locations, extended hours, extended days of operation, that can obtain loans and have protection behind a corporation, and employ younger folks to sell liquor products, and sell unlimited non liquor items. None of which they get. How is that not bias?

There's a reason why Wal-Mart spent so much money to get 792 passed.

I have been thinking about this argument a while. The fact is that they are not equal. Liquor stores still sell liquor which wine and beer license can't. There is nothing to prevent a liquor store owner from opening up a wine and beer shop and owning as many as he would like and sell other items also. But...if he wants to sell liquor, he has more regulation. If we are going to truly make it a level playing field, then allow the grocery stores to sell liquor also and let the liquor stores sell other items and have multiple stores and extended hours.

I actually never knew that was part of the law, or that there were laws involving tailgating. I mean, it makes sense, but it's just something I never really considered.

To be clear, I'm talking about OU Campus, which is a dry campus, except for game days, where they allow 3.2 beer around the stadium.

I have been thinking about this argument a while. The fact is that they are not equal. Liquor stores still sell liquor which wine and beer license can't. There is nothing to prevent a liquor store owner from opening up a wine and beer shop and owning as many as he would like and sell other items also. But...if he wants to sell liquor, he has more regulation. If we are going to truly make it a level playing field, then allow the grocery stores to sell liquor also and let the liquor stores sell other items and have multiple stores and extended hours.

I agree with this 100%. For me it seems the liquor stores are up in arms because their monopoly is falling a bit but they still have it on Liquor itself and will now have later hours to sell liquor so in some ways its a win. It does take away some Beer and Wine revenue yes but you can't have it all.

I agree with this 100%. For me it seems the liquor stores are up in arms because their monopoly is falling a bit but they still have it on Liquor itself and will now have later hours to sell liquor so in some ways its a win. It does take away some Beer and Wine revenue yes but you can't have it all.

Wine and Beer are the eggs and milk of liquor stores. Higher prices! YAY!

Wine and Beer are the eggs and milk of liquor stores. Higher prices! YAY!

I don't think the sky is falling and it's liquor we are talking about it's a luxury not a something required to live ( however it sure helps with the politics )
More convenience YAY!

I don't think the sky is falling and it's liquor we are talking about it's a luxury not a something required to live ( however it sure helps with the politics )
More convenience YAY!

It's more convenient to go to a liquor store 2 blocks away, park right up front, and be in and out in 2 minutes, than it is to drive further to a grocery store, park in a crowded lot, walk to the back of the store, and spend 10 minutes in the checkout line.

And even worse when 1/2 of the liquor stores are gone, so I have less option.

But Wal-Mart gets to send more money out of state. Yay!

It's more convenient to go to a liquor store 2 blocks away, park right up front, and be in and out in 2 minutes, than it is to drive further to a grocery store, park in a crowded lot, walk to the back of the store, and spend 10 minutes in the checkout line.

And even worse when 1/2 of the liquor stores are gone, so I have less option.

But Wal-Mart gets to send more money out of state. Yay!

Most people take more trips to the Grocery store than to a liquor store. so it's easy to pick up a bottle of wine or a 6 pack of good beer while you shop. We get it you hate it because of lakes and tailgating and higher prices and walmart and not wanting to park at a grocery store. noted.

And the fact that it's bad for Oklahoma businesses, craft brewers, and underage drinking. Don't forget that. It's amazing how this site is always about the local businesses, except when it comes to getting their drunk on.

And the fact that it's bad for Oklahoma businesses, craft brewers, and underage drinking. Don't forget that. It's amazing how this site is always about the local businesses, except when it comes to getting their drunk on.

Wow. I didn't realize that every other state that has modern free trade liquor laws were such cesspools. Funny, I haven't seen a bunch of drunk under age kids spending too much money on overpriced beer and wine (when they could find a rare store to buy it in) in all these other places.

The two top states for craft beer allow beer and wine sales in grocery stores, as do most of the top 10. Doubt the forecast of doom to craft brewers is justified.

Protectionism almost never works to the benefit of the public, whether local, state, national or international. ... a hard lesson we are likely to learn given the election. Sounds great but never works long term. All it does is protects inefficient and lower quality suppliers while retarding innovation and capital investment. People need to become students of economics history

Wow. I didn't realize that every other state that has modern free trade liquor laws were such cesspools. Funny, I haven't seen a bunch of drunk under age kids spending too much money on overpriced beer and wine (when they could find a rare store to buy it in) in all these other places.

They're not cesspools but there is no doubt that the number one source for liquor for underage drinkers are grocery and gas stations. There have been plenty of studies. And it makes sense, since they can't physically walk into a liquor store. Plus, since underage kids can work in those establishments, it gives them access they wouldn't have otherwise. I know that's how I drank when I was 18.

And there's also no doubt that this will result in more money flowing to out of state corporations. And not one person has argued that. Wal-Mart won't be stocking and pushing Oklahoma Wines and Beers. They'll be pushing the mega brands and there will be less outlets selling and promoting the Oklahoma products. Ask New Belgium and other craft brewers in Colorado what they think of the changes to their grocery beer laws (and that's a place that was smart enough to do a phased operation). Again, wow, we want to follow other states' examples, except when we don't.

We drink hard liquor, so our shopping habits won't change. In the event we need to stock up for a party, we'll continue to go to our nearby liquor store, Byron's. About the only way I'd get beer or wine from anywhere else is if I needed it cold. That part is attractive to me. However, we have a bar at home and try to always keep a few bottles of wine and some beer on hand and chilled, so it wouldn't happen often.

Having said that, I do understand the concerns of many of the posters here. Change is difficult, and sometimes it takes a while for the kinks to be worked out.

And honestly, regardless of how anyone feels, it's now completely out of our hands. It will either be found constitutional or it won't. Assuming it is upheld, it's then in the hands of our legislature, who always does a wonderful job of planning and prioritizing and operating our state government, to write out and refine.

This law won't have any impact on under age drinking but the people who break the law and choose to sell to minors will. I've yet to see a group of under age kids pounding $10 6 packs of COOP F5.

This law won't have any impact on under age drinking but the people who break the law and choose to sell to minors will. I've yet to see a group of under age kids pounding $10 6 packs of COOP F5.True. We drank Brown Derby and Old Milwaukee. Occasionally we'd splurge and get Coors.

Since Wal Mart did invest heavily in this I wonder a couple of things. How much will they remodel/rearrange to expand beer and add wine. And since WMs buying policy is to tell the supplier what WM will pay how many additional beer brands and wines will go along.

I have been thinking about this argument a while. The fact is that they are not equal. Liquor stores still sell liquor which wine and beer license can't. There is nothing to prevent a liquor store owner from opening up a wine and beer shop and owning as many as he would like and sell other items also. But...if he wants to sell liquor, he has more regulation. If we are going to truly make it a level playing field, then allow the grocery stores to sell liquor also and let the liquor stores sell other items and have multiple stores and extended hours.

This right here is why I'm not remotely swayed by the equal protection argument.

Walmart might not have a focus on stocking and promoting "made in Oklahoma" alcohol, but then Walmart doesn't have much of a focus on promoting "MIO" anything.

I imagine that the grocery stores that already have a focus on promoting MIO products will be more than happy to expand that focus on alcohol.

I have been thinking about this argument a while. The fact is that they are not equal. Liquor stores still sell liquor which wine and beer license can't. There is nothing to prevent a liquor store owner from opening up a wine and beer shop and owning as many as he would like and sell other items also. But...if he wants to sell liquor, he has more regulation. If we are going to truly make it a level playing field, then allow the grocery stores to sell liquor also and let the liquor stores sell other items and have multiple stores and extended hours.

Bingo! The entire equal protection argument is laughable. Do they actually think the current situation provides an equal set of rules? All of a sudden, right when their monopoly is about to be dismantled, they demand equal rules. Incredible.

The liquor stores that are run well and built relationships over the years (ex. Moore Liquor) will be just fine.

The liquor stores that are run well and built relationships over the years (ex. Moore Liquor) will be just fine.

Doing fine and as well as they used to are two different things unfortunately. That being said I do wish liquor stores would have sensed the changing of the guard and helped fix this years ago aka the law probably wouldn't have been written by/for Walmart and Co.

Walmart might not have a focus on stocking and promoting "made in Oklahoma" alcohol, but then Walmart doesn't have much of a focus on promoting "MIO" anything.

I imagine that the grocery stores that already have a focus on promoting MIO products will be more than happy to expand that focus on alcohol.
Food Pyramid in Stillwater doesn't mind selling beer from a local brewer. Stilly Wheat by Iron Monk.

https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/14853053_692348300929470_3584805765878706459_o.jpg

The liquor stores that are run well and built relationships over the years (ex. Moore Liquor) will be just fine.

Moore Liquor knows he'll survive. He's said as much. He's worried about others. Such as any who are in a 7-11 owned building. People mortgage their lives and thier houses and liquidate their retirements to get into the business, and now the rules are changing. And not on an equal footing.

I don't think that there will be many liquor stores that are going to be affected by this honestly. Take beer for example, there are different classes of beer and beer drinkers, every retail establishment is going to largely focus on a different class of beer. Places like Walmart and 7-11 are going to focus on the cheep mass produced stuff that they have always focused on. The "microbrews" that they have are owned by Coors, Inbrev and the like, as it is today, it will just be higher alcohol content. You will have the small mom and pops which will carry both, but will be primarily the mass produced stuff because their refrigeration space is limited, and I don't see them going through the expense of expanding, they won't be able to afford it. Then you will have the big stores like Byrons and Cellar which will start to refrigerate their beer. There isn't going to be much change in the beer landscape, just the alcohol content. Grocery stores will start to carry wine, but it will be primarily lower end wine with a couple of moderately expensive lines, but for the most part will average $15-20 a bottle. I lived in Denver and St Pete Florida, the small stores did not suffer with large chains like Publix and King Soopers selling wine in store and with Publix having a liquor store right next door. Publix' beer selection was largely the same mass produced beer, an occasional local beer, but to get a good local beer you had to go to the mom and pops and the larger warehouses to get them, just as it is now in Oklahoma. Walmart isn't going to have any better beer than it has now, it will just be higher alcohol content. I don't see how this changes the landscape, it is just going to make people drunk a little faster and piss a little less, and will bring in more and better beer into the state, which again Walmart will not touch, so if you want to drink coors, then have at it, go to walmart, but if you are into microbrews then go to a liquor store, and if the mom and pops capitalize on that and have a half way decent selection of beers that gas stations and grocery stores aren't carrying and they are at a decent price for that beer then they will stay afloat.

Doing fine and as well as they used to are two different things unfortunately. That being said I do wish liquor stores would have sensed the changing of the guard and helped fix this years ago aka the law probably wouldn't have been written by/for Walmart and Co.

The liquor stores were too worried about keeping their monopoly together. I can understand them not wanting to open the gates. There will prob be some small stores that will have to close but it's no different than any other business that has competition. Why should there only be a select few in OK. that can sell a certain product that is being sold on the open market all over the country? This is free trade and the prices might go down with more competition.

Moore Liquor knows he'll survive. He's said as much. He's worried about others. Such as any who are in a 7-11 owned building. People mortgage their lives and thier houses and liquidate their retirements to get into the business, and now the rules are changing. And not on an equal footing.

Before mortgaging their lives and houses they had to know this was coming at some point. I'm certain there aren't any owners just shocked that this happened.

The 7-11 liquor stores biggest problem is that this gives 7-11 more of a reason expand and remodel their stores to compete with Oncue. This probably would happen anyway though as the battle with Oncue goes on.

And honestly, regardless of how anyone feels, it's now completely out of our hands. It will either be found constitutional or it won't. Assuming it is upheld, it's then in the hands of our legislature, who always does a wonderful job of planning and prioritizing and operating our state government, to write out and refine.

Ten Commandments monuments in every liquor store!

Before mortgaging their lives and houses they had to know this was coming at some point. I'm certain there aren't any owners just shocked that this happened.

They also have a good solid two years to adapt. Most business owners would kill for this lead time.

They also have a good solid two years to adapt. Most business owners would kill for this lead time.

Two years is not very much time to try to sell or close a store in a hostile business environment. But they'll be fine, and their employees can get jobs at Wal-Mart, which we all know pays very well.

Here's a novel idea....maybe the bad liquor stores can step up their game and actually compete using selections, price, location, service, knowledge, marketing and other tools to compete rather than relying on a monopoly protection.

Change is a risk all business owners face. Most don't get years to adapt. Some of the bad stores need to adjust and to stop whining. The good ones will do well.

I did projects for a developer of gas stations in East Germany after the wall came down. What I found was that the operators of the old state run stations didn't compete because they didn't understand anything about customer service, marketing, price competition etc. They hated the market opening to competition for good reason. They weren't willing to adjust and compete. They had been subsidized too long to really understand how to win customers and thrive against competitive pressures.

Two years is not very much time to try to sell or close a store in a hostile business environment. But they'll be fine, and their employees can get jobs at Wal-Mart, which we all know pays very well.

jerrywall, honest question, no snark (I really appreciate your viewpoint here as a former(?) liquor store owner). What's in it for folks opening a liquor store? It sounds, from a lot of your posts, as if it's a business of thin margins, many hoops through which to jump, red tape, regulations, etc. I wonder why anyone would get into the business in the first place. Your thoughts?

Additionally, as it seems you're still in tune with the liquor store owners, if they are in favor of modernization, why haven't they tried over the last 20 years or so to get legislation written to modernize? It feels as if it took the work of Senator Bice and her group to motivate the liquor store owners to start their own initiative. As a normal consumer, it just strikes me as odd they would complain about all the bad things about 792 and say they want modernization when I've not been aware of any attempts in the past to make the market better for consumers.

Again, I am really asking for your thoughts, not starting an argument at all. I really would like to understand. I was away from Oklahoma for ten years, so I may very well have missed a lot in that time.

Oh, I would never recommend anyone open a liquor store, especially now, but not even before, knowing what I do now. Some people seem to think that liquor store owners are some sort of rich fatcats enjoying their booze sales. In all honestly, most of them or mortgaged to the hilt, working 70-80 hours a week for less money than would imagine, and constantly living in fear of a bad week, or an employee messing up and costing them their liquor license. The only good times of the year are the holidays, where you make 40-50% of your annual sales. You're buying non returnable product, plenty of which has a limited shelf life, and you're competing against Byron's and a few other giant stores which are able to buy during the cheap times and stock up and sell lower than your cost during the high times.

The RLAO has been working for a decade to modernize laws. They pushed to get sales on election days. They pushed for cold beer. They've pushed for other stuff. They had an active agenda to get stuff done for a while. What they didn't have was visibility or money. There are less than 100 stores in the RLAO, out of 700+ in the state. Most store owners are too busy and cash poor to be lobbyists or make a lot of noise. They're just trying to feed their families. I could say the same about hobby shops, specialty stores, local hardware stores, non chain restaurants, and more. We cry about the loss of those to Wal-Mart yet celebrate it when it comes to liquor stores, which I don't understand.

Here's a novel idea....maybe the bad liquor stores can step up their game and actually compete using selections, price, location, service, knowledge, marketing and other tools to compete rather than relying on a monopoly protection.

Went to my local liquor store that I usually frequent. I needed some Apple Jack for an apple pie recipe. They had the big bottle on the shelf and I asked them if they had any of the smaller bottles behind the counter where they keep all the small volume stuff to keep it from getting shoplifted. The reply from the guy working?

"We don't have any Apple Jack, but we have Apple Vodka, Apple Schnapps, Apple Whiskey, Apple Brandy...it's all the same really so just tell me what you want."

And I believe that stores with expert help like that will be the stores that suffer from this.

Stores that will have the staff filled with knowledge and expertise to back up the selection of products they are selling, and who can actually give solid advice if you have a question, will do okay.

To give background... btw. My dad got into the liquor retail business after leaving his job of 20 years. Thought it sounded like an ideal opportunity and investment. He could chat with customers, make money, etc. Cashed out is 401k, and put everything he could into the business. Over the years taking out loans against his vehicle, and refinancing the house, during tough times. No vacations, little time off, it aged him 20 years in 10. My mother would be homeless if my dad hadn't had a good life insurance and cancer policy.

The realities of the business are why I expect to see a lot of stores close. I already know of two that have officially announced their closing, trying to get out while they can. We're going to have less options of places to shop from. The only good side is I think the ones that remain will have it better off. I see Edmond going from 30+ to a handful, for example. Maybe the market was too glutted and this had to happen, but I still feel bad for the owners and the employees.

Here's a novel idea....maybe the bad liquor stores can step up their game and actually compete using selections, price, location, service, knowledge, marketing and other tools to compete rather than relying on a monopoly protection.

They do compete. As you mention, there are bad stores and good stores. Anyone can open up a store across the street from them. There is no monopoly protection.

They do compete. As you mention, there are bad stores and good stores. Anyone can open up a store across the street from them. There is no monopoly protection.

Was there really much protection anyway? I think they are at least 20 liquor stores that are less than 5 miles from my house.

Edit: never mind, I read your response wrong.

....

Oh, I would never recommend anyone open a liquor store, especially now, but not even before, knowing what I do now. Some people seem to think that liquor store owners are some sort of rich fatcats enjoying their booze sales. In all honestly, most of them or mortgaged to the hilt, working 70-80 hours a week for less money than would imagine, and constantly living in fear of a bad week, or an employee messing up and costing them their liquor license. The only good times of the year are the holidays, where you make 40-50% of your annual sales. You're buying non returnable product, plenty of which has a limited shelf life, and you're competing against Byron's and a few other giant stores which are able to buy during the cheap times and stock up and sell lower than your cost during the high times.

The RLAO has been working for a decade to modernize laws. They pushed to get sales on election days. They pushed for cold beer. They've pushed for other stuff. They had an active agenda to get stuff done for a while. What they didn't have was visibility or money. There are less than 100 stores in the RLAO, out of 700+ in the state. Most store owners are too busy and cash poor to be lobbyists or make a lot of noise. They're just trying to feed their families. I could say the same about hobby shops, specialty stores, local hardware stores, non chain restaurants, and more. We cry about the loss of those to Wal-Mart yet celebrate it when it comes to liquor stores, which I don't understand.

Thanks for the information. You did remind me of the election day law change, about which I'd forgotten.

For the record, I can't say I support local above all else, but I do when the local choice is just as good or better than the chain. Wal-Mart (and Sam's) are a bit different for me, since I have to be concerned with saving money more than almost anything when it comes to grocery shopping, or buying common goods. Local stores usually can't compete with the chains on price, and, unfortunately, that's a big problem for them regardless of the line of business.

I've said before I'll continue to frequent my liquor store, where they know me by now, they know what I like, and they make good recommendations for me to try. They order what I request when they can, they have a wide variety of products, etc. I'm not going to get that at Homeland or Uptown Grocery. If they choose to not install refrigeration, that may make a difference, but that's their gamble to make. However, when I'm shopping for groceries for a family dinner, or just picking up a few things, and I can grab a bottle of wine or some good beer at my grocery store while I'm at it, I'll be very happy to do so. I'll always have to go to the liquor store for actual liquor and higher point beer (which is the majority I usually drink), so unless I quit drinking, grocery stores will never be able to fulfill all my needs in that regard.

You suggested maybe we had too many liquor stores and could afford to lose some. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Yes, it's unfortunate they will close and folks will lose jobs, but I think consumers will be better off, which is more important to me, selfishly.

barrettd's questions reminded me of one I have about liquor stores, for jerry or anybody else - why do so many liquor stores have so much inventory sitting on the floor underneath the wine racks or stacked against the walls up to the ceiling? Some are so bad that it's hard to walk in between all the boxes and it just seems bizarre to have *that* much inventory if they can get daily deliveries. And there are some that have *no* boxes in their aisles and are way neater and easier to navigate. just strange to see such completely different methods (maybe some stores have back rooms and some don't, I guess).

barrettd's questions reminded me of one I have about liquor stores, for jerry or anybody else - why do so many liquor stores have so much inventory sitting on the floor underneath the wine racks or stacked against the walls up to the ceiling? Some are so bad that it's hard to walk in between all the boxes and it just seems bizarre to have *that* much inventory if they can get daily deliveries. And there are some that have *no* boxes in their aisles and are way neater and easier to navigate. just strange to see such completely different methods (maybe some stores have back rooms and some don't, I guess).

Yeah, I don't know... we never had boxes on the floor, but we had a decently sized back room, and kept extra inventory there. And really the only time we stocked lots of extra inventory was for the gift sets which were a one time order and had to last from November to January, and loading up right before NYE on Champagne.

Some stores don't do order management well, or only order from one distributor (which is why they'll be out of stuff - some distributors have different inventory levels and if you don't check with all of them, you may not be able to get something). We routinely ordered from all of them, which was great because you could get orders at different times of the day. Of course, a lot of that may go away now.

Only 5 counties in Oklahoma rejected SQ 792 and in 4 of them it was close. A question like SQ 792 should had been tried 10 years ago. But maybe Wal-Mart was more focused on driving out grocery stores then.