Maybe with the Chamber behind this there's a little more hope:
New kid in town

Texas-based Whole Foods Market, the world's largest natural and organic food retailer, is opening its first Oklahoma City location next year.

In addition to organic foods, the markets are also known for offering an extensive wine selection, which has caused many to speculate that lawmakers will be pressured to change the law so Whole Foods can offer wine and strong beer.

Williams said the chamber wanted to look at changing state alcohol laws long before Whole Foods announced it was coming to Oklahoma City.

“That's just a coincidence,” Williams said. “We have members on both sides of this issue. We just want to see how we can work this out.”

Williams said the chamber wants local governments to be able to decide whether grocery stores in their communities can sell wine and strong beer.

“That way, if there are some parts of the state that don't want it, they wouldn't have to have it,” Williams said.



Read more: http://newsok.com/legislators-likely-will-consider-giving-oklahoma-grocery-stores-strong-beer-wine/article/3526971#ixzz19JlFFo6N

The Chamber has member businesses who are liquor businesses, but by and large, the Chamber has never opposed modern liquor laws, it just never made it a top legislative priority. I still doubt it will be made a legislative priority for them, but now you can at least add their name and weight to a list of supporters.

Helleluckinfujah.

The legislature will do nothing however.

Is there anyway we can make this an initiative petition, or does that require legislative approval?

A petition was attempted and garnered far below the minimum required number of signatures, which floored me. I would think that an initiative like this would mushroom, in terms of informing friends via e-mail to sign the petition, but that did not happen.

It would not hurt, however, to write one's congresspeople and encourage them to support this.

A petition was attempted and garnered far below the minimum required number of signatures, which floored me. I would think that an initiative like this would mushroom, in terms of informing friends via e-mail to sign the petition, but that did not happen.

It would not hurt, however, to write one's congresspeople and encourage them to support this.

Betts,

Maybe the wrong people were running the petition.

The Chamber getting behind it actually hurts. The OKC Chamber is the enemy of our state legislature. Our state legislature and leadership are even more conservative than ever before and have already stated that they don't care about economic development. I'm afraid this thing is not going to happen this session or the next.

A petition was attempted and garnered far below the minimum required number of signatures, which floored me. I would think that an initiative like this would mushroom, in terms of informing friends via e-mail to sign the petition, but that did not happen.
I don't there's much interest in this state to reform liquor laws. For instance, there seems little interest in Payne County to hold a election to make that county dry on Sundays.

But then, how did that question get on the state ballot allowing liquor stores to open on election days?

The Chamber getting behind it actually hurts. The OKC Chamber is the enemy of our state legislature. Our state legislature and leadership are even more conservative than ever before and have already stated that they don't care about economic development. I'm afraid this thing is not going to happen this session or the next.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with this 100%. Knowing both groups quite well, the Chamber and the legislature are going to be major allies, with the exception of a couple issues. The only other exception is that of a few state reps who despise the Chamber and "corporate welfare." Overall, however, I think the Chamber and the legislature are going to move forward on a number of big initiatives and work well together. Now, that's a separate issue from whether you think the initiatives are good or not; but it's just absurd to say the Chamber is an "enemy."

Lastly, LordGerald's assertion that our leaders has "already stated that they don't care about economic development" is flat out wrong, and probably made up.

I'm willing to bet that within the next two sessions, a measure is passed to bring it to the vote of the people. And then it will pass with 75-80%.

The Chamber is typically fairly progressive compared to other lobbies, whereas that word obviously could not apply in any way to this legislature. It is going to be interesting.

The new legislature is often at loggerheads with the chamber with their anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant stances as well as other myopic vote getters.

Deb Leftwich was the reason it didn't pass the Senate Business and Labor Committee last year. With her out of the picture, I hope the right people are on this committee to pass it. This is where good bills often get killed. It will go to the vote of the people.

It also inaccurate that the legislature as a whole has the social agenda in it's best interests. The House Speaker has express his support for pro-business legislation over social issues. I just hope these bribery charges keep Terril very very busy!

The new legislature is often at loggerheads with the chamber with their anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant stances as well as other myopic vote getters.

Or attention getters..

One of them brings praise on Oklahoma's business climate, the other brings national scorn for Oklahoma's social climate.

The Chamber getting behind it actually hurts. The OKC Chamber is the enemy of our state legislature. Our state legislature and leadership are even more conservative than ever before and have already stated that they don't care about economic development. I'm afraid this thing is not going to happen this session or the next.
I usually have this attitude too but there is reason for optimism. Speaker Kris Steele has stated his intentions to focus first on economic issues and Job creation.

I usually have this attitude too but there is reason for optimism. Speaker Kris Steele has stated his intentions to focus first on economic issues and Job creation.

Yes. And then a whole bunch of crazies picketed outside his meeting in Bartlesville. The crazies, of course, stated that they better represent the rank and file Republican voters in this state -- and they're probably right.

Here's hoping Steele's words are followed by deeds, but I'm not optimistic given the climate in this state right now. Also, there's greater incentive for the reactionary wing to pass the abortion bills, English-only bills and other things because Gov. Henry won't be around to veto them.

Yes. And then a whole bunch of crazies picketed outside his meeting in Bartlesville. The crazies, of course, stated that they better represent the rank and file Republican voters in this state -- and they're probably right.

Here's hoping Steele's words are followed by deeds, but I'm not optimistic given the climate in this state right now. Also, there's greater incentive for the reactionary wing to pass the abortion bills, English-only bills and other things because Gov. Henry won't be around to veto them.

Other things include a Sen. Brecheen wanting to introduce a bill to teach creationism in Oklahoma public schools. Such a bill isn't worthy of getting out of any committee. Hopefully, there are other Republicans, such as Sen. Hallagan, former president of OSU, who will do what they can to kill such bills. What a nightmare that would be for Oklahoma, if it ever got out to the more civilized states such a bill was passed. Should that happen, then surely, Mary Fallin would have the good sense to veto it, since she has said she wants to make Oklahoma more business friendly.

Two related Oklahoman articles:

Yesterday, http://www.newsok.com/legislators-likely-will-consider-giving-oklahoma-grocery-stores-strong-beer-wine/article/3526971 by John Estus: "Legislators likely will consider giving Oklahoma grocery stores strong beer, wine
Some liquor retailers oppose putting wine and strong beer in grocery stores, while some customers and members of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber want to look at changes state alcohol laws." Whether the following is legally true, I don't know:


It is unclear what type of legislation may be proposed this year on the matter, but a vote of the people likely will be needed because several state alcohol laws that would have to be changed to allow wine and strong beer in grocery stores are part of the state Constitution.

Today, also by Estus: http://www.newsok.com/wine-strong-beer-idea-questioned-by-oklahoma-alcoholic-beverage-laws-enforcement-commission/article/3527145?custom_click=lead_story_title : "Wine, strong beer idea questioned by Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission; The Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission worries putting wine and strong beer in grocery stores will cause alcohol abuse to increase."

Sounds like it's a tough sell. Roy Williams' approach strikes me as the most doable, but even then it surely seems like a long shot to get anything at all through the Legislature.

Today, also by Estus: http://www.newsok.com/wine-strong-beer-idea-questioned-by-oklahoma-alcoholic-beverage-laws-enforcement-commission/article/3527145?custom_click=lead_story_title : "Wine, strong beer idea questioned by Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission; The Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission worries putting wine and strong beer in grocery stores will cause alcohol abuse to increase."

Yeah, I'm sure they do. I wonder who is on that Commission. I also wonder if there's any data about alcohol use/abuse in states that have wine in grocery stores versus those that don't.

Betts, see http://www.ok.gov/able/Commissioners/index.html for members. Off topic, but when watching/listening to last week's council meeting, I though that you did an outstanding job.

Thanks Doug, but I think I could have done a better job. That was totally extemporaneous, which is not my forte.

I did a little searching and I don't know if there's better data. There's a government agency called the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and looking at their data, it looks as if prohibiting sale of wine and beer in grocery stores is not the determining factor for alcohol abuse. North Dakota seems to lead all comers when it comes to alcohol abuse, and interestingly, they're one of the few states that prohibits the sale of wine and beer in grocery stores. Utah does well and prohibits sales, but I suspect it is religious beliefs rather than the law that is important there. The rest of the states that prohibit sales of wine and beer are scattered randomly statistically among states that don't. So, I'm thinking that Attorney Maisch had to do some stretching to come up with supportive data, and he had to go to Europe to find it.

This is really very very simple. Alcohol use comes from three influences: parental use, peer pressure, and pure boredom. If you don't use alcohol in front of your kids they probably won't use it either. If your children's friends don't use alcohol they probably won't use it either, if children have better things to do they probably won't use it it either. It has very little to do with availability at grocery stores or liquor stores. Anyone who thinks the mirco-location of the purchase is a big factor is crazy or makes money off the situtation. However, I do love hearing stories about how the liquor distributors all of a sudden care about the damage their product can do to children.

Random distributor thought process: I think I will sell a product that destroys lives, homes, and families because I can make a lot of money. Plus, if I can control who can sell it I can make even more money. Now some people want take away my control over sales. Don't they care about the children?

Not going to disagree Kerry, but we are a state where "It's for the children" and "Only wanton sinners would support this" often combine to shut down rational thought processes in the blink of an eye.

Liquor laws are well-established in this state. Hence, you have liquor stores owned mostly by moms and pops. We have a lot less to gain, in my opinion, and more to lose by changing the laws. We would have scores of people going out of business, just so we could purchase wine and strong beer at Wal-Mart. Some people so worked up over trivialities such as Whole Freaking Foods (whom is already coming), and their ability to purchase wine at the grocery store, a mere convenience, that they have a scant thought about ending someone's livelihood (wine, I'm pretty sure, is a liquor store's bread and butter). Many of the same people (you "progressives" here) also whine and complain about Wal-Mart taking over the world. We need local ownership, and changing decades-old laws will end local ownership of liquor stores. Our liquor laws aren't broken.

Liquor laws are well-established in this state. Hence, you have liquor stores owned mostly by moms and pops. We have a lot less to gain, in my opinion, and more to lose by changing the laws. We would have scores of people going out of business, just so we could purchase wine and strong beer at Wal-Mart. Some people so worked up over trivialities such as Whole Freaking Foods (whom is already coming), and their ability to purchase wine at the grocery store, a mere convenience, that they have a scant thought about ending someone's livelihood (wine, I'm pretty sure, is a liquor store's bread and butter). Many of the same people (you "progressives" here) also whine and complain about Wal-Mart taking over the world. We need local ownership, and changing decades-old laws will end local ownership of liquor stores. Our liquor laws aren't broken.

They're not broken if you don't like competition, anyway. The consumer base does not exist in order to support liquor stores. Liquor stores exist to provide booze to the consumer base. Right now they have a monopoly that the average retailer can't crack. If the liquor stores provide ANY benefit over what Walmart can, they'll stay in business. It's about economic efficiency. Not wasting money so that people can run a business that ONLY exists due to local law and NOT because it provides any meaningful good or benefit to the consumer.

Just a "convenience" you say? You can't buy cold 6.0 beer. Which means breweries that care about quality like the New Belgium brewery don't ship to Oklahoma AT ALL. Last time I checked, like every state around OK gets New Belgium beers. We don't. We don't get certain kinds of promotions and packaging because it's not worth it for big boy breweries to repackage in 3.2. That is nothing less than a stifling of interstate commerce. Good lord, we can't even buy a bottle of wine on a Sunday.

I'm not saying that we should have liquor in gas stations (although some states do, and you'd never know it because they haven't all killed each other in drunk driving accidents or drunken stupors). But buying a $7 bottle of wine in Homeland seems pretty reasonable.

Liquor laws are well-established in this state. Hence, you have liquor stores owned mostly by moms and pops. We have a lot less to gain, in my opinion, and more to lose by changing the laws. We would have scores of people going out of business, just so we could purchase wine and strong beer at Wal-Mart. Some people so worked up over trivialities such as Whole Freaking Foods (whom is already coming), and their ability to purchase wine at the grocery store, a mere convenience, that they have a scant thought about ending someone's livelihood (wine, I'm pretty sure, is a liquor store's bread and butter). Many of the same people (you "progressives" here) also whine and complain about Wal-Mart taking over the world. We need local ownership, and changing decades-old laws will end local ownership of liquor stores. Our liquor laws aren't broken.

Wine is not the bread and butter of all liquor stores. Those fly-by-night mom and pop stores depend on hard liquor sales, which is not what we will see in a grocery store. Larger liquor stores such as Cellar Wine and Spirits do a large volume in wine sales but not as much in beer sales. Remember that 95% of all beer sales in Oklahoma are 3.2 beer sales. By allowing grocery stores to carry strong beer, liquor stores don't stand to lose to a market where they have only a 5% share in the market. In fact, they may actually GAIN some market share since someone going to buy hard liquor will likely grab a case of cold beer to kill two birds with one stone.

The liquor lobby needs to see this as an opportunity, and so does ABLE. Playing the victim and crying "ahhh, the pitfalls!" is running out of steam.

Liquor laws are well-established in this state. Hence, you have liquor stores owned mostly by moms and pops. . . we would have scores of people going out of business, just so we could purchase wine and strong beer at Wal-Mart. Some people so worked up over trivialities such as Whole Freaking Foods (whom is already coming), and their ability to purchase wine at the grocery store, a mere convenience, that they have a scant thought about ending someone's livelihood (.

Buggy whips, anyone??

They're not broken if you don't like competition, anyway. The consumer base does not exist in order to support liquor stores. Liquor stores exist to provide booze to the consumer base. Right now they have a monopoly that the average retailer can't crack. If the liquor stores provide ANY benefit over what Walmart can, they'll stay in business. It's about economic efficiency. Not wasting money so that people can run a business that ONLY exists due to local law and NOT because it provides any meaningful good or benefit to the consumer.

I don't think it can be summed up any better than that.

The last few sentences of the newsok article stuck out to me.

"The Retail Liquor Association of Oklahoma, which is comprised of state liquor store owners, opposes allowing wine and strong beer in grocery stores because it fears the practice would harm locally owned businesses that make up Oklahoma's liquor retail and distribution industry.

The association also says it offers better customer service than chain stores that might carry the same products if allowed to do so."

There are many things wrong with this argument (as Betts and Mallen pointed out) but all I will say is let the customer decide. The Retail Liquor Assoc doesnt need to make decisions for me. If i want better customer service I will continue to go to independent liquor stores. If I want wine while Im buying my pasta, let me get it at a grocery store.

Wine is not the bread and butter of all liquor stores. Those fly-by-night mom and pop stores depend on hard liquor sales, which is not what we will see in a grocery store. Larger liquor stores such as Cellar Wine and Spirits do a large volume in wine sales but not as much in beer sales. Remember that 95% of all beer sales in Oklahoma are 3.2 beer sales. By allowing grocery stores to carry strong beer, liquor stores don't stand to lose to a market where they have only a 5% share in the market. In fact, they may actually GAIN some market share since someone going to buy hard liquor will likely grab a case of cold beer to kill two birds with one stone.

The liquor lobby needs to see this as an opportunity, and so does ABLE. Playing the victim and crying "ahhh, the pitfalls!" is running out of steam.

Good post.

I don't think it can be summed up any better than that.

Thanks. It's about the same thing as if I could get the laws/Constitution (as applicable) changed so that we had restricted butter sales, and I opened a butter store, then later bemoaned the fact that Homeland was trying to sell butter. "You'll hurt my business! I have specialized butter knowledge!" Meanwhile, every consumer that likes butter, or even only on the rare occasion, has to come to a butter store.

Wine is not the bread and butter of all liquor stores. Those fly-by-night mom and pop stores depend on hard liquor sales, which is not what we will see in a grocery store. Larger liquor stores such as Cellar Wine and Spirits do a large volume in wine sales but not as much in beer sales. Remember that 95% of all beer sales in Oklahoma are 3.2 beer sales. By allowing grocery stores to carry strong beer, liquor stores don't stand to lose to a market where they have only a 5% share in the market. In fact, they may actually GAIN some market share since someone going to buy hard liquor will likely grab a case of cold beer to kill two birds with one stone.

The liquor lobby needs to see this as an opportunity, and so does ABLE. Playing the victim and crying "ahhh, the pitfalls!" is running out of steam.

Well, just checked with a friend that owns a liquor store, and you are dead wrong about wine. Wine is definitely the bread and butter of liquor stores.
Liquor stores are highly restricted. They can only sell alcohol. If grocery stores are allowed to sell wine and strong beer, that restriction would have to go out the window for everyone. Of course, if the moms and pops wanted to stay in business they would have to be able to expand what they can sell. But in all likelihood, the vast majority of them would go out of business, similar to small grocery stores. That would also affect property owners of strip malls. So more money would go corporate, and less local.
But hey, we all need cheaper wine and beer don't we...it's a high priority.

This is really very very simple. Alcohol use comes from three influences: parental use, peer pressure, and pure boredom. If you don't use alcohol in front of your kids they probably won't use it either. If your children's friends don't use alcohol they probably won't use it either, if children have better things to do they probably won't use it it either. It has very little to do with availability at grocery stores or liquor stores. Anyone who thinks the mirco-location of the purchase is a big factor is crazy or makes money off the situtation. However, I do love hearing stories about how the liquor distributors all of a sudden care about the damage their product can do to children.

Random distributor thought process: I think I will sell a product that destroys lives, homes, and families because I can make a lot of money. Plus, if I can control who can sell it I can make even more money. Now some people want take away my control over sales. Don't they care about the children?

Hmmm, I detect a bit of bias here from you, unless you truly are channeling a distributor - "Random distributor thought process: I think I will sell a product that destroys lives, homes, and families..." Alcohol does *not* have to destroy lives, homes, and families, and I suspect in the great majority of households that have/drink alcohol, it doesn't.

A few random comments on this whole thing:

Why in the world are people under 21 not even allowed in a liquor store here in OK? No open bottles, no drinking of alcohol happening, absolutely no reason I can figure out except to protect the children's virgin eyes from the dazzling, hypnotic displays of alcohol that will turn them into raving lunatic addicts after the first drink.

How about instead of allowing wine and strong beer sales in grocery stores (which I support), you just allow liquor stores to chill the beer and wine and let them stay open whatever hours they want? Same difference as to allowing it to be sold everywhere, pretty much, and doesn't threaten the existence of the mom/pop liquor stores.

I haven't checked on the stats that someone else mentioned about greater/less alcohol abuse linking to the availability/lack thereof of wine and strong beer in grocery stores, but I'll bet that the stats don't really support the theory that alcohol abuse occurs more commonly in the states that allow looser liquor sales. And there's the whole issue of fudging/finding whatever stats you want to support your argument, so not sure how valid those will be anyway.

Liquor laws are well-established in this state. Hence, you have liquor stores owned mostly by moms and pops. We have a lot less to gain, in my opinion, and more to lose by changing the laws. We would have scores of people going out of business, just so we could purchase wine and strong beer at Wal-Mart. Some people so worked up over trivialities such as Whole Freaking Foods (whom is already coming), and their ability to purchase wine at the grocery store, a mere convenience, that they have a scant thought about ending someone's livelihood (wine, I'm pretty sure, is a liquor store's bread and butter). Many of the same people (you "progressives" here) also whine and complain about Wal-Mart taking over the world. We need local ownership, and changing decades-old laws will end local ownership of liquor stores. Our liquor laws aren't broken.

This appeal to emotion represents precisely the sort of backwards thinking that stymies progress in Oklahoma.

It's nice to hear those on the other side willfully admit that the law is there to protect the interests of a distinct minority--which, of course, is just another reason it needs to go.

Perhaps you can reflect for a moment on all the families who have, as you say, "lost their livelihood" due to the proliferation of Wal-Mart supercenters, Home Depot, etc. over the metro area.

There was nothing to protect those people from big-box competition. Why should a few mom-and-pop liquor stores be spared? There is no legitimate reason that they should be protected by a law.

You're going to have to do much better than this to convince any "progressives" that the liquor laws don't need a fixin'.

Well, just checked with a friend that owns a liquor store, and you are dead wrong about wine. Wine is definitely the bread and butter of liquor stores.
Liquor stores are highly restricted. They can only sell alcohol. If grocery stores are allowed to sell wine and strong beer, that restriction would have to go out the window for everyone. Of course, if the moms and pops wanted to stay in business they would have to be able to expand what they can sell. But in all likelihood, the vast majority of them would go out of business, similar to small grocery stores. That would also affect property owners of strip malls. So more money would go corporate, and less local.
But hey, we all need cheaper wine and beer don't we...it's a high priority.

I just checked with a liquor store owner, a very close friend of mine, and he's stoked about this change. So there.

Sorry about all those super low costs that poor people in OKC get to enjoy.

I just checked with a liquor store owner, a very close friend of mine, and he's stoked about this change. So there.

Sorry about all those super low costs that poor people in OKC get to enjoy.

Why would he be stoked? Just curious.

I let my argument drift away from why we have these laws: to restrict alcohol sales. So we set up a system where it can be sold, and potential business owners are put through the process of becoming purveyors of alcohol. They get approved, abide by the laws, and boom: Wal-Mart wants in. We then get all "free-markety", and next we have have kids in shopping carts breaking wine bottles in Aisle 5. This isn't just about a free market. If that were purely the argument then we would need to go completely libertarian and remove all restrictive laws. Some may favor that, but there needs to be a balance in restriction and freedom - particularly when we are talking about potentially addictive substances.

If grocery stores are allowed to sell wine and strong beer, that restriction would have to go out the window for everyone. Of course, if the moms and pops wanted to stay in business they would have to be able to expand what they can sell. But in all likelihood, the vast majority of them would go out of business, similar to small grocery stores. That would also affect property owners of strip malls. So more money would go corporate, and less local.
But hey, we all need cheaper wine and beer don't we...it's a high priority.

They dont have to go out of business. They could expand their offerings, be knowledgeable about products and try to adapt and be competitive, its that simple. One argument the status quo folks are saying is this will only put more drunks out there, yet I would think a few neighborhood liquor stores going out of business would help with that.

And while it might affect some property owners negatively, it will affect many positively. We have space available for lease that is being looked at by a butcher/small grocer that also sells wines. Its a very nice store and they are located in many other states but it will be difficult for us to lease our space to them because of our liquor laws. Many other grocers would take shopping center space if we updated our laws. So this point of yours doesnt hold up.

Wal-Mart wants in. We then get all "free-markety", and next we have have kids in shopping carts breaking wine bottles in Aisle 5. This isn't just about a free market. If that were purely the argument then we would need to go completely libertarian and remove all restrictive laws.

Your points are a joke. So a kid breaks a bottle of wine by accident, no different from a kid breaking a bottle of olive oil on aisle 6.

I let my argument drift away from why we have these laws: to restrict alcohol sales. So we set up a system where it can be sold, and potential business owners are put through the process of becoming purveyors of alcohol. They get approved, abide by the laws, and boom: Wal-Mart wants in. We then get all "free-markety", and next we have have kids in shopping carts breaking wine bottles in Aisle 5. This isn't just about a free market. If that were purely the argument then we would need to go completely libertarian and remove all restrictive laws. Some may favor that, but there needs to be a balance in restriction and freedom - particularly when we are talking about potentially addictive substances.

We better pass laws restricting where just about all processed foods can be sold then, so as to balance people's freedom to consume a potentially addictive substance by making it harder to obtain. lol

I let my argument drift away from why we have these laws: to restrict alcohol sales. So we set up a system where it can be sold, and potential business owners are put through the process of becoming purveyors of alcohol. They get approved, abide by the laws, and boom: Wal-Mart wants in. We then get all "free-markety", and next we have have kids in shopping carts breaking wine bottles in Aisle 5. This isn't just about a free market. If that were purely the argument then we would need to go completely libertarian and remove all restrictive laws. Some may favor that, but there needs to be a balance in restriction and freedom - particularly when we are talking about potentially addictive substances.

They could start selling food too, presumably, so that would benefit them.

Mot other states allow wine sales in supermarkets and they're not all dying from alcoholism.

Your points are a joke. So a kid breaks a bottle of wine by accident, no different from a kid breaking a bottle of olive oil on aisle 6.

There was no real argument in that. It points to the larger issue that alcohol needs to be controlled. If it were sold in a large grocery store more control is lost. Kids aren't even allowed in liquor stores.

Hey, I get it...alcohol drinkers don't want restrictions that dictate how they drink. Maybe that's an indication of laws that have influence over people's potentially poor decision-making abilities.

There was no real argument in that. It points to the larger issue that alcohol needs to be controlled. If it were sold in a large grocery store more control is lost. Kids aren't even allowed in liquor stores.

Texas sells wine and strong beer in grocery stores. People under 21 aren't allowed in liquor stores. No one is bitching at each other over market share in Texas are they? No. And, teens are more likely to try and buy beer from a grocery store (like they already can try now in Oklahoma) before they EVER sip a glass of wine. You seriously think a bunch of freshman frats are gonna pour a glass of merlot at a kegger? Get real.



Hey, I get it...alcohol drinkers don't want restrictions that dictate how they drink. Maybe that's an indication of laws that have influence over people's potentially poor decision-making abilities.

Responsible moderate drinkers don't have poor decision-making abilities. Just because you don't imbibe doesn't put you on the high horse. One to two glasses of wine or one to two beers a day has been proven many times to provide great health benefits such has a reduction in heart disease, cholesterol and risks of cancer. This is one of many reasons why beer and wine is considered more like grocery items than a drug.

The laws don't dictate how we drink. It dictates options, especially in the grocery market. It would be nice if I could buy a chilled bottle of Spaten (that's a beer brand) and food to prepare my German dinner all at the supermarket without having to make a special trip to the liquor store. If it's alcoholics you are so worried about, team up with MADD and tug on the legislature's leg to quit allowing multiple DUI convictions before the moron ends up killing someone, who is often leaving the bar to drive drunk and not leaving Whole Foods Market uncorking a bottle of moscato.

Sheesh

Liquor laws are well-established in this state. Hence, you have liquor stores owned mostly by moms and pops. We have a lot less to gain, in my opinion, and more to lose by changing the laws. We would have scores of people going out of business, just so we could purchase wine and strong beer at Wal-Mart. Some people so worked up over trivialities such as Whole Freaking Foods (whom is already coming), and their ability to purchase wine at the grocery store, a mere convenience, that they have a scant thought about ending someone's livelihood (wine, I'm pretty sure, is a liquor store's bread and butter). Many of the same people (you "progressives" here) also whine and complain about Wal-Mart taking over the world. We need local ownership, and changing decades-old laws will end local ownership of liquor stores. Our liquor laws aren't broken.

So you mean that you would prefer to bar locally owned groceries like Crest Foods, Crescent Market, Forward Foods and others from offering wine to accompany their other gourmet items. I don't think you actually care what consumers want, you're just being argumentative.

Also, it's a bull**** argument that liquor stores would close. Some would, possibly, but only those that don't specialize their product mixes. It's not like you would have a huge selection of liquor at the grocery store.

Hmmm, I detect a bit of bias here from you, unless you truly are channeling a distributor - "Random distributor thought process: I think I will sell a product that destroys lives, homes, and families..." Alcohol does *not* have to destroy lives, homes, and families, and I suspect in the great majority of households that have/drink alcohol, it doesn't.

A few random comments on this whole thing:

Why in the world are people under 21 not even allowed in a liquor store here in OK? No open bottles, no drinking of alcohol happening, absolutely no reason I can figure out except to protect the children's virgin eyes from the dazzling, hypnotic displays of alcohol that will turn them into raving lunatic addicts after the first drink.

How about instead of allowing wine and strong beer sales in grocery stores (which I support), you just allow liquor stores to chill the beer and wine and let them stay open whatever hours they want? Same difference as to allowing it to be sold everywhere, pretty much, and doesn't threaten the existence of the mom/pop liquor stores.

I haven't checked on the stats that someone else mentioned about greater/less alcohol abuse linking to the availability/lack thereof of wine and strong beer in grocery stores, but I'll bet that the stats don't really support the theory that alcohol abuse occurs more commonly in the states that allow looser liquor sales. And there's the whole issue of fudging/finding whatever stats you want to support your argument, so not sure how valid those will be anyway.

I was only pointing out the selective protection of children that the current retailers/distributors have. As for why the limit is 21 and minors are not allowed in liquor stores. Since they aren't allowed to buy anything there is no need for them to be there.

So you mean that you would prefer to bar locally owned groceries like Crest Foods, Crescent Market, Forward Foods and others from offering wine to accompany their other gourmet items. I don't think you actually care what consumers want, you're just being argumentative.

Also, it's a bull**** argument that liquor stores would close. Some would, possibly, but only those that don't specialize their product mixes. It's not like you would have a huge selection of liquor at the grocery store.

Or any liquor at all. I'd be happy to just allow high point beers and wines to be sold in grocery stores and, thus, available on Sundays and until 2am.

For allowing grocery stores to sell wine, then the liquor stores should have some restrictions lifted from them such as the limited size of their store signs. There's surely other restrictions that need relaxed or lifted. For instance, it wouldn't be fair for grocery stores to advertise their wine in big newpapers ads and circs while liquor stores can't.

For allowing grocery stores to sell wine, then the liquor stores should have some restrictions lifted from them such as the limited size of their store signs. There's surely other restrictions that need relaxed or lifted. For instance, it wouldn't be fair for grocery stores to advertise their wine in big newpapers ads and circs while liquor stores can't.

Bunty, those restrictions were lifted long ago. Byron's has been advertising in The Oklahoman for years and the size of the sign on Cellar Wine & Spirits Super Store is a pretty good sized sign.

Sounds like a turf battle between ABLE commission and the Tax commission would need to be resolved. If they hash something out I hope they allow me to get a bag of ice at the liquor store if nothing else.

Sounds like a turf battle between ABLE commission and the Tax commission would need to be resolved. If they hash something out I hope they allow me to get a bag of ice at the liquor store if nothing else.

No joke. God forbid you can buy a corkscrew there.

ABLE just needs to be abolished. We're looking for waste in state government? Well there you have it. It'd still be illegal to sell alcohol to 21 year olds, we could have the tax commission oversee the license fees and their enforcement could be carried out by state and local law enforcement. ABLE just a vestigial organ of prohibition.

Sure will be glad to see Oklahoma catch up with what many others states already have in legal laws regarding liquor sales. The old stance has been keeping folks like COSTCO from taking Oklahoma serious about placing one of their stores in our area. It's time if the state wants to attract more RETAILERS that we have to make our laws reflect that Oklahoma is a good place to do Business. But not ONLY in TULSA, but in OKC as well.

This issue reminds me of similar social/economic lines of argument taken in the 80s when county option liquor by-the-drink was approved by the voters. Oklahoma's cultural shifts are like molasses; slow to come. I don't think anyone can argue that passing liquor by the drink has not had benefits, particularly when you consider how many diverse restaurants have opened or located in the metro, creating many new jobs. In spite of the dire predictions over liquor by the drink; we're still here and kicking. Oklahoma has some of the most repressive and archaic liquor laws in the country clearly designed to benefit a small and powerful group of distributors. Why can't I purchase a cork screw or a wine glass in a liquor store? If you're happy with the status quo, so be it. But if you look at what other states have done in regards to selling wine, strong beer and even spirits in grocery stores, it's apparent Oklahoma is again, far behind the curve. Maybe the chamber's stance on this will spark some changes.

[QUOTE=semisimple;386709]
Perhaps you can reflect for a moment on all the families who have, as you say, "lost their livelihood" due to the proliferation of Wal-Mart supercenters, Home Depot, etc. over the metro area.

There was nothing to protect those people from big-box competition. Why should a few mom-and-pop liquor stores be spared? There is no legitimate reason that they should be protected by a law.

QUOTE]

Hear!! Hear!!

I tried searching the internet for liquor stores per capita to see where OKC stands and couldn't find much help but I did find a link to a website for a group in Minnesota also proposing to legalize wine sales in grocery stores. There were some interesting facts that of the five cities with the most liquor stores per capita, four allow wine sales in grocery stores. Take a look around there's some interesting information.

http://www.winewithdinner.com/mythfact.html

Good find, redrunner. It certainly blows ABLE's argument out of the water.

The last few sentences of the newsok article stuck out to me.

"The Retail Liquor Association of Oklahoma, which is comprised of state liquor store owners, opposes allowing wine and strong beer in grocery stores because it fears the practice would harm locally owned businesses that make up Oklahoma's liquor retail and distribution industry.

The association also says it offers better customer service than chain stores that might carry the same products if allowed to do so."

There are many things wrong with this argument (as Betts and Mallen pointed out) but all I will say is let the customer decide. The Retail Liquor Assoc doesnt need to make decisions for me. If i want better customer service I will continue to go to independent liquor stores. If I want wine while Im buying my pasta, let me get it at a grocery store.

If we wanted specialized shopping, and to use government to keep the mom and pop stores alive, there should have been a law eons ago against selling electronics in discount stores. Same goes for groceries. What an idiotic claim to make after Oklahoma has practically become a gigantic collection of nothing but Wal-Mart Supercenters.

A NewsNow 53 poll (Channel 9) showed 30% in favor, and 70% opposed to this. I was pretty shocked. I know its not scientific and the ballots can be stuffed but still.

A NewsNow 53 poll (Channel 9) showed 30% in favor, and 70% opposed to this. I was pretty shocked. I know its not scientific and the ballots can be stuffed but still.

We need a generational shift.

A NewsNow 53 poll (Channel 9) showed 30% in favor, and 70% opposed to this. I was pretty shocked. I know its not scientific and the ballots can be stuffed but still.

Considering they gave misleading numbers on drunk driving deaths (they used Texas numbers) the poll results come as no shock.

A NewsNow 53 poll (Channel 9) showed 30% in favor, and 70% opposed to this. I was pretty shocked. I know its not scientific and the ballots can be stuffed but still.

Can you give out a link to this poll?

It was discussed on the newscast on channel 53. I will see if I can find it on the website.