We just moved here from Denver. What crazy laws you have.:gossip: No coolers in your liquor stores?! WHY? Some of the best beer available now days is shipped cool and must remain cool. (Therfore Oklahoma Liquor stores can't carry it!)

Then your restaurants can't carry Domestic .6??

So, what gives???? Isn't there a loophole somewhere.

We just moved here from Denver. What crazy laws you have.:gossip: No coolers in your liquor stores?! WHY? Some of the best beer available now days is shipped cool and must remain cool. (Therfore Oklahoma Liquor stores can't carry it!)

Then your restaurants can't carry Domestic .6??

So, what gives???? Isn't there a loophole somewhere.
We are trying to curb the drunken driving problem we have here in Oklahoma. Too many people are able to buy beer right now, and drink it on their way home. I've made my share of DUI arrests, so I am glad we have the laws that we have.

Hmmmm, okay that makes sense. I had never thought of it that way!

It would be interesting to compare Drunk Driving rates in OK (or any state that has similar laws) with Denver. I wonder if it really helps that much. I'm all for it if it does!!

They're ignorant laws. Just backwoods and good ol' boy type laws. If someone is so set on getting some beer and poppin' a top on the way home, whats to stop them from downing a fifth of Jack or a Bud tall boy?

The people who want to purchase quality microbrews that are shipped, stored, and sold cold aren't exactly the type that are gonna bust one open on the way home.

They're stupid laws and will change soon.

They're ignorant laws. Just backwoods and good ol' boy type laws. If someone is so set on getting some beer and poppin' a top on the way home, whats to stop them from downing a fifth of Jack or a Bud tall boy?

The people who want to purchase quality microbrews that are shipped, stored, and sold cold aren't exactly the type that are gonna bust one open on the way home.

They're stupid laws and will change soon.
These laws are what is keeping you alive on the streets. The people who purchase microbrews are also the ones that like to pop one open on the way home. I know, because I have arrested some of these high society citizens that felt they were above the law and could just "pop one open" on their way home.

The last thing we need to do is to make it even more convenient for motorists to drink and drive.

http://www.car-accidents.com/pics/carphotos/3-11-04_b.jpg

This is the reason why our alcohol laws should stay the way they are. We would have fewer of these.

That's moronic, selling cold beer and wine would create more drunk drivers? That's a load of crap. What is stopping the idiots from downing some Jack Daniels in the car on the way home? Do other states have more drunk drivers than we do? I bet they have less.

Sorry if I offend with my post, but here goes:

I have always been told that the reason Oklahoma has the liquor laws it does was to protect Native Americans, who are prone to alchoholism. I am sure the fact the we were "growing up" as a state during some of Prohibition played a part.

However, these antiquated laws have created other problems. Since people often drink beer to get drunk, they must drink more in Oklahoma to get there, making them get fat. This is a never ending cycle of them getting fatter because it takes more for them to get drunk. This is one reason why Oklahoma is one of the fattest in the country.

It is a hindrence to our progress. Many grocery store chains will not locate here because they cannot sell wine, a huge money-maker for them. This law is completely irrational and inconvenient. It would make things much more convenient if we could pick up a nice bottle of wine at the store. From virtually every state in the country, we are looked down upon because of this (and every other) liquor law. Why would someone want to move here and subject themselves (and their co-workers that come with them) to such nonsense?

People that drive drunk are going to drive drunk. To think otherwise is simply naive. Selling better beer or wine in a grocery store is not going to cause more of a problem. Someone who is stupid enough to drive drunk does it even with all the hindrances the state of Oklahoma puts on them. You cannot legislate morality.

All these laws do is make people fatter, make it more inconvenient, hinder our progress, and make us a laughing stock nationwide.

I am all for DUI enforcement, in fact, I think our laws are too leaniant. DUI should be a first offence felony with mandatory prison time with no parole It IS a violent crime). However, I have a feeling Oklahoma is not anywhere near the top of the scale of numbers of offenses (caught or not) per capita. The larger states have liqour laws that allow children into liqour stores (there are not liqour stores in California per se, they are small authintic grocery stores). They also have liqour departments in supermarkets. With all that, they still have a VERY high rate of abuse. Those places can not sell booze to a minor.

If a kid wants it bad enough, they will get the booze. So. We should get out of the stoneage and let supermarkets sell booze and the liqour stores sell convinience store items.

The theory that our laws are such because our abuse it too high holds no water.

If people are going to get smashed and drive they are going to do it. These laws are stupid and a waste of time. Anyone that would go to the grocery store and pop a bottle off wine to get drunk while driving home has problems beyond the control of law makers.

You live in the dreamworld if you think these laws are stopping people from drinking and driving. Amazing...

According to statistics, the laws in Oklahoma might help some, but not by any dramatic amount. For 2002, 36% of deaths from traffic accidents were related to drunk driving. For comparison, that same statistic for California was 40%, and the national average was 39%. If these laws were very effective, I would have expected to see a much lower percentage than the national average, more than 3%.

When it comes to fatalities involving a .08 or higher Blood-Alcohol Count, California had a 28% rating, while Oklahoma was higher with a 29% rating. Essentially these laws seem ineffective. If someone wants to get drunk and drive, it doesn't matter what they drink, they can still get drunk and drive.

More statistics for each state can be found here:
http://www.madd.org/stats/1845

Lucky for you you found out early after moving here! It took me months to figure out why I had to drink 4 beers to feel like I had 2! LOL

Seriously, I had no idea there was even 3.2 beer and it sucks!

It does make you fat.

I asked a liquor store owner if they wished they could serve cold beer and he said not really, it would cost more to have refrigerators.. so I went across the street to 7-11 and bought cold beer. Whatever.

I don't drive and drink.. I would never ever have an open container in the car.

Sometimes I would like to go into a grocery store and get a chilled bottle of wine to serve with dinner... not happening. I hate the laws.

Anyway, they need to change these antiquidated and ridiculous laws..

I've been to about 45 of our fine states and I am still alive. Many of those states allow beer and wine sales at the grocery store. ...some of which <gasp> sell beer cold! OMGWTF!!!!

The laws aren't in place to 'save our lives'. They're there to protect the liquor retail industry (good ol' boy politics at its finest) and due to prohibition era thinking.

If people think those from other states made fun of us for still having cockfighting a few years back, that pales in comparison to what people say/laugh about our liquor laws.

If you're that hard up to drink on the way home, you're going to do it regardless. Selling cold beer isn't going to make more people drive drunk.

Seriously, I had no idea there was even 3.2 beer and it sucks!

Keep in mind our new friend from Denver moved from a state that also only allows 3.2 beer in grocery stores.

If people are going to get smashed and drive they are going to do it. These laws are stupid and a waste of time. Anyone that would go to the grocery store and pop a bottle off wine to get drunk while driving home has problems beyond the control of law makers.

You live in the dreamworld if you think these laws are stopping people from drinking and driving. Amazing...
Yes, there are those that will drink and drive no matter what. Yes, anyone that goes to a grocery store and pops a bottle of wine to get drunk while driving, does have problems.

By the way, I don't live in a dream world: this is reality for me everytime I start my shift. We still have a problem with DUI's, but not as bad as it used to be. Changing the law so that you can get wine and stronger beer to go, will just bring the DUI statistics up, the alcohol related traffic deaths up, and will continue to give me the opportunity to knock on somebody's door in the middle of the night and let them know that their loved one was just killed in an alcohol related accident.

wolf2006, those statistics don't tell the story and aren't very accurate.

Shake2005, you think it's a load of crap if we believe that a new law would produce more drunk drivers? Wrong. Think of others instead of yourself.

If you ever rode with me on my shift, you would see what kind of tragedy happens when someone is drinking and driving. The last ride along I had wanted some excitement, and unfortunately, he got the excitement that he could not handle. I had to respond on a signal 82, to assist other officers in traffic control.

When we (myself and the ride along), arrived on the scene, there were two vehicles that were totally destroyed. The other officers told me that there was one death, two in critical condition, and one with just scrapes and bruises. EMSA was dealing with the two critically injured, but the dead victim was still in their car. My ride along felt he had to see some blood and gore. I see enough of it, so I wasn't especially interested in looking at it.

As we approached the vehicle, the impact of the accident threw part of the engine into the drivers lap. Her face was unrecognizable because it was so bloody. Her right arm was not connected, and I have no idea where it was. Her eyes were open and her mouth was still open.

Just another innocent victim on her way home. She never knew what hit her. The other vehicle smelled strongly of alcohol, and there were beer cans and a whickey bottle in the car. After seeing the dead female, my ride along lost it. He stepped off the road in to some grass and started barfing (yes, been there..done that). He was not the same the rest of my shift. Images like that stay in your mind for a long time.

So, you want stronger beer and cold wine to go, huh? Take a ride with me on my shift, and you will see what happens when a person decides to drink that strong beer or the cold wine while they are driving. By the way, the "victim" that just had scrapes and bruise??? You guessed it. It was the drunken driver. I found out his alcohol level was three times over the legal limit. Know what else? When I saw him, he was smiling. The drunk driver usually survives.

I'm not here to debate this or prove anybody wrong, I am just letting you know what I see all too often on my shift.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we want cold beer or wine because we want to drink it on the way home....

We just don't want to wait a few hours for it to get cold after we get it home.

Keep in mind our new friend from Denver moved from a state that also only allows 3.2 beer in grocery stores.

True, but honestly people in Colorado don't buy Alcohol from Grocery stores...we buy it at Liquor stores! That's something I am adjusting to as well.

Quite frankly, I don't even drink alcohol, but my husband does have the occasional beer here and there. His favorite, Fat Tire. I'll never forget the look on the servers face the first time we visited OK and he ordered one at Chilis. She had never heard of it! Poor girl. Well, he refuses to give up his occasional Fat Tire and will just buy several cases of it from Texas when we go down to visit family. Yeah, so Oklahoma is losing out big time $$$. It's unfortunate that we are supporting TEXAS and not Oklahoma when we make this semi-annual purchase.

1Adam12, no one here has denied the tragic impact of drunk driving; of course its sad and it should never happen, but your story proves the point several people have made that if people are going to drive drunk, whether or not they can get the beverages outlawed in OK has no bearing, they will still drive drunk, like the driver in your story. How are those statistics I gave inaccurate? They came from an organization against drunk driving. Several sites I've seen suggest that percentages of drunk driving accidents in states without the laws of Oklahoma are practically the same as those in Oklahoma. These laws are ineffective because we still run near the national average for drunk driving accidents.

I have always been told that the reason Oklahoma has the liquor laws it does was to protect Native Americans, who are prone to alchoholism. I am sure the fact the we were "growing up" as a state during some of Prohibition played a part.

No. That is VERY inaccurate. Who ever came up with that theory is full of crap, and is probably the very person that came up with the quirky idea that franchising should not be allowed in Oklahoma, which is why we cannot get our hands on a strong bottle of Coors in an Oklahoma liquor store in the first place. And, no, 3.2 beer has nothing to do with Native Americans. We still sell 3.2 beer because grocery stores had been selling it since 1933, over two decades before Oklahoma ended liquor prohibition. When prohibition ended, grocery stores did not want to follow the strict rules being placed on liquor stores (Oklahoma prohibition ended in 1959). So, 3.2 beer was declared exempt from Oklahoma's liquor laws after a heavy lobby from grocery retailers. I'm getting adjetated because I've been posting this stuff for a while on OKCTalk and no one is paying attention. I'll add more.


Well, he refuses to give up his occasional Fat Tire and will just buy several cases of it from Texas when we go down to visit family. Yeah, so Oklahoma is losing out big time $$$. It's unfortunate that we are supporting TEXAS and not Oklahoma when we make this semi-annual purchase.

OK, tnajk, let me break it down for you. To begin with, your are now living in a state where everytime something goes wrong, Oklahomans cry out the sorry excuse that you're living in the bible belt. Too many people there feel sorry for themselves for putting up with "antiquated liquor laws" and it's getting old.

So, I will outline Oklahoma's situation for oyu, and you can join the fight if you wish.

Oklahoma allowed the sale of 3.2 beer in 1933 after the beverage was declared "non-intoxicating" by then Gov. Murray. In 1959, the very decade that drunk-driving was becoming a problem, Oklahoma ends prohobition. Laws governing retail liquor stores were drafted following the Kansas model, where beer had to be sold warm, and no franchising was allowed.

From 1959 until 1977, liquor stores in Oklahoma sold Budweiser, Coors, Miller, Schlitz, and a number of other domestic beers. But a distributor sued Coors for refusing to fill a wholesale order, and the Oklahoma judge ordered Coors to sell to the distributor or cease operations in violation of franchising. Franchising is where liquor manufacturers make a distributor a 'franchise' of the company. This is allowed in 48 states. Oklahoma bans liquor franchising, so you have to sell to any distributor and you have to sell your product at the same price all other distributors are buying your product.

When Coors pulled their strong beer out of Oklahoma in 1978, Kansas repealed their franchising ban to avoid what happened in Oklahoma. Also, Kansas repealed their ban on selling cold beer in liquor stores in 1970. A judge in Kansas ruled that selling cold beer does not induce intoxication while driving home from the liquor store.

Since that time, folks in Oklahoma assume that the religious right as complete control. But they are wrong. People in Oklahoma said we would NEVER have a lottery. It happened. They said Microbreweries in Oklahoma would NEVER be a reality. They were wrong. They said we could never support a professional sports team. Yeah, sure.

In order for Oklahoma law to be changed, a complete rewrite of Oklahoma Constitution's Article 28 is required. A vote of the people is needed. IT CAN HAPPEN. Make it happen in Oklahoma. Anything can happen there. Just stop believing the crap your neighbor feeds you.

When Coors pulled their strong beer out of Oklahoma in 1978, Kansas repealed their franchising ban to avoid what happened in Oklahoma. Also, Kansas repealed their ban on selling cold beer in liquor stores in 1970. A judge in Kansas ruled that selling cold beer does not induce intoxication while driving home from the liquor store.

So, can we assume that Kansas's drunk driving fatalities skyrocketed, right? I doubt it. ;)

I remember when OK was debating liquor by the drink (LBTD). The same arguments were made then. The statistics show that is has made virtually no difference in the number of DUIs, alcohol-related accidents and fatalities. In fact, since the LBTD law was passed (1984), the number of alcahol-related fatalities has remained below what it was in the last few years prior to the LBTD law passing:
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-oklahoma.html
http://www.alcoholalert.com/image-files/arf_vmt_oklahoma_82-03.gif
Sources for Oklahoma drunk driving information and statistics
US Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 12/02

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this state's liquor laws, but I am not really into drinking alcoholic beverages either, so I have not been that affected by them.

If I do decide to take a drink, I think I could buy it "warm" and wait till it cooled off after I got it home without having a lot of trouble with that. If I were a regular drinker, I would keep it in the cooler at all times, so still it would not be a problem buying it warm.

I'm getting adjetated because I've been posting this stuff for a while on OKCTalk and no one is paying attention.Wow. Sorry that I haven't read every single post you have made on OKCTalk since its inception. Good grief, I am on your side with this issue. The sooner you realize that and quit talking in a deragatory manor toward me, the better off our cause will be.

Wow. Sorry that I haven't read every single post you have made on OKCTalk since its inception. Good grief, I am on your side with this issue. The sooner you realize that and quit talking in a deragatory manor toward me, the better off our cause will be.

That remark was not directed toward you, brianinok. It was made out of frustration in general because all too often I see general frustration over our liquor laws and at the same time no one is really putting together a strong campaign or cause to get things changed.

I do not nor did not expect everyone to read every single post I have made, but I have provided plenty of information. Indeed, this thread was started by a newcomer to Oklahoma.

If you felt I was being derogatory towards you, then I apologize. However I do feel like I got nowhere while living in Oklahoma when I was building interest, or trying to, to change our laws. It was discouraging.

1Adam,

While I admire your efforts as a public servant, I don't want you writing the laws, just enforcing them. As an officer, I'm sure you see things differently.

The law is a dumb one, and probably has little to nothing to do with our drunk driving statistics.

The law is dumb and needs to be changed now.

I would gladly sign a petition and so would many other Oklahoman's, where can I find one to sign? I would also vote for any state proposal and would put a sign in my yard for the proposal (if they made signs) and tell all of my friends to vote for it. Any proposal would easily pass, it's just getting to that step that is the hard part.

I do a lot of drinking so I know my way around the Oklahoma liquor laws. I know if I want, say, Samuel Adams or Tsingtao beer I need to make a trip to the liquor store in the afternoon, put the beer in the fridge, and then drink a few hours later when it's cold. I also know that the liquor store is closed on Sunday so I buy what I need Saturday, it's not too difficult. That being said it would be nice to get some 6 point beer or wine at the convenience or grocery store and also on Sundays but it's not that big of deal. I would gladly support any change in our antiquated laws but I won't be picketing at the Capitol for it either.

I posted this before MadMonk posted his statistics chart..or at least before I saw it :). Thanks Monk, that's good stuff.


According to statistics, the laws in Oklahoma might help some, but not by any dramatic amount. For 2002, 36% of deaths from traffic accidents were related to drunk driving. For comparison, that same statistic for California was 40%, and the national average was 39%. If these laws were very effective, I would have expected to see a much lower percentage than the national average, more than 3%.

These are interesting statistics, but they do not paint a complete picture; as a result, they are not the only ones that I would be looking for to assess the efficacy of our drunk driving laws.

Those percentages also neglect types of vehicles, and we know some vehicles are more dangerous than others (eg perhaps more sports cars in, say, California, more trucks in Oklahoma).

Those statistics talk about alcohol-related accident death rates as a percentage of all traffic accidents. I want to see statistics on:

1) Total number of traffic accidents per state
A) Non alcohol-related (fatality AND non-fatality)
B) Alcohol-related (fatality/non-fatality)
2) alcohol-related accident death rates on
A) a per-capita basis
B) a per-registered vehicle basis.

Our drunk driving laws should, at their core, have a goal of either a) getting drunk drivers off the streets (reducing the number of drivers, if you will), or b) ensuring that if someone takes the wheel, they're not drunk (decreasing the percentage of all drivers that are drunk). If your laws are successful, then you reduce the "causative" factor that drives those numbers; that is, if you get behind the wheel sober, you can't possibly cause an alcohol-related accident (though obviously some *other* drunk driver could).

I would expect successful drunk driving laws to be reflected in statistics that show lower overall alcohol-related accident percentages (not just percentage of all accidents resulting in fatalities) AND lower overall alcohol-related accident rates on a per-capita basis. It would also be relevant to factor in the average alcohol consumption rates in those states as well. That is, if one state consumes more alcohol per capita than another, then it may stand to theorize that their total number of potential drunk drivers is higher, thus their drunk accident potential is higher. In that vein, given two states, but one with a higher per capita consumption rate, but equal alcohol-related accident rates, it would suggest the state with the higher consumption rate *might* be more effective at controlling drunk driving.

Sorry for the dissertation, but the point is that you cannot dismiss nor confirm the value of Oklahoma's drunk driving laws solely on the basis of one statistic, and particularly the one offered.

I, for one, enthusiastically support aggressive, low-tolerance enforcement of drunk driving, and want to throw my props to 1Adam12 for his efforts in what has to be one of the ugliest, most horrifying, and underappreciated roles our police must fill. Most of us envision a drunk driving arrest as some joker who can't walk a straight line in a field sobriety test on "Wild Police Videos" (or whatever its called), but the reality is more like the carnage 1Adam12 faces on a regular basis - and that's more than most of us could possibly contemplate through the course of a lifetime, let alone as an *expected* part of our chosen professions. We're indebted to you, 1Adam12.

-SoonerDave

Sorry for the additional post on this, but the chart MadMonk posted was striking.

One important point the page points out (not reflected in the graph) is that the data considers as an alcohol-related fatality *any* accident in which one of the participants was drunk, but not necessarily the *causative* factor in the crash, eg a car driven by a sober driver swerving to avoid, say, a child in the street, then veering out of control onto a sidewalk and striking/killing an inebriated pedestrian would be considered "alcohol-related". That *very* important caveat means there is a component in the statistics that no drunk driving laws will *ever* mitigate - alcohol-related fatalities where alcohol was *not* the causative factor.

Under those factors, you'll *never* get the numbers to zero unless you completely eliminate alcohol consumption from society, which is obviously not going to happen.

Some other observations.....the chart strongly suggests (but admittedly dosen't prove) that:

1) The number of alcohol-related fatalities per miles-traveled is a constant percentage of all miles traveled (reflected in both the state and national lines)

2) Oklahoma's alcohol fatality rate is trending toward the national rate.

That would suggest to me that there are other factors in play, and I'd theorize that broad education about alcohol consumption and driving is probably an important general dampening factor in all of this discussion, laws regarding alcohol availability notwithstanding...

-SoonerDave

that dosen't make any sence to me.. curbing drinking and driving, the beer is cold in 7-11 and the whisky is avalible. if your that much of a lush drinking it warm is no problem.