Oklahoma liquor laws

[ctchandler]

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

[baralheia]

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

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

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

But the new law reads:

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

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

[jerrywall]

^^ Budweiser.

[baralheia]

^^ Budweiser.

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

[Urbanized]

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

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

http://fox13now.com/2016/10/27/utah-...3-2-beer-vote/

[jerrywall]

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

[OKCRT]

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

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

[ctchandler]

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

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

[Urbanized]

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

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

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

[ctchandler]

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

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

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

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

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

[jerrywall]

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

[ctchandler]

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

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

[Urbanized]

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

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

[Urbanized]

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

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

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

[jerrywall]

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

[jerrywall]

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

[Urbanized]

Thanks for doing that Jerry

[SBice]

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

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

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

Regards,
SB

[jerrywall]

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

[jerrywall]

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

[baralheia]

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

[SBice]

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

Also, my apologies for not responding last night.

[SBice]

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

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

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

Hope this helps.
SB

[jerrywall]

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

[Martin]

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

done! -M