Oklahoma liquor laws

[bchris02]

Little known fact. 3.2 beer is actually 3.2% alcohol by weight whereas "6 point" is alcohol by volume. 3.2 by weight converts to about 4% by volume. Whereas "6 point" is actually 4.2%-5% by volume. Crafts are typically 6% or higher. Truth be told, while distribution is tricky, Crafts like not being next to the giants of beer and competing against them for shelf space.

Realbeer.com: Beer Alcohol Content And Carbs In Beer
The 3.2 Myth | Cover Story | Salt Lake City Weekly

Oh and you forgot the other titan in the industry. The Naifeh family. Between AB and the Naifeh's, the only changes you'll see are the ones they want.

I am familiar with 3.2 ABW being 4% by volume. I was wondering if the current law could be changed to allow a higher number to be considered "low-point," such as 5% or 6% by volume. This would allow the major brewers to sell their real product in grocery stores as well as open up grocery store shelf space to better domestics such as Sam Adams, while still keeping the stronger craft beers in the liquor stores. The biggest offense of 3.2 beer is not its alcohol content but the fact the brewers water down their product to meet the guideline. The mount of water it takes to lower the ABV just a half of a percent is enough to significantly alter the flavor of the beer. That is a shame.

Would it be possible to increase the definition of "non-intoxicating" to something higher than 3.2 ABW? Franklin Roosevelt changed the definition from 0.5 ABW to 3.2 ABW with relative ease in 1933.

[jerrywall]

I am familiar with 3.2 ABW being 4% by volume. I was wondering if the current law could be changed to allow a higher number to be considered "low-point," such as 5% or 6% by volume. This would allow the major brewers to sell their real product in grocery stores as well as open up grocery store shelf space to better domestics such as Sam Adams, while still keeping the stronger craft beers in the liquor stores. Would it be possible to increase the definition of "non-intoxicating" to something higher than 3.2 ABW? Franklin Roosevelt changed the definition from 0.5 ABW to 3.2 ABW with relative ease in 1933.

A slight increase in the definition of low point could be an effective way to allow stronger beers in grocery stores without requiring a complete rewrite of the ABLE laws. However, I think it's unlikely, since the 3.2 ABW standard isn't just Oklahoma based.

[gopokes88]

I am familiar with 3.2 ABW being 4% by volume. I was wondering if the current law could be changed to allow a higher number to be considered "low-point," such as 5% or 6% by volume. This would allow the major brewers to sell their real product in grocery stores as well as open up grocery store shelf space to better domestics such as Sam Adams, while still keeping the stronger craft beers in the liquor stores. The biggest offense of 3.2 beer is not its alcohol content but the fact the brewers water down their product to meet the guideline. The mount of water it takes to lower the ABV just a half of a percent is enough to significantly alter the flavor of the beer. That is a shame.

Would it be possible to increase the definition of "non-intoxicating" to something higher than 3.2 ABW? Franklin Roosevelt changed the definition from 0.5 ABW to 3.2 ABW with relative ease in 1933.

3.2 beer is considered a non intoxicating alcoholic beverage. Reason for this distinction is it allows AB, Coors Miller to pay slotting fees in grocery stores. Also why would AB allow others to come in and compete? They won't. That's why it won't happen.

Also if you are really worried about watering down the taste of bud light or coors lights I flat don't know what to tell you. They all taste like water to start with anyway.

[BDP]

Please, just give me cold beer and wine at a liquor store. That's all I ask. I'm sure the Naifeh's would have no problem with it, but not sure if the 3.2 guys would go for it.

[BDP]

Also if you are really worried about watering down the taste of bud light or coors lights I flat don't know what to tell you. They all taste like water to start with anyway.

I'm not even sure if there is any difference with Bud Light. I think it's a 4.0 / 3.2 beer no matter where you get it, right?

[bchris02]

3.2 beer is considered a non intoxicating alcoholic beverage. Reason for this distinction is it allows AB, Coors Miller to pay slotting fees in grocery stores. Also why would AB allow others to come in and compete? They won't. That's why it won't happen.

Also if you are really worried about watering down the taste of bud light or coors lights I flat don't know what to tell you. They all taste like water to start with anyway.

Not Bud or Coors Light, but other beers like Blue Moon, Shiner, Dos Equis, Stella, PBR, etc. The new COOP beers are good because they offer a drinkable option if I am stucking buying low-point beer.

[jerrywall]

Please, just give me cold beer and wine at a liquor store. That's all I ask. I'm sure the Naifeh's would have no problem with it, but not sure if the 3.2 guys would go for it.

The stores have wanted it for a while (in fact, it was at one point a stated goal of the retail association if I recall correctly). However, the Grocery and Gas industry opposes it, as do groups like MADD and such. Evidently you might drink cold beer in your car leaving the liquor store. Not sure why they think someone wouldn't also just drink room temp whiskey or vodka.

[bchris02]

The stores have wanted it for a while (in fact, it was at one point a stated goal of the retail association if I recall correctly). However, the Grocery and Gas industry opposes it, as do groups like MADD and such. Evidently you might drink cold beer in your car leaving the liquor store. Not sure why they think someone wouldn't also just drink room temp whiskey or vodka.

MADD groups and religious fundamentalists are for restricting access to alcoholic beverages wherever they can. It doesn't matter if the restrictions make sense.

[Laramie]

Maybe 'Mother Hen' (Oklahoma) will allow the liquor stores to refrigerate beer.

If an alcoholic is going to drink the product after he purchases it from the liquor store, he would be better off drinking it cold than hot.

[gopokes88]

Tweaks in the system will happen. But major law changes simply aren't going too. How do I know? Because this very thread is 5 years old and no major changes have happened. However, small tweaks like brewery parity laws will. Best just to accept the status quo and plan ahead of you want cold strong beer or a bottle of wine on Sunday. It's really not that hard.

There's just to many hands in the oklahoma booze cookie jar and the way liquor laws have to be passed makes the hurdle to high. For example, to get wine in grocery it must be passed by on a statewide election. There's a huge # of signatures that need to be gathered and verified and turned in something like a year before the election even takes place. IF IF IF it passes (the amount of dark money that would flood in against it will blow you away and better get it on the ballot during a presidential year, we found out who votes in mid terms) there's an 18 month waiting period to allow everyone to get the changes in effect.

Its a ton of work and lot of hurdles to clear instead of just learning to buy ahead of time. I get no one likes to admit defeat on this board and bitching is a lot of fun but this a hamster wheel.

[bchris02]

Tweaks in the system will happen. But major law changes simply aren't going too. How do I know? Because this very thread is 5 years old and no major changes have happened. However, small tweaks like brewery parity laws will. Best just to accept the status quo and plan ahead of you want cold strong beer or a bottle of wine on Sunday. It's really not that hard.

There's just to many hands in the oklahoma booze cookie jar and the way liquor laws have to be passed makes the hurdle to high. For example, to get wine in grocery it must be passed by on a statewide election. There's a huge # of signatures that need to be gathered and verified and turned in something like a year before the election even takes place. IF IF IF it passes (the amount of dark money that would flood in against it will blow you away and better get it on the ballot during a presidential year, we found out who votes in mid terms) there's an 18 month waiting period to allow everyone to get the changes in effect.

Its a ton of work and lot of hurdles to clear instead of just learning to buy ahead of time. I get no one likes to admit defeat on this board and bitching is a lot of fun but this a hamster wheel.

I am going to have to agree with you here. I don't think any significant changes will occur any time in the near future. As I have said, there is too much apathy among people who would support changing the laws yet those who support preserving the status quo, be it for religious reasons or because they own a liquor store, are pretty dedicated to that cause. Arkansas' failed attempt to do away with dry counties makes me lose hope that an attempt to relax Oklahoma's liquor laws would actually pass if put to a statewide vote.

Here are some changes that I think may be possible and this is what I believe those pushing for change should focus on.

1) Allowing brewpubs to brew and sell full strength beer
2) Liquor stores sell cold beer
3) Liquor store hours increase to 10PM or 11PM instead of 9PM.

I don't understand what the Neifah's would have against those changes. If the grocery stores are worried, maybe find a way to increase the alcohol percentage allowed for low-point beer from 4% ABV to 5% ABV, opening up grocery stores to real Budweiser as well as other domestics such as Sam Adams in exchange for allowing liquor stores to sell cold beer.

This entire issue may be easier to revisit in 20-30 years. Young conservative evangelicals for the most part don't have the hangups about alcohol that older ones tend to have and are less likely to resist relaxing the laws.

[gopokes88]

Only #1 has a chance.

#2 would get fought by AB because it waters down one of their key advantages. Smaller less capitalized liquor stores would fight as well.

#3 would get fought by MADD and AB.

[Bunty]

I guess Oklahoma legislators think it's politically safer to be in the news for something like wanting to ban the wearing of hoodies in public than it would if they introduced bills to ban 3.2% beer, or allow grocery stores to sell wine.

[bluedogok]

I guess Oklahoma legislators think it's politically safer to be in the news for something like wanting to ban the wearing of hoodies in public than it would if they introduced bills to ban 3.2% beer, or allow grocery stores to sell wine.

That type of bill is inoffensive to much of their constituency especially when it will more than likely never make it out of committee, whereas a change to alcohol laws might rile some of them up. What we have now is tyranny of the vocal minority on almost all issues. Most of the population is detached and apathetic.

[bchris02]

That type of bill is inoffensive to much of their constituency especially when it will more than likely never make it out of committee, whereas a change to alcohol laws might rile some of them up. What we have now is tyranny of the vocal minority on almost all issues. Most of the population is detached and apathetic.

That is what you get when most of the state's population doesn't turn out for elections.

The radical social conservatives who want to impose their agenda on all Oklahomans are very vocal, highly energized, and are out voting every time an election is held. If those who want to see sanity return to this state continue to stay home, there will never be any change.

[progressiveboy]

It comes down to the "will of the people". If residents are indifferent or feel it does not affect them then the "status quo" will prevail. It is the "easy way" out. I also believe that the average Oklahoman has come to accept that change may never happen. What is the saying, "You can lead the horse to the water, but you can't make them drink".

[bchris02]

It comes down to the "will of the people". If residents are indifferent or feel it does not affect them then the "status quo" will prevail. It is the "easy way" out. I also believe that the average Oklahoman has come to accept that change may never happen. What is the saying, "You can lead the horse to the water, but you can't make them drink".

I think that's how many people view the liquor laws here. As I have said, most people who would support change aren't as vocal or passionate about it as those who support preserving the status quo. Plus, people who have lived their entire lives in Oklahoma and have never lived anywhere else have learned to work around the laws so it isn't really that big of a deal to them. The laws are the most intrusive to people who have moved here from out of state or spent extensive time away and then moved back.

[bluedogok]

Oklahoma has been a pretty conservative state throughout my lifetime even when the Democrats ran everything but for the most part they were fairly conservative Democrats. I remember the Liquor by the Drink vote in 1984 and parimutuel vote in the 1982 which people thought wouldn't pass because of the rural voting block. It can happen and it can happen with people that you think would be against it. There was probably a higher percentage of more traditional church goers at that time than there is now that many newer churches with different attitudes about alcohol exist now than the old, traditional denominations had back in the days of those votes.

[Bunty]

That type of bill is inoffensive to much of their constituency especially when it will more than likely never make it out of committee, whereas a change to alcohol laws might rile some of them up. What we have now is tyranny of the vocal minority on almost all issues. Most of the population is detached and apathetic.

If I'm right, the anti hoodie bill's author is a church deacon.

[Laramie]

Oklahoma will make changes with law when we become among the last few states to legalize something.

[BDP]

The stores have wanted it for a while (in fact, it was at one point a stated goal of the retail association if I recall correctly). However, the Grocery and Gas industry opposes it, as do groups like MADD and such. Evidently you might drink cold beer in your car leaving the liquor store. Not sure why they think someone wouldn't also just drink room temp whiskey or vodka.

Yeah, it's hard to make an argument that our 3.2 laws or liquor store restrictions prevent drunk driving, as the percentage of our fatal car accidents that are alcohol related is right about the national average. If 3.2 was a public safety measure, you'd think it'd at least be a little better. Alcohol related fatalities have actually gone down pretty consistently for about 30 years and, if anything, our laws have gotten a little less restrictive, albeit in very small ways. And as you pointed out, without cold beer or wine in a liquor store, the more logical choice for someone who needs a drink immediately is something that is basically 3-5 times stronger than most of the warm beer and wine in the store.

And while I get that the grocery stores and gas industries may not want that added competition, I would think think that allowing cold beverages in liquor stores would at least be a bit more politically acceptable since it's literally the only thing consumers can currently never buy and it would only be in much more controlled retail outlets where people who are not of legal age are not allowed in the stores at all. I know that this is more about what the industries and interest groups want than what the general public wants, but maybe this change would be more doable with less political risk than trying to get these products in general grocery stores and/or convenience stores, which is what most reform efforts seem to be focused on.

[BDP]

Oklahoma will make changes with law when we become among the last few states to legalize something.

Well, it's time then. I think only 5 states restrict sales of beverages with over 3.2% ABV to licensed liquor stores and I believe Oklahoma is the only state that requires they be sold at room temperature.

[adaniel]

Tweaks in the system will happen. But major law changes simply aren't going too. How do I know? Because this very thread is 5 years old and no major changes have happened. However, small tweaks like brewery parity laws will. Best just to accept the status quo and plan ahead of you want cold strong beer or a bottle of wine on Sunday. It's really not that hard.

I am starting to agree with this quote more as time progresses.

Every state has annoying, outdated liquor laws. OK's laws track pretty similarly to "blue" Colorado or Minnesota, as both states restrict sales to 3.2 ABV or more to liqour stores. Heck, 18 states are still alcohol control states, meaning that the state has at least partial control on wholesaling or retailng of alcohol.

Also, there were several claims that certain stores like Costco and Whole Foods or certain restaraunts wouldn't come to OK unless laws were changed. There was also claims that certain drinks would never be sold in OK. These, of course, have proven to be untrue. IMO, I think the liquor laws have served to be an easy excuse for companies to use if they had doubts about the viability of the market in Oklahoma. Which, fortunately, is being shown to be not the case.

Then there is the nonsense about how beer sold in Texas and other states is soooo much stronger. As if a normal person is going to detect the 0.1 or 0.2 point difference in ABV.

If someone wants to really start a movement to get everything changed, then they will glady have my support. I think its pretty ridiculous that you cannot buy refridgerated strong beer, seems completely outdated. But it is probably not a high priority for a lot of civic minded people in Oklahoma. With underfunded schools, poor infrastructure, and a 40 something ranking in nearly every measure of health or well being, this state has bigger fish to fry.

[jerrywall]

Well, it's time then. I think only 5 states restrict sales of beverages with over 3.2% ABV to licensed liquor stores and I believe Oklahoma is the only state that requires they be sold at room temperature.

Liquor stores only states -
Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Wyoming

So a few more than 5. I think you're right about the refrigeration ban though.

[Urbanized]

I don't really care if the 3.2 beer goes away and strong beer & wine were made available at gas stations and grocery stores. In fact, if it ran my favorite liquor stores out of business I'd be against it, because I like getting solid, educated wine advice and having hundreds of beers to choose from rather than dozens.

What I WOULD like to see changed is allowing the refrigeration of strong beer in liquor stores. Not because I want it cold immediately - I rarely consume beer within an hour or two of buying anyway - but because it would open the door to some breweries who require refrigeration at all stages of the distribution process. I'd rather have more options, even if it means going out of my way or planning ahead.