Another stab at liquor law reform

[swake]

Wow, two years to implement?  I know many people think Oklahomans are slow, but this slow?  Wow.

Liquor stores will need time to build out refrigeration, in many cases the stores will need more space and will need to expand or move.

[Hoss]

Liquor stores will need time to build out refrigeration, in many cases the stores will need more space and will need to expand or move.

If they had been smart (like Collins), they'd have already had this. 

[Conan71]

If they had been smart (like Collins), they'd have already had this. 

Collins is dead to me. 

A buddy of mine got two 5 gallon kegs from Collins for his wedding.  After the wedding, they took off on a honeymoon for a week and didn't think twice about the kegs.  Collins pulled the stunt of refusing to refund the keg deposits when it was returned in about 10 days which is a bullshit policy.  Ranch Acres would never do that and I was told by the owner of Ranch Acres there's no reason to keep the deposit like that, the distributor does not make the retailer forfeit it after 10 days.  I can keep a keg on tap for two months and take it back to RA with no hassle.

Between myself, my family, and some of my closest friends a couple of measly keg deposits has cost them easily a couple of thousand over the last year and a half.

Another time prior to this, we got home with our order, had some wine and beer for a holiday party, there were two bottles of champagne we did not put on the counter, but made it home with us and we were charged for them.  They tried to tell me it was state law they could not take them back and issue a refund.  Again, I doubt this would happen elsewhere.

Collins has very short-sighted business practices.  They are by far, the closest liquor store to my house and I will never set foot in there again.

[DTowner]

For those interested, the case is here.  The brief for the injunction (anti-liquor law change) is here. The response (pro-liquor law change) is here.

First, an temporary injunction is only granted if 1) the requesting party has a reasonable probability of success, 2) the risk of injury/damage for not granting the injunction is greater than the risk of granting it, AND 3) it is in public interest.

The Retail Liquor Association of Oklahoma, or ReaL donkey Oo (tortured acronyms are fun), argued Equal Protection and Unconstitutionally Vague. Everyone always argues too vague, no fun there. The Equal Protection argument is more interesting.

Under equal protection the government cannot arbitrarily treat similarly situation groups differently for no good reason. Or, more technically, without a compelling governmental interest for protected classes, or, in this circumstance, at least a rational basis for doing so. Rational basis is a fairly easy standard for the government to reach...so they were fighting an uphill battle to start.

ReaL donkey Oo argued it violated Equal Protection by:

1) Limits the number of Retail Spirits Licenses (liquor stores) to 2, does not limited number of licenses for beer and wine vendors.  I.e., QT can have 500 stores but Ranch Acres Liquor and spirits can only have 2.  2) Sales of non-liquor items limited to 20% of total sales for liquor stores, no limited for retail beer or wine stores. 3) Residency and entity type restrictions for liquor stores, none for beer and wine. and 4) Out of State Wholesaler contracts (not real clear on this one).

Unfortunately, all the Court had to find was find that they weren't entitled to an injunction under the three part test, or that the State had a rational basis for treating liquor sales different than beer or wine sales. Given our state's history of legislating morality, and of alcohol being such a vice, that isn't a stretch for the Court to find. In fact, we've been treating liquor stores differently for decades and I suspect they'd be even more upset if it was truly equal (fine, everyone sell whatever you want).

Not a frivolous argument, there are significant differences between groups that are both selling alcohol. But, if you classify the groups as liquor sellers, beer sellers, and wine sellers... no dice. Or if you say the government has a rational basis for treating liquor stores differently, no dice.

Predictably, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, or OK Attorney GraSP, argued the Court lacks jurisdiction (ballot challenges must be filed in OK Supreme Court), the challenge is not ripe (can't challenge unless approved by the People), and they should otherwise fail because 1) the Court has repeatedly upheld the right to treat persons in the alcohol industry different among classes, 2) they don't know what they are talking about, and 3) it isn't vague.

OK Attorney GraSP won the day (I think he's 3 for 42*). No injunction. Ballots print at the end of August. They have to be mailed to service members overseas sometime in September. And Alcohol progress marches on.


With one exception, the measure will take effect October 1,2018.
*not an official tally, a totally made up number actually.

The ironic thing is the liquor store owners' arguments could be used to attack the current liquor/wine/beer regime in Oklahoma as violative of equal protection.  Why should the law tell Fred Parkhill how many stores he can own any more than it limits how many hardware stores I can own.  Instead, let's get rid of the proposed two-store rule for liquor stores and treat them the same as grocery/convenience stores, i.e. corporations can own, can have as many locations as they want, etc.  The proposal is an improve, but let's not kid ourselves, we will still be a long way from modern liquor laws.

The liquor retailers association is facing a major disruption and, like any government protected cartel, it is seeking to preserve the status quo.  Drive around Tulsa and it is astounding how many small liquor stores there are.  If these changes happen, a number of those small stores will likely go away.  I don't celebrate an owner losing his or her business.  However, it is hard to mourn the demise of uneconomical businesses that exist only because of anti-consumer and anti-competitive government mandate.

[DTowner]

Wow, two years to implement?  I know many people think Oklahomans are slow, but this slow?  Wow.

Given all the rules and regulations to be formulated to implement this massive change, 2 years is not so long.  Additionally, given the breadth of change that will occur, there will be many glitches and issues that will develop during implementation that will need legislative changes/fixes.  Creating chaos during the transition would not be beneficial to the supporters of further modernization efforts.

Keep in mind some things we currently take for granted are going away without other changes to the law. Consider Mayfest, the Tulsa State Fair and college football games as but a few examples.  Currently, you can buy a low-point beer and walk around the street/mid-way.  After this change, all beer will have to be purchased and consumed within a confined area.  We are all going to be making a lot of adjustments to the way we do things.

[patric]

there's no reason to keep the deposit like that, the distributor does not make the retailer forfeit it after 10 days.  I can keep a keg on tap for two months and take it back to RA with no hassle.

The present system leads to too much make-it-up as you go along, like expired drivers licenses not being valid proof of age.

As for the lobbyists, the liquor store association says the reforms are unconstitutional because they change the constitution.

[Hoss]

The present system leads to too much make-it-up as you go along, like expired drivers licenses not being valid proof of age.

As for the lobbyists, the liquor store association says the reforms are unconstitutional because they change the constitution.

Well if that's the case, then precedent will be set if the voters vote in the change that allows religious monuments to be placed on public grounds.  If the association wins the argument, that is.  That is quite a can of worms there.

[Red Arrow]

A buddy of mine got two 5 gallon kegs from Collins for his wedding.  After the wedding, they took off on a honeymoon for a week and didn't think twice about the kegs.  Collins pulled the stunt of refusing to refund the keg deposits when it was returned in about 10 days which is a bullshit policy. 

I hope he kept the kegs.  Are the fittings suitable for home-brew?

[Conan71]

I hope he kept the kegs.  Are the fittings suitable for home-brew?

Nope.  Sankey.  Those are a PITA to try and clean and sanitize for home brewers.  We could have kept them and used them for targets I suppose.

That presents a problem for the breweries if a retailer pulls that and someone keeps the keg.  On 5 gal kegs, replacement cost is about $65 (if you buy them 1000 at a time).  For half barrel kegs, the cost is over $100 each.  The deposit won't cover even half that.

[cannon_fodder]

The only thing I was able to find is that under ABLE Commission Rule 45:20-3-15(e) a keg must be returned within (1) one year or is subject to a $500 fine.
https://www.ok.gov/able/documents/Alcoholic%20Beverage%20Administrative%20Code%20Includes%20Charity%20Games.pdf (page 30)

Failing to return a beer keg is a crime in Oklahoma, a misdemeanor and a $500 fine... because small government.  If the liquor store fails to report failure to return beer keg it too is fined $500 for the first, and second offenses. Ont he third offense the liquor store is shut down for one year.

Also, if someone at your party "damages" the mandated keg sticker it is a $500 fine.

A great example of a law that is probably never enforced (anyone ever heard of it being enforced?). 

37 OS 521.1
http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=436440

37 OS 163.19  (we need two laws to do this because low point kegs and high point kegs follow different laws and are regulated by different agencies...because small government)

[PonderInc]

Not sure if this deserves its own thread or not.  

But an article in the TW indicates that the (dis)ABLE commission has interpreted a state law in typical "conservative" aka big-government-in-your-business for no reason nanny-state way:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/retail/new-oklahoma-beer-law-might-not-allow-brewers-to-sell/article_1e2c3257-32df-5633-8ae5-0fe11c51fac1.html

After going back and forth on the issue, it appears the Oklahoma ABLE Commission intends to block Oklahoma breweries from selling full-strength beer by the pint as part of a new state law that goes into effect next week.

While Oklahoma wineries have long been able to sell their products on-site, craft brewers have been limited so far to selling 3.2 beer on premises. Breweries have been able to provide customers up to 12-ounce samples of full-strength beer. To sell full-strength beer, Oklahoma brewers have had to go through a wholesaler, which then distributes the product to liquor stores.

Some friends and I stopped by Dead Armadillo Brewery last weekend.  They said that they have to sell their beer to a wholesaler, ship it out the back door, have the wholesaler deliver it to the front door, where they buy it back to sell to customers.

If anyone can please explain how this makes any sense at all I would appreciate it.  I know that Oklahoma laws typically impose an affront to credulity and common sense, but this is especially goofy.

Is it notable that the director of the ABLE commission has worked for that body since 1980?  Could this help explain the inbred thinking and lack of intellectual hybrid vigor?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not sure if this deserves its own thread or not.  

But an article in the TW indicates that the (dis)ABLE commission has interpreted a state law in typical "conservative" aka big-government-in-your-business for no reason nanny-state way:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/retail/new-oklahoma-beer-law-might-not-allow-brewers-to-sell/article_1e2c3257-32df-5633-8ae5-0fe11c51fac1.html

After going back and forth on the issue, it appears the Oklahoma ABLE Commission intends to block Oklahoma breweries from selling full-strength beer by the pint as part of a new state law that goes into effect next week.

While Oklahoma wineries have long been able to sell their products on-site, craft brewers have been limited so far to selling 3.2 beer on premises. Breweries have been able to provide customers up to 12-ounce samples of full-strength beer. To sell full-strength beer, Oklahoma brewers have had to go through a wholesaler, which then distributes the product to liquor stores.

Some friends and I stopped by Dead Armadillo Brewery last weekend.  They said that they have to sell their beer to a wholesaler, ship it out the back door, have the wholesaler deliver it to the front door, where they buy it back to sell to customers.

If anyone can please explain how this makes any sense at all I would appreciate it.  I know that Oklahoma laws typically impose an affront to credulity and common sense, but this is especially goofy.

Is it notable that the director of the ABLE commission has worked for that body since 1980?  Could this help explain the inbred thinking and lack of intellectual hybrid vigor?

How long have you lived here....    Lol...welcome to Okrahoma!

[Townsend]

Some friends and I stopped by Dead Armadillo Brewery last weekend.  They said that they have to sell their beer to a wholesaler, ship it out the back door, have the wholesaler deliver it to the front door, where they buy it back to sell to customers.

I can only think that lobbying by Jarbo/Central et al would cause this kind of thing.

[Hoss]

Can someone please explain to me the difference between the two state questions (791 and 792) now that it seems they are both trying to get a look.  792 is already on the ballot, 791 is petitioning.

http://www.791vs792.com/

Reading this it seems the bills are similar, but have differences and some are actually pretty substantial.

[cannon_fodder]

791 is sponsored by the Retail Liquor Association, you can guess what it does...

1) The key provision they REALLY want is that 791 is a protectionist bill for the liquor stores (and wholesalers). It prevents anyone from selling liquor or wine within 500 feet of an existing liquor store (property line to property line). For instance, Ranch Acres Wine and Spirits already has a license, so the Walmart, Natural Grocers, and Walgreens nearby wouldn't be able to get one. Midtown liquors near 21st and Yale has a license, so Target and Reasor's wouldn't be able to get one.  Actually...

Off the top of my head, the following Reasor's would be excluded:
- Reasors on Brookside
- 15th and Peoria
- Reasor's at 21st and Yale (ish)
- 51st and Harvard

Probably most of the rest would too. And if one is allowed somewhere, then Reasor's would have to get the license before the neighboring gas station, grocery store, pharmacy or whatever gets it.

The purpose is purely to protect existing business owners. Makes great sense for the business owners, and I am sympathetic because they all "grew up" playing by the stupid made up rules we had for 50 years. Sucks for them to suddenly just have to compete on even ground like every other business. Maybe some kind of phase in where you also have the option of purchasing existing licenses (that is, buying out the liquor stores) would have been more fair. But to me, grandfathering existing businesses in permanently doesn't cut it.

2) Preserves the current wholesaler system.

3) Forbids any out of state ownership.

4) Forbids anyone other than a liquor store from having more than 30% of sales be alcohol.

5) Takes 11 years for the full effect to go into place (retailers can get 2 licenses each year, after 9 years they can get unlimited licenses subject to geographic restrictions. In other words, 2 QTs in the state can sell wine the first year, 4 the next, etc...)

6) Oddly, it also allows alcohol sales any day of the year EXCEPT Thanksgiving and Christmas. Just seems strange to me.

Some other stuff, but those are the low points. And that's off the top of my head, happy to be corrected.


https://www.sos.ok.gov/gov/questions.aspx
https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/791.pdf