Here is a great write-up on the issue:
http://www.thirstybeaglebeerblog.com/2016/02/budweiser-takes-nuclear-option-on.htmlThe key takeaways -- at least when it comes to beer -- from my perspective:
-Cold beer and wine could be sold at liquor stores.
-Full-strength beer and wine could be sold in grocery and convenience stores.
-Brewers could sell their beer out of the brewery for on- or off-premise consumption.
-Liquor stores could sell any item sold at a grocery store, provided those sales don't exceed 20 percent of the store's total sales.
-It would be left up to the Legislature to decide a number of issues, including days and hours for alcohol sales, what constitutes a small brewer, and taxes levied on alcoholic beverages (the taxes especially are not an insignificant item, considering sales tax on strong beer right now is nearly three times that of low-point beer. The question is, where will the tax rate land in a single-strength system?).
-Changes would go into effect on Oct. 1, 2018.
-Oklahoma would move to a three-tier distribution system with a prohibition on ownership interests in more than one tier at a time.
And there's the rub for AB, which right now owns the distribution channels for its low-point beer in Oklahoma. SJR 68 allows five years from date of adoption for companies to divest (read: sell off) their brewery-owned distribution branches.
AB claims in its ads this will lead to severe negative consequences in Oklahoma, including the loss of hundreds of jobs, rising beer prices and Budweiser actually withdrawing from the Oklahoma market altogether.
Not everyone shares these opinions. Zach Prichard, president of Choc Beer Co. in Krebs and of the Craft Brewers Association of Oklahoma, issued this response:
"The CBAO has been anticipating the announcement of SJR 68 for some time now. As small brewers we are focused on advocating for tap room sales and other changes which help reduce the large financial risk small brewers must undertake. Oklahoma is already fortunate to be home to many great breweries. Simple, reasonable changes such as tap room sales will allow brewers to continue to grow their business. They will also provide a great showplace for Oklahoma-made beer and establish Oklahoma as a beer tourism destination...."
To the question of why you cannot own more than one link in the distribution chain -
Back in the day the big brewers would own the brewery, the distributor, and the bar. That's how corner bars across from each other and bar districts started... Schlitz would put in a bar, and AB needed one across the street. The bar sold their beer. Often it was run by a local proprietor under contract. Neither the distributor nor the bar was much of a business, just vessels to pass along beer.
When prohibition came that obviously all stopped. When it was abolished, states set about to eliminate that model and succeeded. Oklahoma being well behind, we are more messed up than others due to the "non-intoxicating" beverage definitions and separate laws for each. The point is supposed to be to stop all channels from being driven to just sell more product, also to keep ownership small and decrease their power (hence, you can only own one liquor store), and lip service to competition.
In high point beer currently, you can either own a bar, a distributor, or a brewery. You can't own any 2 of the 3 or have any significant involvement therein (own the property, loan them the equipment, etc.). This rule would bring low-point in line with the high point, in exchange for granting breweries point of sale rights beyond low point beer and toss in the cold/grocery store thing. It is a mixed bag for most players, local brewers appear to be the winners as it gives them almost the same rights as wineries.
Full disclosure: I have not reviewed the actual bill, just the summaries.
