Wine at Wal-Mart?

[AMP]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

Originally posted by AMP

So, does this mean if you get drunk at a private party and are driven home, you are guilty of public intox. for having a designated driver?  Kind of discourages anyone from wanting to be a designated driver doesn't it?

No, you are guilty of public intox for being outside of a private home after injesting alcohol.

Designated Driver has little to do with the law.  The person that has alcohol in their system is the guilty party.  The authorities may also arrest the designated driver for suspicion of Public Intox at their desecration.

If you drink alcohol and are: Riding as a passenger in a CAB, CITY BUS, PRIVATE VEHICLE,  TOW TRUCK, SITTING ON A BENCH, RIDING A BICYCLE, RIDING A HORSE, RIDING IN A HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE or WALKING, it does not matter.  

You are subject to arrest if confronted by anyone that deems you are intoxicated and either calls the law authority or is a law authority

You are guilty of this law if you have alcohol in your body and are OUTSIDE of a PRIVATE HOME, or are inside a private home, after injesting alcohol, without the permission of the OWNER.  

Way I read it is you can only injest alcohol legally while inside a PRIVATE HOME with permission, and no where else.    

It could also be interpreted to read you are not allowed to drink in an Apartment or Rental property without the express permission of the owner or authorized agent of that property.

[rwarn17588]

The term "subject to arrest" is telling. It means that the cops *can* arrest you for public intox, but won't unless you're being an obnoxious jerk.

Let's face it: Most of our local police are too busy worrying about serious crimes instead of boozers. Public intoxication arrests are rare, and happen only when the offense is particularly egregious.

[Leah]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

The term "subject to arrest" is telling. It means that the cops *can* arrest you for public intox, but won't unless you're being an obnoxious jerk.

Let's face it: Most of our local police are too busy worrying about serious crimes instead of boozers. Public intoxication arrests are rare, and happen only when the offense is particularly egregious.

I agree!

[akupetsky]

To me, it is a consumer convenience issue.  If I want to buy wine or good beer, I have to go to a liquor store.  But, as someone with three young kids, I am not allowed in a liquor store unless I leave my kids in the car.  (I guess there is some concern that my 5 year old will convince me to buy liquor for him.)  That seems like a major tragedy waiting to happen.

quote:Originally posted by Steve

I rarely drink beer, and drink wine even less often, so selling these items in grocery and convenience stores is really a non-issue for me.  I don't care much if the issue passes or not.  I do think that for certain retailers to use the restriction as a reason for not doing business in Oklahoma, that is a pretty lame excuse.  I have no problem with the grocers we currently have.

I do think the issue will be a hard sell, and will be as tough to pass as the liquor-by-the-drink issue was.  OK finally legalized cocktail bars in 1984 after some 5 different statewide votes from the 1960's to 1984.  This issue will be no different, IMO.

[akupetsky]

OK, can someone please explain to me why the following is happening?  In the past month, I have been to both Kilkenney's and McNellie's.  Usually, they have a very good selection of beer.  Lately, however, they do not have some of the better brands, such as John Courage and Bodingers.  At McNellie's, the bartender says that soon he won't be able to get Bass, Anchor Steam, Stella Artois and other good beers.  He indicated it is because Anheuser Busch has bought up the distribution rights and, because of Oklahoma's laws regarding 3/2 beer and distribution of cold beer.  This doesn't make sense to me, but I get the sense it is related to your email quoted below.  

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by okcpulse

bigdtottown,

The reason why liquor stores in Oklahoma no longer sell strong beer is due to a clarification in a law that was enacted after Oklahoma ended prohibition in 1959.  According to the law, no brewer, winery or distiller can enter into a franchise agreement with licensed liquor distributors in Oklahoma.  The law was ignored (or certain manufacturers were unaware) until a lawsuit was filed against Coors in 1976 on behalf of a distributor in Ardmore.  Coors replied to an order made by that distributor by not filling the order, pointing out they already  had a distributor in the area.  

A district judge issued an opinion on the court case in 1977, ordering Coors to sell to the Ardmore distributor or face a violation of franchising.  Coors representatives instead stopped selling to Oklahoma distributors in order to persuade people in Oklahoma to allow franchising.  Anheuser-Busch, Miller and Schlitz all prefer the franchising system a well, and stopped selling their product as well.  Later, in 1978, voters defeated a state question to allow franchising in Oklahoma.  

As it stands, Oklahoma law requires and open wholesale system.  If you, the manufacturer, sell to one distributor in Oklahoma, you are required by law to sell to all distributors on a same price basis.  The only other state that bans franchising among distributors is Utah, where no strong domestic beer is sold as well.  Refrigeration was part if the issue, but not the sole reason why sales ceased.  Kansas also required an open wholesale system, but changed the law in 1978 after the events that occurred in Oklahoma.  In a franchise agreement, the wholesale distributor must follow the manufacturer's policy on quality control and advertising.  In an open wholesale system, where the product is 'imported' by a broker, the wholesale distributor is not required to follow manufacturer's policies.  

3.2 beer is exempt from Oklahoma's liquor laws, and thus, franchising among low-point beer distributors is allowed, and can be maintained at constant refrigeration.  So no law was changed, it was the result of a legal dispute.

Ironically, this franchising law actually causes many import and high-end beers to sell better in OK than they would otherwise.  College students frequently buy Newcastle or Bass instead of Budweiser at the liquor stores because they want real beer.  The crazy thing is that the so-called "6 point" beer rarely actually has 6% alcohol.  Most beers really have only about 4.9% if you read their websites.

[cannon_fodder]

Too many people talking out of their asses, worried about things that arent a real threat.

If you ever look up actual statistics there is no correlation between alcohol related deaths and who/what/when or where people are allowed to sell alcohol.  Likewise, dry counties dont have an advantage over areas serving alcohol. States that stuck with the .1 BAC and states that went right away to .08 had the same fatalities and didnt see their arrest rate statistics change.  The drunk driving aspect is a farce.

The availability to minors aspect is also a farce.  How many here drank when they were underage?  85?  90% of us?  Most of the time I had someone pick up some beer for me at a gas station or a grocery store or a liqueur store.  It didnt really matter to me. It hasn't been THAT long, so I assume it has changed much.  If you really want alcohol you are going to be able to get it.

Same story with alcoholics.  Does anyone honestly think that an alcoholic wakes up on Sunday or an election day and just goes the day without his booze?  If someone fails to stock up they can always go to a gas station or a restaurant and get their fix.  Again, its a farce.

The only people really punished by these stupid blue laws are individuals who by and large consume alcohol responsibly and want a drink.  Wine for a Sunday dinner or whatever, why again cant I buy it where and when I want?  Currently we have a liquor store on every corner anyway.  Certainly that looks worse in a community than wine at Reasors.

As an after thought, the wine store were all up in arms to sell on election day because people are responsible and the law was an arbitrary restriction on the sale of alcohol.  What changed?

[cannon_fodder]

Akupetsky:

As I understand it Oklahoma law would require a distributor to sell those brands openly, not being able to control their distribution really nor pricing at a regional or individual level.  Likewise, the 3.2% make shipping and delivery of beer complicated as the shipments have to be separated.
 
Basically, what I was told upon contacting some of the beer companies is that selling their product int he Sooner State wasn't worth the pain in the donkey.  

I'm sorry to hear that more products will be displaced by our antiquated, moralistic, and ineffective laws. Again, how many minors or alcoholics are suffering because Boddingtons and Fat Tire arent sold in Oklahoma? How many drunk driving accidents did this prevent?

[okcpulse]

That is why I REALLY stress that you get anyone you can including yourself to get registered to vote if you haven't already, and find out where the petitions are being circulated.  Sign it, then vote yes in 2008.  They need 170,000 legal signatures to put on the 2008 ballot.  Let's do this and get these damn laws off the books.

Which reminds me, the state question will only deal with allowing grocery stores to sell wine and strong beer.  It doesn't deal with franchising.  It's only my hope that the legislature will have no choice but to trash the no-franchise law when they realize that if kept on the books, the franchise ban will cause Anheuser-Busch, Coors and Miller to disappear from Oklahoma altogether, as 3.2 beer will be eliminated unless some stores decide to keep it on their shelves.

[citizen72]

My wife and I signed up on here several weeks ago to sign the petition, but not one word out of anyone. What gives?  Are they still trying to get everything together?

[okcpulse]

The petition will be circulated late this summer.  Look for the petitions to be circulated at the Tulsa and Oklahoma City fairs.  I'm sure there are other places they will be circulated.

Right now, they are still ironing out the proposal, and will be talking to the Oklahoma Malt Beverage Association regarding the franchising issue to get everyone on the same page.  They have growing support for this cause.

You won't find online petitions.  You have to sign them in person.  Be sure you are registered to vote.  If not, your signature will not be valid.