3.2 beer

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by SoonerRiceGrad

Action on this issue was considered by the OKC Chamber, but the governing board chose to stay out of this, even though economic growth in downtown OKC has been hurt by this law. We'd like a Whole Foods, wink-wink...

I think not being able to sell beverage alcohol is a pretty lame excuse for a grocery chain not to do business in a state.  That just says to me that either they don't have a high opinion of their grocery products, or the mark-up they put on booze is much too high.  From what I know and have read about Whole Foods, they are just an over-priced Reasors with a lot more pretention.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

quote:Originally posted by TheTed

I plan on purchasing all of my package liquor out of state. With laws such as these, I refuse to give Oklahoma any of my package liquor tax revenue.

Not much of a "drinker" are you....?

That does seem like a pretty irrational reaction.  Unless you can't find a particular strong beer or hard liquor brand here that you like, that would be silly.  Prices here are quite reasonable, often lower than most other states.

[jdb]

quote: posted by Steve
...Unless you can't find a particular strong beer or hard liquor brand here that you like, that would be silly...

It's the principal of the matter.

Me, I just look at the label: if it has the OK+ than in the cart it goes.

jdb

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by SoonerRiceGrad

Action on this issue was considered by the OKC Chamber, but the governing board chose to stay out of this, even though economic growth in downtown OKC has been hurt by this law. We'd like a Whole Foods, wink-wink...

I think not being able to sell beverage alcohol is a pretty lame excuse for a grocery chain not to do business in a state.  That just says to me that either they don't have a high opinion of their grocery products, or the mark-up they put on booze is much too high.  From what I know and have read about Whole Foods, they are just an over-priced Reasors with a lot more pretention.

you may think it's lame but when a business model elsewhere is built with alcohol figured in it makes a lot of sense...
and it is the same damn reason we don't have costcos here... guess who does not want them to move into the state? hint: it's the same people who don't want any other grocery chains to move in...

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by SoonerRiceGrad

Action on this issue was considered by the OKC Chamber, but the governing board chose to stay out of this, even though economic growth in downtown OKC has been hurt by this law. We'd like a Whole Foods, wink-wink...

I think not being able to sell beverage alcohol is a pretty lame excuse for a grocery chain not to do business in a state.  That just says to me that either they don't have a high opinion of their grocery products, or the mark-up they put on booze is much too high.  From what I know and have read about Whole Foods, they are just an over-priced Reasors with a lot more pretention.

you may think it's lame but when a business model elsewhere is built with alcohol figured in it makes a lot of sense...
and it is the same damn reason we don't have costcos here...

If Costco or Whole Foods didn't come here because of overly-restrictive zoning or high tax burden, I think that would be different.  But because they can't sell wine & hard liquor?  If this is their reason, then so be it.  We will just have to muddle through with Reasors, Wild Oats, Target and Sam's Club.  I think we will make it somehow, someway.

Besides, the last thing Tulsa needs is more big-box chain stores destroying the landscape with their hideous buildings and acres of asphalt parking lots.  I miss the local neighborhood Humpty Dumpty and TG&Y.  Tulsa had more character and identity then.

[pmcalk]

^My understanding is that liquor is the most profitable product that grocery stores sell.  The mark up is extremely high.  If you eliminate the most profitable product, it makes sense that a company would not come into this state.  It would be like telling Quicktrip they could no longer sell soda.

Does anyone know if Oklahoma still has the ridiculous laws about breweries?  That you can only brew & sell 3.2 beer on premises?

As for the difference in taste between 3.2 and other beers, I am no expert, but I have been told that the difference in taste has less to do with the amount of alcohol, but with the process itself.  To ensure that alcohol levels don't reach a certain level, often the brewing must be cut short, before too much sugar is converted.

[RecycleMichael]

I like the artificial beer called O'Doules. It is non-alcoholic.

I once drank a six-pack and got into a fake fight.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by SoonerRiceGrad

Action on this issue was considered by the OKC Chamber, but the governing board chose to stay out of this, even though economic growth in downtown OKC has been hurt by this law. We'd like a Whole Foods, wink-wink...

I think not being able to sell beverage alcohol is a pretty lame excuse for a grocery chain not to do business in a state.  That just says to me that either they don't have a high opinion of their grocery products, or the mark-up they put on booze is much too high.  From what I know and have read about Whole Foods, they are just an over-priced Reasors with a lot more pretention.

you may think it's lame but when a business model elsewhere is built with alcohol figured in it makes a lot of sense...
and it is the same damn reason we don't have costcos here...

If Costco or Whole Foods didn't come here because of overly-restrictive zoning or high tax burden, I think that would be different.  But because they can't sell wine & hard liquor?  If this is their reason, then so be it.  We will just have to muddle through with Reasors, Wild Oats, Target and Sam's Club.  I think we will make it somehow, someway.

Besides, the last thing Tulsa needs is more big-box chain stores destroying the landscape with their hideous buildings and acres of asphalt parking lots.  I miss the local neighborhood Humpty Dumpty and TG&Y.  Tulsa had more character and identity then.

"tulsa was better when all we had were corner stores...." blah, blah, blah... the ****ing big-box cow is out of the barn...

these other big boxes and chains would provide a welcome alternative for many consumers to our current limited options...

the reason they are not here is because our market is not significant to them... they aren't here because we've fought to keep them out... the population is here, the household income is here, the numbers should work but yet they don't come...

somehow, austin, kansas city and colorado springs have managed to deal with the big-box scourge yet remain cool...

limiting the hideous buildings and acres of asphalt is tulsa's task and should not be left up to individual companies regardless of their trade...

do what you want, i don't want to "muddle through" anything, i want to know why we don't have access to the things that other cities have... and those "things" include retailers... i by no means am suggesting these stores are some kind of panacea but i think we should ask why they are not here and if the reason is arcane liquor laws then fix them...

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

^My understanding is that liquor is the most profitable product that grocery stores sell.  The mark up is extremely high.  If you eliminate the most profitable product, it makes sense that a company would not come into this state.  It would be like telling Quicktrip they could no longer sell soda.

And that is their choice.  They still have to comply with state laws.  Oklahoma laws have not stopped Target, KMart, Wal Mart, Sam's Club, and others from doing business here.

Alcohol is an addictive drug.  It merits regulation of sale and availability the same as prescription drugs and narcotics.  It is just that society has made alcohol the social drug of choice and some don't see it as harmless.  Comparing liquor sales to soda sales is not a fair comparison. Although some are "addicted" to soda and it does contribute to overweight health problems, I have never heard of families ruined, lives destroyed, or drivers killed because someone was high on soda.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

^My understanding is that liquor is the most profitable product that grocery stores sell.  The mark up is extremely high.  If you eliminate the most profitable product, it makes sense that a company would not come into this state.  It would be like telling Quicktrip they could no longer sell soda.

And that is their choice.  They still have to comply with state laws.  Oklahoma laws have not stopped Target, KMart, Wal Mart, Sam's Club, and others from doing business here.

Alcohol is an addictive drug.  It merits regulation of sale and availability the same as prescription drugs and narcotics.  It is just that society has made alcohol the social drug of choice and some don't see it as harmless.  Comparing liquor sales to soda sales is not a fair comparison. Although some are "addicted" to soda and it does contribute to overweight health problems, I have never heard of families ruined, lives destroyed, or drivers killed because someone was high on soda.

Yet they can still sell cigarettes in the grocery stores.  Between the two, cigarettes are more dangerous.  Alcohol in moderation can be healthful.  Cigarettes are dangerous at every level, and are dangerous to those nearby.  Let's not pretend that has anything to do with our government's concern with our health--its all about who has the best lobbyist.

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by snopes

Why is it a silly debate Bruno? I can tell the difference between 3.2 and the "other" stuff like night and day. Maybe it IS just me (seriously), but 3.2 tastes like water to me. I travel alot and experience both and I totally stay away from 3.2 if possible.

i'll steal my post from a previous thread...

quote:3.2 beer is a percent of alcohol by mass....

liquor store beer is labeled by volume, and most of that is about 5 percent alcohol by volume... converting from weight to volume you find that the "3.2" beer is really 4 percent alcohol by volume... so it really is a 1% difference it is there but not as big as many people think... there have been taste tests with beer snobs- many of whom would never normally drink one of our common domestic lagers- and they can't tell a difference in the AC...

cause, yeah man, that guinness is weak ****... (all guinness draught/original varities are are 4.0% AC by volume or about 3.2% by weight)...

so yeah, it must be you... but the only way to know is a blind taste test, i'd bet you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 3.2 budweiser and 4.0 budweiser... i've tried, i could not tell the difference...

i love beer and i love people that love beer... i've got a keg at home and literally 15 different varieties of beer including many out-of-state micros/regional that i "import" in.... and every couple of months i brew a corny keg full of one of my own varities...

but ultimately i like beer, all beer... i'd take a weihenstephan dunkel over a michelob and a natty bo over a natural light anyday... but i'll still drink a cold can of old style instead of water, and i'd be happy about it...

Bruno, in Texas they don't sell 3.2, so when I have a beer it's the stronger variety, whether it's by volume or whatever. When I'm in Ok City on business I have had 3.2 beer (of the same brand that I drink at home) and I can tell the difference a mile away. The taste isn't quite as strong, and add to that I've found that only a few of the 3.2 beers the night before give me a really bad headache the next day. So you can lump me in as one of those that can tell the difference.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

^My understanding is that liquor is the most profitable product that grocery stores sell.  The mark up is extremely high.  If you eliminate the most profitable product, it makes sense that a company would not come into this state.  It would be like telling Quicktrip they could no longer sell soda.

And that is their choice.  They still have to comply with state laws.  Oklahoma laws have not stopped Target, KMart, Wal Mart, Sam's Club, and others from doing business here.

Alcohol is an addictive drug.  It merits regulation of sale and availability the same as prescription drugs and narcotics.  It is just that society has made alcohol the social drug of choice and some don't see it as harmless.  Comparing liquor sales to soda sales is not a fair comparison. Although some are "addicted" to soda and it does contribute to overweight health problems, I have never heard of families ruined, lives destroyed, or drivers killed because someone was high on soda.

Yet they can still sell cigarettes in the grocery stores.  Between the two, cigarettes are more dangerous.  Alcohol in moderation can be healthful.  Cigarettes are dangerous at every level, and are dangerous to those nearby.  Let's not pretend that has anything to do with our government's concern with our health--its all about who has the best lobbyist.

I agree with you generally.  (I am both a smoker and a drinker, 2 strikes against me.)  Lobbyists and money drive everything in government and society today.  As far as the original topic of this thread, 3.2 beer, I am not much of a beer drinker so the beer laws don't concern me that much.  I have lived in Tulsa all of my 50 years, so maybe I am just used to "business as usual."
Tobacco and alcohol are both potentially damaging substances, but to the best of my knowledge, tobacco does not impair judgement, dull reflexes, and is not a major contributor to crime like alcohol is.  It is these reasons that I think justify stricter regulation of alcohol sales.  They are both health hazards, no question about that.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by snopes

Why is it a silly debate Bruno? I can tell the difference between 3.2 and the "other" stuff like night and day. Maybe it IS just me (seriously), but 3.2 tastes like water to me. I travel alot and experience both and I totally stay away from 3.2 if possible.

i'll steal my post from a previous thread...

quote:3.2 beer is a percent of alcohol by mass....

liquor store beer is labeled by volume, and most of that is about 5 percent alcohol by volume... converting from weight to volume you find that the "3.2" beer is really 4 percent alcohol by volume... so it really is a 1% difference it is there but not as big as many people think... there have been taste tests with beer snobs- many of whom would never normally drink one of our common domestic lagers- and they can't tell a difference in the AC...

cause, yeah man, that guinness is weak ****... (all guinness draught/original varities are are 4.0% AC by volume or about 3.2% by weight)...

so yeah, it must be you... but the only way to know is a blind taste test, i'd bet you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 3.2 budweiser and 4.0 budweiser... i've tried, i could not tell the difference...

i love beer and i love people that love beer... i've got a keg at home and literally 15 different varieties of beer including many out-of-state micros/regional that i "import" in.... and every couple of months i brew a corny keg full of one of my own varities...

but ultimately i like beer, all beer... i'd take a weihenstephan dunkel over a michelob and a natty bo over a natural light anyday... but i'll still drink a cold can of old style instead of water, and i'd be happy about it...

Bruno, in Texas they don't sell 3.2, so when I have a beer it's the stronger variety, whether it's by volume or whatever. When I'm in Ok City on business I have had 3.2 beer (of the same brand that I drink at home) and I can tell the difference a mile away. The taste isn't quite as strong, and add to that I've found that only a few of the 3.2 beers the night before give me a really bad headache the next day. So you can lump me in as one of those that can tell the difference.

your experience is unique, to say the least, and hard to incorporate into the broader picture of alcohol content, unfermented sugars, conegers, fusel oils and batch variability...

it is an interesting anecdote... i still contend if one participated in a double-blind controlled study, most people would be shocked... because when they've been done, the participants are quite suprised at the results...

[Conan71]

The only way I can tell the differece between 3.2 or stronger beer is how I feel after a 6-pack. [8D]

[snopes]

Ironically, I feel worse after a 6 pack of the weaker stuff (serious).