State Questions

[OKCHunter]

SQ 792

Being in the alcohol industry, I'm against it. We can get refrigeration without all the BS that is stuffed into this question. This bill will directly cause an increase in price in ALMOST all alcoholic beverages, due to changing our distribution system by reducing competition. Currently, retailers and restaurants can buy any product from up to 9 wholesalers 5 days a week. This bill will enable franchising- meaning they will have to get specific products from specific wholesalers, on likely specified days that they can deliver to you.
-The argument of bringing in more breweries is mute (if the brewery wanted to be in OK, they would be here).
-The argument of creating jobs is mute as well, as it's very possible 100-200 locally owned and operated liquor will go out of business.
-Allowing local wineries to ship out of state. I'm fine with, however, I fail to see how that will really help them. Do you go to your local store looking for wines from Kansas, Colorado, etc.

You seem to have knowledge of this question so I thought I'd ask a question. I haven't read the measure, yet, but the last sentence of your post intrigues me. If wineries are allowed to ship out of state will out of state wineries be allowed to ship to individuals in state?

 

[marvin]

You seem to have knowledge of this question so I thought I'd ask a question. I haven't read the measure, yet, but the last sentence of your post intrigues me. If wineries are allowed to ship out of state will out of state wineries be allowed to ship to individuals in state?

I am not entirely sure, but from what I understand this measure only concerns shipments for local wineries...

 

[tomthebaker]

I sure would like to be able to buy wine and strong beer at the grocery store, like they do in many states.

 

[mr ed]

You seem to have knowledge of this question so I thought I'd ask a question. I haven't read the measure, yet, but the last sentence of your post intrigues me. If wineries are allowed to ship out of state will out of state wineries be allowed to ship to individuals in state?

shipping in/out of state is for distributors not individuals.

 

[Decoligny]

I meant to say when you leave the store. As in every business will have to hire guards to search bags, packs, purses for merchandise.
It is bad enough the DA won't prosecute theft under $400. Now they want to raise that to $1000.
Hell, the police won't even come out unless its a really big theft. Let alone haul the perp to jail.
Big box stores can absorb the losses for a while. but a couple good grab and runs could put the little guy out of business.

Anyone attempting to search any of my bags when leaving a store will be meet with a stern "Hell no, you can't look in my bag" and if they try to physically force a search, I would defend myself from what is essentially an assault, with physical resistance. They will need to call the police and try to charge me with theft, because nobody, and I mean NOBODY is going to search me without probable cause or a warrant.

 

[OKCHunter]

shipping in/out of state is for distributors not individuals.

Thanks. That is the only change in Liquor law I care about. I don't mind buying at liquor stores but really hate that I can't have wine shipped to me direct from the winery. There are so many good wines that we can't / don't get in OK.

 

[YukonGlocker]

This may be helpful: http://www.skepticink.com/gps/2016/10/20/gps-guide-2016-oklahoma-election/

 

[rawhide]

There is one line that says why we shouldn't vote yes on 777. Its the line where it says, "The Legislature shall pass no law which abridges the right of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest."

I ask what is a compelling state interest? No such interest is listed in this proposed amendment. There are not even any parameters listed. It's an open ended grab for power masked in florid prose.

As an example of what a 'compelling state interest' could be is a measure that would shut down farming of any section of land that the legislature would gain more tax from if it were divided up into house lots. It brings the Kelo v. City of New London to mind. Don't fall for this blatant grab for extended legislative power.

Woody

Laws in effect prior to 2015 will not be affected. Future laws will require the state to show a very important state interest to be able to further restrict or regulate agriculture. The question will be any laws passed after 2014 and before 779 would take effect. I think it is worth noting that much of the funding combatting 779 comes from the same interest that would also like to restrict your hunting.

 

[scube]

Anyone attempting to search any of my bags when leaving a store will be meet with a stern "Hell no, you can't look in my bag" and if they try to physically force a search, I would defend myself from what is essentially an assault, with physical resistance. They will need to call the police and try to charge me with theft, because nobody, and I mean NOBODY is going to search me without probable cause or a warrant.

This. Walking out of Walmart with some bags and something too big,

Greeter: "may I see your receipt sir"
Me: no thanks
Greeter: but I need to see your receipt.
Me: no, this is mine. I do not need to prove to you it's mine. If you are accusing me of stealing it, call the police. Have a nice day.
Greeter: blank stare

 

[KOPBET]

This. Walking out of Walmart with some bags and something too big,

Greeter: "may I see your receipt sir"
Me: no thanks
Greeter: but I need to see your receipt.
Me: no, this is mine. I do not need to prove to you it's mine. If you are accusing me of stealing it, call the police. Have a nice day.
Greeter: blank stare

Really? I've never been asked for a receipt at Walmart by a greeter.