As an unwavering ambassador of Ohio's youth, I'm sending out a call to arms.  I seriously want to start a petition abolishing state liquor stores, the three-tier system, population-restricted liquor license quantities, and maybe even open container laws.  There's always a ready-made constituency every night at the bars. :) And to everyone else, we can paint it as a way to "stimulate economic activity."  I'd be willing to wager that doing something like this would go a long way to shake off our "Bible belt" image and put the brakes on the incredible exodus of those in their prime.

 

Edit: We should note that most of these statutes we are discussing contain language that has been left substantially unchanged since 1933, the end of Prohibition. The landscape of the state has changed substantially enough since then to warrant re-examination of the rationale behind these laws.

 

Who's with me on this one? Who's against? Let's discuss.

I'd extend bar closing time as well.

And open-container in certain areas would be nice re: the Short North or Ohio State area.

The best thing that could probably happen for consumer choice in Ohio is switching from a "Control" state to a "License" state.

 

Disagree on the elimination of the three tier system.

(1) When you say "abolishing state liquor stores," what do you mean?  Don't we already sell through private vendors?  My most recent liquor purchase was at a Fisher's Foods in Jackson Township near Canton.  Then again, I'm not 100% familiar with the niceties of the current legal regime.

 

(2) What is the "three-tier system?"

 

(3) I'm with you on ending the rationing of allowable liquor licenses by population.  In the alternative, I'd be OK reducing the ratio to one liquor license per 10 residents ...

 

(4) I could be convinced regarding open container laws.  Public intoxication laws work better, anyway--more direct.  The thought of being able to walk around with a beer on the Fourth of July is admittedly appealing.  The thought of a drunk stumbling around with a bottle of Skol, not so much.

Can we get rid of the stupid terrace enclosures at outdoor cafes too?

 

I'm definitely for liberalizing retail sales and distribution of alcohol and getting the state out of the business.  As I age, I'm less enthusiastic about radically liberalizing the granting of liquor licenses to bars, though I'm sure there are many ways the process could be improved.

I agree with abolishing the open container laws.  There are many times when I've wanted to go to Edgewater Park or Settler's Landing just to sit out in the sun and drink a beer.  I still do occasionally, but you need to be discrete about it.  The arbitrary "open container" law is simply unnecessary and ineffective IMO.  Public intox laws should take care of any trouble makers just the same.

 

I'm from a small farm town where we would routinely (as young as 16) go fishing or swimming and drink some beer.  It wasn't a big deal because you were usually around family / adults and if you got out of hand you'd get a good scolding.  A little alcohol makes a hot afternoon much more enjoyable IMO! 

It is important to remember the purpose of our liquor laws isn't to enable the best party possible, it is to ensure the safe (both in terms of safety of the product being consumed and the saftey of the consumer) and temperate consumption of alcohol, promote the general welfare (balancing the equities of communities and those imbibing) ensure consumer choice, and generate revenues for the State of Ohio.

(1) When you say "abolishing state liquor stores," what do you mean?  Don't we already sell through private vendors?  My most recent liquor purchase was at a Fisher's Foods in Jackson Township near Canton.  Then again, I'm not 100% familiar with the niceties of the current legal regime.

Private vendors operate the liquor stores, but the state acts as intermediary distributor for all hard liquor.  The state sets all prices, determines allowable inventory and even store layouts.  And on top of that, only about 400 licenses are outstanding in the state. Basically, the owners of liquor store licenses are guaranteed X% profit based on their store sale volume, which is huge because the stores are so limited in quantity.  Sales on liquor or other promotions are also prohibited.

 

 

(2) What is the "three-tier system?"

Manufacturer-distributor-retailer.  The purchases must all occur in this order. Retailers MAY NOT buy directly from manufacturers, unless it's locally produced wine (I think.)  Distributors serve a useful purpose, but I don't see any reason to force retailers to use them as an intermediary other than to line the distributors' pockets.  This is especially harmful to microbreweries and some wineries.

 

I'd like to hear why you like the three-tier system, thomasbw.

It is important to remember the purpose of our liquor laws isn't to enable the best party possible, it is to ensure the safe (both in terms of safety of the product being consumed and the saftey of the consumer) and temperate consumption of alcohol, promote the general welfare (balancing the equities of communities and those imbibing) ensure consumer choice, and generate revenues for the State of Ohio.

 

It seems to me that the reasoning behind early closing times is to keep drunk drivers off the street in morning hours.  Of course, if we didn't restrict bars through limited license quantities, bars would probably begin to open in clusters, promoting responsibility with respect to drunk driving. (think of it this way: an isolated, suburban bar is probably much more likely to produce a disproportionate number of drunk drivers than those contained within a cluster)

It ensures consumer choice.  Without the three tiered system large producers could apply undue pressure on retailers to exclude other products.  It wouldn't be difficult to imagine a scenario where AB-InBev would buy up tap handles at bars and pay retailers for shelf space.  Small breweries wouldn't be able to compete.

 

It ensures consumer choice.  Without the three tiered system large producers could apply undue pressure on retailers to exclude other products.  It wouldn't be difficult to imagine a scenario where AB-InBev would buy up tap handles at bars and pay retailers for shelf space.  Small breweries wouldn't be able to compete.

 

 

But this already happens with distributors.  Talk to the Great Lakes guys about Holy Moses--it's hardly available on tap in the Cleveland area because their principal distributor is a Coors distributor and will push Blue Moon on the bars and downplay Holy Moses.  Outside of CLE, though, Holy Moses is a really popular tap.

 

Edit: Here's the link for the interview: http://drinkcraftbeer.com/editorial/interviews/great-lakes-brewing-company-interview-with-luke-purcell.html

I strongly support pushing the closing time back to 4am and allowing for liquor sales on Sunday.  I even support lowering the drinking age to 18 or 19, but that's probably not possible because of the way that MADD has ensured that the Federal government blackmail states into having a 21 year old drinking age by threatening to withhold highway funds.

I strongly support pushing the closing time back to 4am and allowing for liquor sales on Sunday. I even support lowering the drinking age to 18 or 19, but that's probably not possible because of the way that MADD has ensured that the Federal government blackmail states into having a 21 year old drinking age by threatening to withhold highway funds.

 

How about this: No restrictions on bar closing in core downtown Cleveland, 4 am latest closing time elsewhere in the state.  The key to safe streets is people, and it still works if they're drunk people.

There are places in Ohio that could become drinking destinations on the level of New Orleans.

 

There were. The Flats were once called "NOLA North" for good reason.  But few remember that the reason why the Flats finally went away was because the mayor sent a crack task-force in to shut down quite a few bars on a single day. They showed up with cops, the fire inspector, and even contractors with lumber and nails to board them up, all at 2 AM.  Sure, it wasn't that nice of a place at the time, but the heavy-handed city government had a big part in making things worse.

 

I think that the more we try to restrict recreational activities in such a heavy-handed way, the more convoluted problems we create for ourselves.  We should take a page out of the western states' books and try to emulate them. If I'm not mistaken, California and Nevada have very liberal liquor laws and their drunk driving rates are the same if not lower than Ohio's (of course, these statistics are heavily influenced by the percentage of population who drinks).

 

    "We have a hardcore relationship culture with a pretty young age of marriage, not to mention people have babies in their 20's. Once someone is married and has kids, their life is never the same."

 

    So that's what our problem is. Too many Ohioans are getting married and having babies in their 20's. That's why you see so few young people around. They are all at home having babies and taking care of the kids.  :-o

 

    This is logical, since age of marriage is coorelated with income. Not only do those Chicagoans and New Yorkers stay single longer, but they also make more money, AND lack the expense of raising children. Maybe there really ARE more singles in Chicago and New York, not only in raw numbers but in proportion to population. And since there are more singles, there is more street life, not because married people are boring, but because they are at home busy with the kids.

 

    I guess if we could get the average income up in Ohio, it would increase the street life!

^

Or appeal to homosexuals by tweaking the laws, e.g. by getting rid of a certain discriminatory constitutional amendment.

 

On top of being hardcore urban pioneers (see: Northside), gays have kids at a lower rate and (consequently?) partake in nightlife at a higher rate.

 

This is one demographic where it is obviously fallacious to claim the primary way to draw them in is with jobs.

I was at Wade Oval Wednesday this past week and there was a barrier around the entire oval that you could drink inside of.  We brought a six pack of dortmunder in and drank on the lawn while listening to music.  This was awesome and should be done more often at other events.

 

This is one demographic where it is obviously fallacious to claim the primary way to draw them in is with jobs.

 

This!! It doesn't only apply to the homosexual culture, either.  People aren't moving to Vegas in droves because of the fantastic job opportunities available. Further, I'd love to see a poll on how many New Yorkers moved to the city before they had landed a job.

 

If we abolished all liquor laws tomorrow, 90% of the population wouldn't even notice a change.  If I lived in the middle of Mayfield Heights and never went anywhere but between the house and work, it would probably be months before I even heard the news.  Neither am I going to move away because I hear that people are drinking at the bars until 4 AM. 

 

We already have a huge contingent of college students who do this stuff illegally anyway. Cops handing out open container tickets in Athens aren't doing a thing to curb drinking.  They should be focusing on making sure everyone has a good time without getting hurt instead. Officially supporting the party towns with liberalized liquor laws would be a real boon to the state in terms of tourism.

 

The bottom line is that a good job is not the only thing in life. People, especially in this country, want to be free to do what they want. Let's let up on punishing victimless crimes and give people a reason to brag about Ohio. 

People are out in public intoxicated all the time. I don't see how that is any different from someone physically holding a beer. It's not like you can easily spot people who have been drinking. Do we really need police to profile random people stumbling on the sidewalk and give them a sobriety test?

 

I used to drink out on the porch at my friend's apartment complex and security would harrass us all the time because we were outside with beer in its original can. They told us it had to be in cup. That's ridicuous, especially when you're on a porch, which is private property. Officers have much bigger fish to fry than making sure that people who are of age don't have open alcohol containers.

Absolutely.

 

The main reason that college drinking in the US is so problematic is the ludicrous age restrictions and "taboo makes me want it" mentalities.  Kids in France and Italy drink as early adolcesents, and you never hear about the kind of dangerous inebriation in their college systems, not like in the US.

 

Plus, if you're mature enough to drive a car at 16, well, then you should be able to decide if you want to drink some overpriced booze as well. 

It is important to remember the purpose of our liquor laws isn't to enable the best party possible, it is to ensure the safe (both in terms of safety of the product being consumed and the saftey of the consumer) and temperate consumption of alcohol, promote the general welfare (balancing the equities of communities and those imbibing) ensure consumer choice, and generate revenues for the State of Ohio.

The revenue part for the state is the bottom line. The system is in place in order for the state to track people like myself and our inventories based on our sales. Every liquor on my shelf is tracked and every sale I make is tracked because they can use those two pieces of information in order to see if I am paying all applicable taxes back to the state. This is why I can not just go to any liquor store to purchase inventory because it would make their auditing nearly impossible. That being said, I am all for what you are proposing in the abolishing of the tiered system. Where do I sign!

Competition between stores and even states would help drive down the cost considerably allowing for price reductions to the end consumer as well. It would allow for me to pass on cost savings and force other bars to do the same as they would have to compete with those who are willing to keep their margins the same as opposed to simply pocketing the difference. This would also allow for greater selection at bars as we have to not just abide by what the state has allowed to be dist.in Ohio, but be limited as well to what our 1 state liq. store has in stock. We routinely buy out the entire stock of specific liq. and have no legal way of getting more for a particular night or weekend. This should change.

 

ensure consumer choice

How does limiting distribution, licensing, hours, container restrictions plus purchase times and place in any way ensure consumer choice? There are tons of liq. I can not sell to you, there are plenty of places you can not consume it, there are times you can not buy it, and there are ways you can not carry it. Choice is not what is being ensured here, control and state's revenue however is. The only choice that is ensured is that of enforcement. If we all agree that some control is good then there are a few that will agree that more control is even better and vise versa.

^Do the same laws apply to wine? When I worked at a restaurant my friends and I would get hooked up with free bottles of wine all the time on my days off. The mark-up on wine is ridiculously high. What people pay for a 30 dollar bottle of wine, the restaurant pays maybe 4-5. That's why they always wanted us to 'upsell'.

 

Another stupid law. No beer sales on Sunday. I couldn't even buy beer on the 4th of July. THAT was crazy! I'm sick of people acting like the world stops on Sundays.

 

The main reason that college drinking in the US is so problematic is the ludicrous age restrictions and "taboo makes me want it" mentalities. Kids in France and Italy drink as early adolcesents, and you never hear about the kind of dangerous inebriation in their college systems, not like in the US.

 

 

I also think that the fact that those students don't live together on or near campus plays a role, and at least in France, it's much less common to entertain guests in your home.  In my experience, young people in Europe do drink (and over drink) plenty, but since they have to do it in bars, clubs, or some other semi-public space, there's more restraint.

 

Another stupid law. No beer sales on Sunday. I couldn't even buy beer on the 4th of July. THAT was crazy! I'm sick of people acting like the world stops on Sundays.

 

I wonder if the state would consider selling special licenses for Sunday beer sales.  That would give bars/restaurants/whatever a choice, and bring in a little extra money at the same time.

^Sunday sales are a "local option" voted on by each individual precinct in Ohio.

Sunday Beer Sales Privileges

 

No C or D permit holder who first applied for a permit after April 15, 1982, shall sell beer on Sunday unless the sale of intoxicating liquor is authorized in the precinct or portion of the precinct under a local option election on the 1:00 p.m. Sunday sales questions (1), (2), or (3) (Form 5-D above), on the 10:00 a.m. Sunday questions (1), (2), or (3) (Form 5-E below), on Sunday sales questions (1), (2), or (3) (1:00 p.m. “Limited Effect” Sunday local options), on questions (1), (2), or (3) (10:00 a.m. “Limited Effect”  Sunday local options, or on Particular Location local option question (2) for the sale of wine and mixed beverages and/or spirituous liquor. No D-6 is required to sell beer on Sundays.

 

Note: With a few exceptions, Ohio law provides for the on-premise or off-premise sale of beer on Sunday by any C or D permit holder without the necessity of a Sunday D-6 license if any Sunday sales questions have been approved in the precinct or portion of the precinct where the permit is so located. The sale of beer on Sunday is also permitted if the C or D class permit was originally applied for prior to April 15, 1982. This “grandfather clause” allows Sunday beer sales by all C or D permit holders in precincts that are otherwise dry for all Sunday sales. Exceptions to this privilege include voter approval for the sale of beer ONLY on Sunday at a Particular Business location within a precinct (Form 5-R), and voter approval of the community facility question (Form 5-S).

http://www.ohioliquoroptions.com/guide/choosing/beer_sales/sunday_beer_priviledges.php

 

www.ohiolocaloptions.com

Open container laws are in place more to keep the trouble confined.  If you can just drink anywhere, then you can conglomerate anywhere...and get into bar fights anywhere.  Being drunk and stumbling to the next bar is one thing, but "loitering" of sorts in a public area is a problem...you would need to employee people (more so than already) to basically clean up public spaces, as you do a bar staff, along with extra security...except who is paying for all of this?

 

Put-in-Bay wouldn't benefit from open container laws.  All bars would be against it anyway.  I mean, why go to a bar when you could just by a bunch of beer from the store and wander around with it?  The Islands are already a huge draw and the number of visitors it brings in each year keeps growing.  I forget the exact statistic, but they've like tripled the number of hotel beds oveer the past 10 years...the Miller Ferry just had to extend a boat 40' for more capacity, the Jet Express went from 1 boat in the fleet to 4, the State of Ohio just finished expanding the Middle Bass Marina doubling it's capacity...tourism is already growing significantly there...drinking in the park isn't going to make it grow any faster...

Open container laws are in place more to keep the trouble confined.  If you can just drink anywhere, then you can conglomerate anywhere...and get into bar fights anywhere.  Being drunk and stumbling to the next bar is one thing, but "loitering" of sorts in a public area is a problem...you would need to employee people (more so than already) to basically clean up public spaces, as you do a bar staff, along with extra security...except who is paying for all of this?

In optimal situations, bar bouncers would keep an eye on the street. It is most certainly not in the best interests of anyone's business to allow fights on the street; it drives customers away.  This is the number one reason why the city streets in general have become more dangerous in the last fifty years-the small businessmen who once monitored their neighborhood have been driven out of business.

Put-in-Bay wouldn't benefit from open container laws.  All bars would be against it anyway.  I mean, why go to a bar when you could just by a bunch of beer from the store and wander around with it?

The point isn’t to make bar owners richer than they already are.  It’s to promote Ohio in general as a destination where freedom is valued and your good times are nobody else’s business unless you harm them.  For example: I cannot begin to tell you what a really poor impression the Highway Patrol creates to out-of-staters whose first or only exposure to the state is watching the red and blue lights on the turnpike.  Issuing traffic tickets does very little for safety but does a lot to create enmity in people’s hearts.  Open container laws serve much the same purpose (it’s more of a revenue-raiser for bars than it is a safety issue).  I am of the firm belief that it’s these types of laws and traditions that do moreto drive people away from this place than any job market or climate problem does.

^Sunday sales are a "local option" voted on by each individual precinct in Ohio.

 

 

I was wondering.  I was just about to say "what's this talk of no beer sales on Sunday?"  Well I guess there IS a valid reason for Cincinnatians to move to Cleveland after all! :)

Ohio law provides for the on-premise or off-premise sale of beer on Sunday by any C or D permit holder without the necessity of a Sunday D-6 license

I do not believe that is true. I have a D1, D2, D3, D3A and a D6. I had to purchase my D3A and D6 because the license I bought was only 1,2 and 3 which limited me from 2:30AM and Sundays. My point being, I had several D class licenses but not necessarily the permit to sell on Sunday. Even now my D6 only allows for the operation between 11AM and Midnight.

In optimal situations, bar bouncers would keep an eye on the street.

I doubt you would find many bar owners or their attorneys who would agree with that. One, the bouncer is paid to protect the patrons and property of the bar and two, taking on of additional liability of sending out an employee outside of the private premises as opposed to calling in the police for public property just doesn't sound like a good idea.

 

In optimal situations, bar bouncers would keep an eye on the street.

I doubt you would find many bar owners or their attorneys who would agree with that.  One, the bouncer is paid to protect the patrons and property of the bar and two, taking on of additional liability of sending out an employee outside of the private premises as opposed to calling in the police for public property just doesn't sound like a good idea.

 

I don't mean to imply that we should shift legal responsibility. It is always in a business owner's financial interest to keep their street safe. A Good Samaritan statute could prevent the kind of legal liability you speak of from accruing. This is a digression, anyway, because I don't believe people drink less because they must do it in bars as opposed to in the park.  Sure, cost is a factor, but it just doesn't seem like most people at the bar are all that concerned about finances.

Open container laws are in place more to keep the trouble confined.  If you can just drink anywhere, then you can conglomerate anywhere...and get into bar fights anywhere.  Being drunk and stumbling to the next bar is one thing, but "loitering" of sorts in a public area is a problem...you would need to employee people (more so than already) to basically clean up public spaces, as you do a bar staff, along with extra security...except who is paying for all of this?

In optimal situations, bar bouncers would keep an eye on the street. It is most certainly not in the best interests of anyone's business to allow fights on the street; it drives customers away.  This is the number one reason why the city streets in general have become more dangerous in the last fifty years-the small businessmen who once monitored their neighborhood have been driven out of business.

Put-in-Bay wouldn't benefit from open container laws.  All bars would be against it anyway.  I mean, why go to a bar when you could just by a bunch of beer from the store and wander around with it?

The point isn’t to make bar owners richer than they already are.  It’s to promote Ohio in general as a destination where freedom is valued and your good times are nobody else’s business unless you harm them.  For example: I cannot begin to tell you what a really poor impression the Highway Patrol creates to out-of-staters whose first or only exposure to the state is watching the red and blue lights on the turnpike.  Issuing traffic tickets does very little for safety but does a lot to create enmity in people’s hearts.  Open container laws serve much the same purpose (it’s more of a revenue-raiser for bars than it is a safety issue).  I am of the firm belief that it’s these types of laws and traditions that do moreto drive people away from this place than any job market or climate problem does.

 

Ohio isn't a place where freedom is valued b/c there are open container laws?  Seems a little dramatic to me.  And security at a bar does keep the immediate area safe, but there's a bit more to it than the space outside of an establishment that might be within influence of an employee there.

 

And like I said, people are flocking to PIB in great numbers now, even though you can't wonder through the street with a beer.

All bars would be against it anyway.  I mean, why go to a bar when you could just by a bunch of beer from the store and wander around with it?

 

Are we talking open container outside of designated areas?  If so I could see where that would be problematic.  If we are talking about open container inside of designated areas then the only bars that would benefit are those within entertainment districts.  Technically this could be, and is done now through F licenses.  They are temporary but you can walk the street within the defined area with beer in hand.

All bars would be against it anyway.  I mean, why go to a bar when you could just by a bunch of beer from the store and wander around with it?

 

Are we talking open container outside of designated areas?  If so I could see where that would be problematic.  If we are talking about open container inside of designated areas then the only bars that would benefit are those within entertainment districts.  Technically this could be, and is done now through F licenses.  They are temporary but you can walk the street within the defined area with beer in hand.

 

Why would we need to designate "drinking areas?"  If I want to drink a bottle of wine with my girlfriend in the park and watch the sunset, is it really such a crime? The only special interest group I'm hurting here is the wine bar--but I'm also helping the wine store, maybe a nice restaurant later, something else. If I become drunk and unruly, certainly tell me to get off public property.  But in the meantime, I'm minding my own business, and why should everyone else not extend me the same courtesy?

 

Personally, I think all laws should be only honored in the breach, but that's far too broad of a topic for this thread.  Drinking laws, however, generate a lot of "victimless crimes" on which we waste precious public safety resources to achieve nothing but annoyance and disturbance of those who otherwise are harming no one.

Well personally I'm pretty ambivalent to all of this, though certainly, changing bar hours from 230am to 430am seems rather easy...

 

but do people honestly think that the reason someone chooses to move somewhere, young or not, is because they can't party or drink enough?  I mean I made it through my early to mid 20's just fine partying at bars and then moving to someones house for "after hours" when the bar closed if we wanted to stay up.

 

I think people move somewhere because it's home, or an area they love, or there's a job they want.  I can't see someone actually factoring in "Yeah well I can drink at the bars until 4:30 in this state, and only 2:30 in this one... I'm moving to the place I can drink more."  In the end where ever you live, you will have as much fun as you allow yourself to.  Every place can be what you make of it.

but do people honestly think that the reason someone chooses to move somewhere, young or not, is because they can't party or drink enough?

 

Look through the trees to the forest. The more seeds we plant, the bigger our forest will grow. This is only a small part of a movement to chop away a tangled jungle full of unreasonable legislation.  "It won't really change anything" is NO excuse to keep an unreasonable law on the books.

 

Every place can be what you make of it.

 

And I'm trying to make it better by liberalizing liquor laws. I'm not one to roll over because the 1933 General Assembly told me to.

like i said go for it. i'll be happy to sign any petition you come up with.  In the end I just really don't think it will make a difference.

Am I the only one who acts MORE civilized after drinking a beer or two? lol

The closing hours are discriminatory against 2nd shift workers.

The distributor system tends to defeat competition, It's really bad in a border town like Cincinnati. There is a ton of hooch you can get in KY that you cannot get in OH.

Why would we need to designate "drinking areas?"

I am all for it. Write it up and I would sign it.

^Sunday sales are a "local option" voted on by each individual precinct in Ohio.

 

 

I was wondering. I was just about to say "what's this talk of no beer sales on Sunday?" Well I guess there IS a valid reason for Cincinnatians to move to Cleveland after all! :)

 

lol I think you can buy beer in Cincinnati on a Sunday.  Almost sure, but not positive.  Besides, even if we can't, there's always Kentucky just 15 mins away.

You can't buy it before 11 am or noon or something on Sundays.  It works fine for me, because that's usually the earliest I'm waking up from my hangover and wanting more beer, anyways.

You can't buy it before 11 am or noon or something on Sundays. It works fine for me, because that's usually the earliest I'm waking up from my hangover and wanting more beer, anyways.

 

Anyone in the STATE can purchase beer on Sunday as early as 11:00 AM - as long as they're holding a D-6 license.

 

I think retail outlets can sell earlier? ... Specifically, Dayton? Can someone chime in ...

 

 

You can't buy it before 11 am or noon or something on Sundays.  It works fine for me, because that's usually the earliest I'm waking up from my hangover and wanting more beer, anyways.

 

Anyone in the STATE can purchase beer on Sunday as early as 11:00 AM - as long as they're holding a D-6 license.

 

I think retail outlets can sell earlier? ... Specifically, Dayton? Can someone chime in ...

 

 

 

I can't buy alcohol at the carryout in my neighborhood on Sunday. I found that out on the 4th of July when I wanted to grab some brews. They had chains around the fridge doors. Total nonsense.

There's a "local option" which allows a township or municipality to vote on whether to allow Sunday liquor sales. I don't think there are any local options in force prohibiting Sunday sales in Cleveland, but Cincy is dangerously closer to the Bible belt...

You can't buy it before 11 am or noon or something on Sundays. It works fine for me, because that's usually the earliest I'm waking up from my hangover and wanting more beer, anyways.

 

Anyone in the STATE can purchase beer on Sunday as early as 11:00 AM - as long as they're holding a D-6 license.

 

I think retail outlets can sell earlier? ... Specifically, Dayton? Can someone chime in ...

 

I think Arrow Wines in Dayton sells earlier than 11am, but I'm not sure.

There's a "local option" which allows a township or municipality to vote on whether to allow Sunday liquor sales. I don't think there are any local options in force prohibiting Sunday sales in Cleveland, but Cincy is dangerously closer to the Bible belt...

 

When I was in Cincinnati one time, in the suburb of Springdale, I was refused the purchase of alcohol on a Sunday afternoon....3ish.  The check-out guy said it was a local law.  Very annoying.   

There's a "local option" which allows a township or municipality to vote on whether to allow Sunday liquor sales. I don't think there are any local options in force prohibiting Sunday sales in Cleveland, but Cincy is dangerously closer to the Bible belt...

 

When I was in Cincinnati one time, in the suburb of Springdale, I was refused the purchase of alcohol on a Sunday afternoon....3ish. The check-out guy said it was a local law. Very annoying.

 

I was in college and one time tried to buy beer at 2am Sunday (Saturday night) and was denied due to local laws.  Very annoying.

 

But then I knew what the law was and adjusted so I didn't have to worry about it.

There's a "local option" which allows a township or municipality to vote on whether to allow Sunday liquor sales. I don't think there are any local options in force prohibiting Sunday sales in Cleveland, but Cincy is dangerously closer to the Bible belt...

 

When I was in Cincinnati one time, in the suburb of Springdale, I was refused the purchase of alcohol on a Sunday afternoon....3ish. The check-out guy said it was a local law. Very annoying.

 

I was in college and one time tried to buy beer at 2am Sunday (Saturday night) and was denied due to local laws. Very annoying.

 

But then I knew what the law was and adjusted so I didn't have to worry about it.

 

Still doesn't mean that it's OK to have a law like that. If the legislator asks me, "what business do you have buying beer at 2 a.m. on a Sunday," my response is, "that isn't, and shouldn't be, any of your business."

As an unwavering ambassador of Ohio's youth, I'm sending out a call to arms.  I seriously want to start a petition abolishing state liquor stores, the three-tier system, population-restricted liquor license quantities, and maybe even open container laws.  There's always a ready-made constituency every night at the bars. :) And to everyone else, we can paint it as a way to "stimulate economic activity."  I'd be willing to wager that doing something like this would go a long way to shake off our "Bible belt" image and put the brakes on the incredible exodus of those in their prime.

 

Edit: We should note that most of these statutes we are discussing contain language that has been left substantially unchanged since 1933, the end of Prohibition. The landscape of the state has changed substantially enough since then to warrant re-examination of the rationale behind these laws.

 

Who's with me on this one? Who's against? Let's discuss.

 

Agree 100%.  Can we abolish the drinking age at the same time please!

^To maintain the same level of Federal contributions to our highway funds, we (and every other state) has to maintain a drinking age of 21 or over.