Reader comments
Don't demonize alcohol

Welcome to Utah, the theocracy.

This is why many people have trouble with the prospect of a Mitt Romney Presidency. Clearly the LDS Church does not hesitate to impose its will on its followers. State legislators dare not oppose a church mandate--how can anyone believe a President Romney would be any different? This is hardly the first--and no doubt not the last time--the Church has used its clout to influence legislation. In this case certainly needlessly.

Nah, let's stick with the current strategy, hiding, prohibiting and banning our way to freedom. It's a way better strategy to prepare young people for the world than having them develop their own skills to cope with reality.

Good grief. Whenever there is a serious accident, the first question we ask is " Was alcohol involved?" More often that not it is. Are we wrong to try to limit its availability?

I know it is about "responsible use," but clearly as a society we are not able to police responsible use.

Making it harder to get, especially for young people is for our protection. It is and will still be available to those who qualify under the law....

What's the problem?

The main problem with the "alcopops" debate is the groups trying to move them out of the grocery stores have (apparently) absolutely no idea how minors GET alcohol. Moving them will do NOTHING, unless you like them and dont have a state store nearby. Minors who want to drink will drink anything.

Raise your children the way you want. Keep them locked away. Give them no coping tools for anything. They'll be completely unprepared to live in the world. It's your choice.

But don't make my choices for me. I showed my kids the respect of assuming they had working brains. And guess what? They grew up to be responsible adults and responsible drinkers.

waynedew, you can't resonably see Harry Reid voting against the marraige amendment, that the church lobbied for, and still state that every LDS elected official will bow to the wishes of the church.

Steve, if you will look through the last couple of days of coverage of the legislature, you will see that a bill lowering taxes on certain alcoholic beverages easily passed a committee, so there is the possibility of action both ways on alcohol. Not exactly a monolithic approach.

Asking some people to handle alcohol responsibly only brings a curious look to their face. The highly acclaimed author, Stephen King, wrote about his alcohol addition in his book, "On Writing". On page 95 of the book, King tells this story:

>

Say what you want about moderation. Say what you want about "proper training". For some people it just does not work.

How many people, who drive drunk and end up in an accident, told themselves, "I'm too drunk to drive, so I'd better get someone to drive me home."?

Clever marketing by the alcohol industry should mean greater caution on the part of those who sell alcohol. The very idea that beer and low-alcohol beverages should be kept in a cooler at the gas station and the grocery store is absurd. No alcohol should be ready-to-drink as it leaves the store. If someone can't wait until he can cool the drink to the desired temperature, he's got a real problem with alcohol.

Anytime the Utah legislature does anything it's "for the kids". I'd occasionally like some representation as an adult.

Anonymous,
You are wrong. I just looked at stats in Utah for automotive fatalities. The highest percentage ever recorded as linked to alcohol was 44% in 1984. That is below half. It has declined drastically with education and enforcement and was 13% in 2005 (the last year with data in the analysis). I'd love to post the site but the DesNews doesn't want any URLs. Google utah traffic accidents alcohol.
So, now that we know you are incorrect what is your take on this?

When people criticise the LDS church for taking stands on issues the church cares about, you can tell they haven't lived in areas where the Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, or other denominations are strong. These other churches have as much or more influence on their communities and lawmakers as the LDS Church has here. The only difference is that they receive more respect for their efforts than the LDS Church does here. There is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about a Church lobbying for or against issues that affect the safety and well-being of our society.

All the manufacturers would need to do is rebrand them as flavored beers and they'd be right back where they are. Despite some claims to the contrary, these beverages do NOT contain any 'spiritous liquor' as defined by the state of Utah.

The current proposal inconveniences adults and promotes bootlegging (bringing the drinks in from stores outside Utah). It does go a long way toward insuring that your teenagers who want to drink will give money to their 21 year old friends to buy them 90 proof vodka from the state liquor staore instead of 3.2% beer from the market.

religious wackos really pick some unimportant things to debate. Where else besides the "peoples theocratic republic of Utah" would this be an issue?

The alcohol fatality death rate in Utah for 2006 was 24%.. significantly higher than the 13% you quoted for 2005.

I haven't yet found the percentage for 2007. Not sure if it's been released.

But even 13% is too high. I think we have a problem even at 1%. What if that 1% was YOUR mother, sister, daughter, wife or close friend?

The people that think: " because there is a problem with one person or event, then the object involved must be banned", has been subjected to the rules governing children. "one kid sticks his gum under his desk, so no one can chew gum". This is a mentality that has surfaced in our generation and has helped foster the devide in our society. It flies in the face of freedom. We must deal with the individuals and not the object!

The live and let live crowd is out today. We all understand that as long as we 'expose' the children to it early enough, there won't be any problems, right?
Let's follow California and introduce homosexuality as a great lifestyle to kids in kindergarten. Now that's progressive!

I also love the disclaimer on every beer commercial, "please drink responsibly". Yep, people will follow that thought, NOT!

All of you libbies on these pages can Eat, Drink and be Merry until you interfere with my life. I don't need drunks on the roads, and yes that means you who think just a little won't impair my abilities. Go see the studies, you are impaired!

sorry, but this is really a no-brainer for those who can think for the greater good of society; and not the ultimate exposure of all of life's vices to young children. Really, what kind of thinking is that?

I absolutely do not understand the logic behind moving alcopops to liqour stores. To all of you teetollers on this page I'm not sure if you realize this but in addition to doubling the commute if APs are moved to the liqour store, the alcohol content will double as well.

I don't think that moving alcopops to the state liquor stores will decrease driving under the influence. If I did I'd support this. Even prohibition didn't work, in fact it actually produced more crime. I don't think that this small step will have that effect, but it won't have a positive effect either. It might increase bootlegging. Most drinkers already do this simply because the law is unjust and we should be able to transport liquor across state lines in a free nation. I rarely drink and therefore rarely purchase liquor, but I've bootlegged and will do it again. The last alcohol I purchased as at a Trader Joe's in Las Vegas. Our silly laws prevent us from having a Trader Joe's, but they won't stop me from shopping there when I am out of state.
My gripe about this legislation is that it won't do anything positive. Everyone who drank as a teen knows that. People who haven't been there simply don't know what the problem is really like and are therefore lacking in ideas to solve the problem. If we want them to solve problems the liquor board should be made of former juvenile delinquents.

I am sure all these people who are in favor of taking wine coolers out of stores would also be in favor of having state run gun and ammo stores.

Guns kill people just like alcohol, but the state doesn't punish all gun owners just because a person killed someone with it.

So why should the state punish the majority of law abiding citzens who consume the malt beverages just because some teens consume them?

Um, I think alcohol does a good enough job of "demonizing" itself.