Deseret News | Put alco-pops in liquor stores

Reader comments
Put alco-pops in liquor stores

Girls in | 2:02 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

chastity belts? you stop pregant girls. Why do we not back to this thinking?
Problem solved.

Moderate drinker | 7:17 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

This is an FYI for people not familiar with alcohol products and customs of usage.
"Coolers" have been around for decades. I have never seen them advertised to children. They were intended for women, as an alternative to beer as an item in BBQ coolers. They are generally served as a courtesy to adult guests who may not like beer at parties. A relative of mine owns a pub in another state and has them on hand for this purpose in addition to hard cider and a variety of beers on tap. The panic that they are the equivalent of candy cigarettes and only exist to entice children is recent compared to the number of years they have been around- I first heard this theory coming from ultra liberals in California. I was surprised to hear their rallying cry picked up by conservatives here. I can only assume that it has gained momentum because a number of non drinkers are not familiar with the products or usage. To one familiar with them, the hysteria is starting to smack of "Reefer Madness".

Vodka is cheaper! | 8:00 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

What is wrong with young people these days? Why can't they drink vodka and Koolaid like we did when I was young? I am so glad that we are going to start sending them to liquor stores where they can expand their horizons!

Comments continue below

Over the Top | 8:11 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

I'm no fan of cigarettes, but decribing the habit as "morally despicable" is plain dumb on your part. How you link morals with tobacco smoke is beyond me. Until now I never knew the Marlboro Man was stepping out on Miss Virginia Slim. Make your points, but please don't be so so anxious to--moralize.

Former Utahn | 8:40 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

The proposed legislation would due little to reduce underage drinking but yet would be an even greater inconvenience for those that chose to drink. Current state law only allows for 36 liquor stores in the entire state, which is an absurdly low number to adequately serve the Utah populace, especially in rapidly growing communities such as St George. Without changes to Utah liquor laws that would permit a sufficient number of stores to meet demand in a convenient manner the proposed legislation would only cause resentment of both the State and the majority population that appears to be imposing its own morality. Moving the so call ï¿½alco-popsï¿½ without dramatically increasing the number of liquor stores will be much more effective at widening the Mormon/non-Mormon divide than curbing underage drinking if implemented as currently proposed.

Earl in Ogden | 8:43 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

While I'm very much opposed to underage-drinking, until I see hard data on this issue, I feel that certain state politicians are desperate for an "issue". They want the voting-public to see their "worth" in order to justify their positions. Since the majority of the state's predominate religion is opposed to any kind of alcohol, what better way to start a "panic" and get the public on their side. What a shame.

Richard G. | 8:56 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

Here we go again: another instrusion into matters of state by the busybody Church Lady Newspaper. Keep your morals off of my laws. This is why Mitt will go down in flames -- everybody knows Mormons have to foist their beliefs on everybody else.

John | 9:57 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

Perhaps the difference is that if used moderately, alcohol does not kill you - cigarettes do.

Matthew | 10:00 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

Terrible terrible idea.. this was reported on KUTV last night.

Grocery stores do NOT sell to minors it's against the law, this stuff has the same alchohol content as beer. LDS church needs to get a grip and butt out.

AdjustableSpanner | 10:19 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

One cannot support government-run monopolies such as state-run liquor stores and still be legitimately seen as even vaguely conservative.

Thanks to the DesNews for acknowledging its extremist liberal tendencies.

uncannygunman | 10:24 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

Boooo!

Did you ever think that this bill might hurt kids more than it helps them? If I'm an 18-year-old with a penchant for sweet drinks, I'm just going to get my 21-year-old buddy to go to the liquor store rather than the grocery store. And when I do, I'm probably going to spend my $10 on an actual bottle of vodka (26 ounces of booze) rather than a six-pack of watered-down premixed drinks (six ounces of booze). Believe me, if kids are going to drink (and they are), you would much rather have them drinking premixed hard lemonade than mixing their own!

You call them "alco-pops," I call them "safety-shots."

Get a life! | 10:28 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

It's alright to market cars that can travel at 200 mph, motorcycles that run a quarter mile in nine seconds but don't sell a legal product to adults who must show proof of age to buy it?

The owners of the Deseret News are silent of retreat mining that murders miners but they speak loudly on this?

I think the LDS Church as real selective priorities.

It's funny | 11:01 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

Funny how comments are liberaly spattered with "morals" and "majority religion" and grossly short on any facts.

Alcohol damages teen-aged brains. This is not (just) a moral issue, rather it is simple facts supported by study after study after study.

Doing something that promotes public health, safety, and welfare should be supported liberally and conservatively. It should not used solely as a bully-pulpit to voice perceived slights at the hands of others.

AdjustableSpanner | 11:03 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

Moving the so-called alco-pops (a ridiculous misnomer) to liquor stores will have zero effect on underage drinking. Far more effective - and more in line with conservative free market solutions - would be to privatize liquor sales. There is little incentive for the clerks in state liquor stores to enforce laws, particularly the law against a person of legal age buying for a minor. What's the worst that could happen to the clerk - they could lose their barely above minimum wage job? A privately owned liquor store - or a supermarket with a liquor license - can be subject to both significant fines and penalties, and loss of their license, which means further loss of profit.

Utah needs to embrace the conservative, free market solution to liquor sales. It will go much farther in solving the problems than any solution imposed by the government.

jr | 11:19 a.m. Jan. 19, 2008

Put all booze in the liquor store then the state government can make moogoo bucks but it ain't going to stop teenagers getting to it. Prohibition doesn't work, we can look to the past for that, it did help the Kennedys get rich but lets face it folks, if kids want to drink, have sex, whatever they will always find a way. Laws and more laws will never solve the problem - hell you can kill a half a family because you were drinking under age and you don't have to tell who gave it to you. You can be forgiven so whats the big deal? Many a good "mo" enjoys a drink like the rest of the world, time to face reality lawmakers

Moderate drinker | 12:40 p.m. Jan. 19, 2008

To It's funny: in order to ingest enough alcohol via 3.2% coolers to be drunk, one would have to drink so many of them that one's bladder would be uncomfortably full even with frequent bathroom trips and one would be verging on being waterlogged. They're not cheap- getting drunk on 3.2 would be an expensive enterprise. When "binge drinking" of the sort that involves brain damage is referred to, it generally involves hard liquor that is 40% alcohol or even higher, not 3.2%. You'd have to drink the entire six pack of 3.2% to even feel a mild buzz, and even then, you'd feel compelled to stop because your stomach feels waterlogged and you'd be sloshing. Binge drinking is done with things that take small amounts to get you drunk, mixed with just enough of something else to get it down, not sipping coolers. The coolers moved to the liquor store will have a higher alcohol content than 3.2- the 3.2 is only to get them in the stores.

Former Utahn | 1:35 p.m. Jan. 19, 2008

To It's funny: No one is disputing the promotion public health, safety, and welfare. Most people with practical experience of underage drinking dispute the efficacy of moving wine coolers "alco-pops" to liquor stores into prevent binge drinking which you cite as the primary health risk to teens. Such a policy would marginally reduce teen drink but would likely not reduce binge drinking since most binge drinkers use hard alcohol, as summarized by moderate drinker. When you promote a policy with perceived limited benefits that inconveniences of-age adults, you will have political blow back as seen by most posts. The best solution maybe to move all alcohol to liquor stores but privatize them and allow sufficient numbers of stores that people can grab a bottle of wine at the liquor store which is just across the parking lot from the grocery store.

Blinking Light | 10:21 p.m. Jan. 19, 2008

To former Utahn: I dispute the public health, safety and welfare benefits. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic didn't keep it afloat. Moving flavored beers into state liquor stores will inconvenience adults and probably increase tax revenue, but will have no other effects.

Okay, maybe ONE more - the state liquor stores will sell stronger versions of these drinks, not the wimpy 3.2 type.

Anonymous | 10:40 p.m. Jan. 19, 2008

If cigarettes are despicable, how come they stay in the stores currently selling coolers? One at a time, with no fanfare, they will take far more poeple and ruin far more families than coolers.
This is hypocrisy. We ignore real problems in favour of the church propaganda line.
Grow up and exist in society, or get out.

KW | 9:23 a.m. Jan. 20, 2008

Let's be honest. All my experiences with alcohol have been second hand and they've made me completely unsympathetic. When I was in kindergarten, my mom babysat a friend's child every day after his mother and sister had been killed by a drunk driver so his dad could continue working.

There's a marker in my high school for the two girls who died in a drunk driving accident in our senior year. The younger brother of a very close friend died the same way. When I was a child, four drunk teens came speeding down our street and (fortunately) crashed into a tree instead of a person. Two of them fled the scene. The other two were too drunk to get out of the car.

And, in a life or death situation, I was nearly killed because a hospital tolerated one of its doctors coming to work drunk.

So, I have zero sympathy for companies that want to get kids hooked on alcohol before they're old enough to know better. What's the point?

evensteven | 9:25 a.m. Jan. 20, 2008

People are going to speed so why have laws against it, even in school zones? People are going to drive drunk so why have laws against it? People are going to abuse drugs so why have laws against it? People are going to traffic in porn so why have laws against it? Multiple women may want to marry the same man so why have laws against it?

The logic of the opposition to this move is, well, illogical. "Their gonna do it so why try to prevent it?" "A little bit won't hurt anything. What's the big deal?" "Only pruds would favor this."

This law may or may not be 'good', but the measure of that is how well it achieves its intended goal of reducing the access and use of alcohol by underage drinkers; and a reduction of the perception that underage drinking is a normal and acceptable part of life.

The simple fact is that the easier it is to get something, the more of it is gotten. This law attempts to make getting alcohol by minors more difficult, which IMHO, is a worthy public policy goal.

To Evensteven | 7:48 p.m. Jan. 22, 2008

There is a law in place for underage drinking and purchasing. They're not getting it from the grocery stores, they're getting it from home or older friends. Moving it isn't going to do anything.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.