Deseret News | Don't demonize alcohol

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Don't demonize alcohol

103 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

mamapapaluv | 2:12 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Welcome to Utah, the theocracy.

waynedew | 7:10 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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.

Andy Gruber | 7:12 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 8:20 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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?

fr1nk | 8:37 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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.

To: What's the problem | 8:51 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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.

my two cents | 8:55 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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.

Mike | 8:57 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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.

Anonymous | 9:09 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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

Gopherus | 9:11 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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?

Mc | 9:12 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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.

AdjustableSpanner | 10:03 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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.

willie | 10:24 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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

Re:Gopherus | 10:26 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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?

SD | 10:34 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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!

suomynonA | 10:42 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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?

Shawn | 11:07 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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.

Gopherus | 11:08 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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.

Rudy | 11:29 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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?

Alcohol does the job | 11:59 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

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

2 bits | 12:36 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I really don't think most people in Utah care about the Alcohol laws. It's the legislature that thinks it needs to go overboard legislating everything to do with liquor.

Many just assume the LDS church leaders are on the phone all the time telling the legislature what to do with the state liquor laws but if you ask any legislator you can verify that is false.

I think many legislators just assume the church or most of their constituents want more restrictive liquor laws, so they push them (it's an issue in their own mind).

As long as it's used responsibly and not in our face all the time or being marketed to our kids I think most people are happy. I don't drink, what do I care?

Jud | 12:39 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I'd lots rather live in Utah where there's only 1 DUI arrest per 300 people than in WY where there's 1 per 114. I'm only one third as likely to get killed by a stupid drunk.

Anonymous | 12:43 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I can see from the comments above that the priorities of the LDS church go something like this: Oppose alcohol, tobacco and homosexuality! Oh, and if any time remains try to be good to one another.

Anonymous | 12:51 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Mc, I've traveled extensively throughout the U.S. including the Bible Belt. One thing I've noticed is that the metro areas within the Bible Belt are ostensibly more liberal than SLC in spite of the extremely conservative areas elsewhere in that region. This differs from Utah because our whole state is constrained by the extremely conservative areas outside of SLC. If laws were more localized, each area could be governed by rules that reflect the will of the citizenry and the disdain for LDS influence in local government would be greatly reduced.

willie | 12:57 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

it appears that the church types are impaired, too much religion can impair rational thought.

Re 2 bits | 1:20 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

It has been documented over and over that the LDS church does take an official stand on alcohol bills and issues. They do meet with governors and legislative leaders and express their stance on proposed bills dealing with alcohol.

To imply that this practice doesn't happen is disingenuous.

Mahershalalhashbaz | 1:26 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

To WIllie: "religious wackos really pick some unimportant things to debate." If so unimportant, why did you enter the debate? And if it's so unimportant, why so many debating the religious wackos? There would be no debate if there weren't so many non religious wackos.

2 Willie... | 1:34 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Just what are these "church types" you talk of?

Sounds like someone is making some pretty broad generalizations to me.

Mike | 1:42 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Sarcasm has its place, but when it is used to replace logic in post after post, a rational thinker would begin to wonder whether the sarcastic writer could ever make a valid point.

Alcohol in most forms is available at the State Liquor Stores. Alcohol in some forms is available at the gas station and the grocery store. Being able to buy alcohol is not the question. Being able to buy all forms of alcohol at any store is the question.

Those who say that they've traveled far and wide and then say that Utah has the most restrictive alcohol laws have neither traveled far nor wide. "Some" states have more lenient alcohol laws. "Some" states have more strict alcohol laws. The one thing that is constant is that people will complain about alcohol laws no matter where they are.

What do you really want, a gift bottle of booze as you cross the state line, just to show that our alcohol laws are liberal?

Wesley | 1:47 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I grew up watching folks drink alcohol all the time, and I ended up drunk for 20 years. So that argument argument doesn't hold up. Alcohol is one of Satan's most effective tools. It hits people from every direction. The world would be a much better place without it. I've watched this garbage destroy many lives, including my own.

Anonymous | 2:10 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Mike, out of curiosity, in your far and wide travels where have you found more restrictive laws than Utah?

Personally, I can deal with the liquor store concept, the private club issue and the numerous inconsistencies in availability in various restaurants, etc. But after jumping through all these hoops, you find that it is not possible to order a good drink. It's against the law to make a drink that contains enough of the primary liquor to make it worth ordering. That, if nothing else needs to change.

Anonymous | 2:13 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Bring back prohibition!
It worked like a charm last time.
Just make it illegal and that should do the trick.

formerCoorsman | 2:55 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Actually, there are many dry counties across the south and midwest parts of the United States. Perhaps you drunks need to sober up and do a little research before blaming everything on Mormons. Alcohol is the preferred drink of demons everywhere.

Mike | 3:16 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

To Anonymous (2:10 p.m.),
So you want a 'good' drink? Have you ever tried 'water'. It's refreshing and has very few side-effects.

If you're not a traveler and have no first-hand knowledge of liquor laws, then just do a Google search and you'll be amazed at what you find.

My personal experience has been overhearing comments in airports all over America from people who couldn't wait to get airborne so that they could finally buy a drink because liquor didn't flow from the water fountains in whatever state we were in. I've eaten in many restaurants throughout the United States when some drunk-wannabe loudly demanded a second or third drink with his meal. When the waiter tried to politely tell him that they could only serve one or two drinks per meal, the drunk-wannabe would get loud and vocal, showing his verbal skills at embarrassing himself.

From your post, it appears that you want a large quantity of liquor in every drink. Why in the world would anyone want to go through life impaired? Why would anyone equate quantity of alcohol consumed to quality of life?

Anonymous | 3:36 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

formerCoorsman, have you ever been to any of these dry counties? Not exactly the pinacle of the civilized world now are they?

Barry | 3:41 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Let's see . . . Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, . . . more examples of restrictive drinking laws? Let's look at our college campuses . . . now there are some responsible drinkers. How's about the guys that live on the streets? I know that not all of them are alchies, but there are a lot of them. Yeah, everybody that drinks, does so responsibly. How about a couple of our beloved politicians? Ted Kennedy is very responsible when he drinks. He was so responsible that he drove off of a bridge, into a river, and allowed his girl-friend to sit in the car while he went into town to sober-up. Trouble is, that Mary Jo had to wait several hours, under water for Teddy to get sober and call the police. Yeah! There are a lot of responsible drinkers. Hey, the Super Bowl is coming up. . . how many cold cases of the brew are going to be sold, and finished off, one after another, after another, after an. . . you get my drift. Alcohol, despite the damage to brain cells, is the drink of responsible people.

Anonymous | 3:51 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Uh-Oh!
Mike thinks its his business to tell people what they should or should not drink.
Lot's of that sort of thing going around today - isn't there?

Anonymous | 4:01 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I think Mike needs a drink.

suomynonA | 4:07 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

More great commentary from Anonymous.... if you have traveled as you say they you wouldn't be asking the silly questions because you'd already know the answers.

But now that we all know you are heavily into drinking, that explains all of your responses.

Thanks for clearing that up!

Anonymous | 4:23 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Mike, your travel experience is less impressive than you seem to think. Airports... Well I guess it's something at least.

First of all, I probably drink more water than anything else. Surprise!

Secondly, what do you care if I choose to have a drink or not as long as I'm responsible about it?

I'm guessing that you've never enjoyed a drink so whatever I have to say about its pleasurable qualities would be lost on you much as whatever floats your boat would be lost on me. Can we just live and let live?

Mike | 4:26 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

To Anonymous (3:51 p.m.),

re: My post of 1:42 p.m.

If you have no personal experience with travel you can look up the facts. Anyone can say anything he wants to say, but facts are facts. Look them up. You'll have knowledge on your side next time you post.

Other than, "It feels so good when I can't remember my name", can anyone give one single valid reason for drinking? One single valid reason means that there is no other single alternative.

Joe | 4:42 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Mike, I don't understand the appeal of your particular religion. Shall I lobby against it every chance I get?

Barry, such an amazingly well thought out diatribe. Maybe you should run for office, we need more knee-jerk decisions on the hill.

Anonymous | 4:59 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Mike, your attitude is typical of non-drinkers. You can't imagine that it is possible to enjoy a good drink (or two) without becoming a slobbering fool.

What I enjoy about it is that it helps me relax (I tend to be a bit of a type A personality) and it helps me socialize (I also tend to be a little withdrawn). I also tend to be intellectual and creative which I hope offsets the undesirable tendencies.

I suppose I could turn to prescription medications for these personality traits but they'd be much more expensive and who knows what side effects there would be to deal with?

Mike | 5:04 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Joe,
Religion relates to one's belief in God. Theology relates to one's belief in a particular God. Religion, as you have used the word, has no relationship to God. You may not agree with my ideas, but to confuse religion with ideas about alcohol shows contempt for religion in general.

In the correct context, to lobby against religion is to lobby against God. Is that what you desire to do?

Anonymous | 5:15 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

The way I see it is that I don't think Jesus Christ changed all that plain water into fine wine to serve the guests at the wedding feast just so the guests would NOT have a good time. (And please don't try to tell me it was 3-2 wine or Welchade.
Lighten up Mike.
Getting a little alcohol buzz now and then is not as demonic as you might think it is.

Mike | 5:21 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

To Anonymous (4:59 p.m.),

So, non-drinkers are delegated to a 'class'. Would that 'class' be similar to, 'poor' or 'upper'? Or, would that 'class' be 'uneducated' or ' educated'? Or, would that 'class' be 'informed' or 'uninformed'?

If I've read your post correctly, only alcohol or prescription medications can give you relief. Is that what you meant to write?

I also tend to be withdrawn, to the point that my wife sometimes has to remind me, when I'm in a group, that I'm mingling with interesting people. What I've found is that if I stop focusing on myself, and start focusing on others, that conversation comes and I stop wanting to hide in a corner.

There are many ways to 'loosen up'. Alcohol and drugs don't need to be the 'cure'.

To Mike | 6:52 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

You also have a way of delegating people that do drink alcoholic beverages into classes. You tend to lump them into a lower class of human.
I'll admit to having a drink once in a while. I have a wife and son. My son does very well in school. He has many offers for college. I hold down a very well paying job. I'm not a slobbering, toothless fool. I am religious and help my neighbors out (those who will talk to me since I am not LDS).
I think the real issue is the lack of respect given to those of us who are not part of the LDS church by some factions within the church, and the fact that some in the LDS community feels that they need to look out for my well being.

It's due to this repressiveness and nievity that Utah County is having the problems they do with hardcore drugs.

Anonymous | 7:47 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I figure if Jesus Christ and his friends drank alcohol (I'm sure in moderation) then so will I.
But thanks for sharing your personal life with us, Mike.

Mike | 7:50 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

This is curious. From what I'm reading, the LDS Church is driving people to drink, but then makes the Utah State Legislature pass laws that make it hard to get a drink!

I'm only writing this partially in jest. To think that anyone or anything, except ourself, controls our emotions is false. If I'm upset, I have no one to blame but myself. Only I can make myself upset.

Anyone can find an excuse to do whatever he wishes to do, including drinking. If we decide to drink to solve our problems, then alcohol is not the problem, we are the problem. We need to fix whatever ails us. Drugs won't fix anything and alcohol won't fix anything.

How we think of ourselves reveals a great deal. If someone thinks that "I don't belong to 'that' church, so I'm an outsider and 'they' are making me unhappy", then I know that the problem is not 'that' church or 'those' people. The problem lies within he who is finding an excuse to disassociate himself from his neighbors and his society. The 'church' is not a sanctuary for saints, but a hospital for sinners. Everyone is welcome.

Lisa | 8:45 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Mike, maybe you are a great neighbor who loves everyone, but there are plenty of other LDS members who will not associate with you or let their children associate with your children if not a member. Especially if they see you with a beer or a bottle of wine. That is a fact of "those people" in "that church".

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

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.