Quantcast

Comments about ‘Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Protect state alcohol control’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, April 16 2010 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Abe Sarvis

Thanks, Jason, for protecting Utah's right to impose socialism on its citizens. States rights, yes - political consistency, not a chance.

williary

What he means is he wants to control how much and how strong the alcohol Utahn's can purchase, while making a killing off state tax on alcohol sales.

Typical Republican Hyprocrisy. Nothing new.

ljblondie

Good Job,
Regulate Achol and cigerattes and lower the food tax, and healthcare I think people would like to be able to feed and take care of their families.That would sure help to fund it.

Critical Thought

Hey Abe,

I am a socialist and what Chaffertz is trying to do is not socialism. It's exactly the opposite. Please do not comment on things that you have not gained an understanding of. Our state liquor stores are also not socialist institutions. Although usually considered in nationalistic terms, facism may be the closest description of our liquor laws. It's pretty neat how leaders use the "socialist" word to scare us all, while simutaneously promoting facism. Facism is what we need to fear.

JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt

Chaffetz is basically saying he is for more government.

Abe Sarvis

Crit,

Many socialists (not all, but most) call for centralized government control of distribution of commodities - many also call for government control of production, although that is not the case in regard to Utah liquor. (Thank whoever - one can scarcely imagine how foul Utah-government-made vodka might be.) Nonetheless, what Chaffetz is defending fits one of the definitions of socialism, that of nationalizing distribution channels for the purpose of regulating pricing and availability. Theoretically that is for the purpose of "bettering society", but in practice it always primarily benefits those in control.

What in Tucket?

Less access to alcoholic drinks and higher prices as with higher liquor taxes curbs disease, deaths, and reduces drinking, and surprise improves circulatory health. [Lancet March 2010] Liquor stores are socialistic as they are owned by the government. When the government administers production and allocates resources it is called socialism. A few of the "brightest and best plan from the state capitol or Washington, D.C. A market economy is far superior. We do however need some socialist or government run departments. This is one of them.

arc

"I want to preserve states' rights to decide the appropriate regulation of alcohol within their borders."

I agree with Rep. Chaffetz

Critical Thought

"When the government administers production and allocates resources it is called socialism." This statement is totally incorrect. The correct statement would be, When workers administer production, and control resources, it is socialism. Once again, you're describing facism.

Independent Thinker

Rep. Chaffetz wants to retain alcohol profits for the benefit of state. He's saying: the heck with free enterprise principles.

I had thought Rep. Chaffetz understood the value of preventing the state from such actions that so clearly deny private enterprise the ability to compete in the marketplace. Utah has unfair and absolute control over alcohol distribution and profits.

It seems I have misjudged Rep. Chaffetz' ability to represent the conservative interests of "we the people".

dave

This is why I do not trust Utah "Republicans".. these people spout off about freedom but have a stranglehold on it's local citizens. These people act at the highest level of hypocrisy.

Esquire

I thought Republicans wanted the free market. Why should the government control the distribution of a legal product? Why not have government control of other industries? Next time you squawk about government rules on health care, remember this hypocrisy. And I don't even drink.

lost in DC

the article say Chaffetz and three other house members introduced the bill. The article doesn't say who the other three were, but since it does not name any other Utah reps, we have to assume they are from other states. Nor does it say which party the other three belong to. So attacking Chaffetz and "Utah republicans" only based on the info in the article is a bit premature and shows more bias toward the individual and the party than it does a thought-out position on the issue.

Chaffetz is not calling for a "centralized" distribution system - that would be a nationalized system run by the feds. He is calling for states to be allowed to continue regulating a legal but addictive and potentially dangerous substance, maintaining authority granted under the 21st amendment.

His action appears motivated by court decisions 39 of 50 states' attorneys general describe as contrary to the constitution. It appears to me he is only trying bolster protections afforded the states by the constitution.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments