Outstanding! I look forward to tomorrow's editorial blasting the NRA and
expressing support for heavy regulation of firearms in the interest of public
safety.Wait, what? Oh.
VoR says:"We are all free to believe what we want, even
exercise those beliefs into practice. The 1st amendment was written to uphold
this principle in law. HOWEVER, THE EXERCISE OF THAT FREEDOM CANNOT BE AT THE
COST OF ANOTHER PERSONS FREEDOM."---This is exactly
what I meant VoR, you are not consistent. You state that "cannot be at the
cost of another person's freedom", yet you work hard to DENY FREEDOM to
glbt Americans because of your beliefs; and you justify that because it
"takes away your freedom to be against ssm? (it doesn't actually)" -
do you see the circular reasoning you use?Just as moderate drinking
DOES NOT HARM anyone, you want to CONTROL the lives of others. The problem with
"Sensible liquor laws" in Utah is that those making those
"sensible" laws (Mormons) are using their religion to FORCE others to
adhere to THEIR religious beliefs. How is that "not at the cost of another
On another thread, there are those demanding that the 2% of society who practice
homosexual actively should have the laws changed to "protect" them
from society's discrimination.Should those who drink to excess NOT
be protected by society? Should their right to harm themselves and others be
more important than our rights to be protected from them?If 2% can
demand that our marriage laws be changed to accommodate them, that they adopt
our children, that they dictate to the other 98% how to act and how to react,
Should we not protect those who drink to excess? How would we do
that? Having State owned liquor stores is one good step. It does not solve the
problem, but it limits access to alcohol and it limits the hours that alcohol is
available.Many (including some of my close relatives) are powerless
to control their drinking. Many have begged others to intervene. Are we to
turn a blind eye to their problem? Are they just cast-offs? Are they not
important?Don't we (society) owe them a safe and sane place to be
isolated from their addiction?
Voice if ReasonSorry that you missed the point. Re-read my post.
Those killed by DUI are just one of the facts that justifies restrictions on
alcohol. Another persons right to take intoxicants should be restricted when
public health and safety is endangered.
I ask everyone who gets atwist to me about drinking stats to tell me why they're
not apoplectic about cigarettes. That'll get the excuses going.
Yes Mike, those who drink to excess are out of control.I dont expect
"an alcoholic to limit his drinking"They have a
problem.Just like the pill head that abuses prescription drugs.Just like the psychopath that abuses a gun.Just like the gambler that
cant quit.There are countless examples of people that abuse products
that are otherwise reasonable to use.The vast vast majority don't
drink to excess and cause no ill effects to themselves or society. Do we really want to ban everything that has negative consequences when
JoeBlow,Aren't you being just a little bit "childish" when
you expect an alcoholic to limit his drinking? "Limit your
criticism to those who drink to excess" will not work, and you know it.
You know that those who drink to excess are beyond self-control. You know that
those who drink to excess think that they can handle a car in a school zone or
on YOUR street. You know that those who drink to excess have had their judgment
impaired to the point that THEY are incapable of making proper decisions.Why then, are you so willing to make the rest of us "victims"
so that YOU can have a drink - at our expense?
Irresponsible drinking is wrong.Just like irresponsible gun
ownership.We can totally disagree but having a glass of wine with
dinner is not wrong at all. In fact, the ability to modify water
and create wine is heralded as quite an accomplishment in some circles.Please limit your criticism to those who drink to excess and break the law.
JoeBlow,I travel as frequently as I can and have been to more places
farther on this planet than most people I know. I've also been all over this
country, about half the states and counting.Traveling doesn't define
my beliefs, does it for you?Midvaliean,I don't claim
alcohol equals violence; however, I do claim that factually certain chemicals
hinder your ability to reason the more you are subject yourself to them. This is
something I doubt you'd disagree with.My claims are far more
democratic though- My argument is that there a problem arouse, we restricted it.
The problem gets worse, we restrict it more. Our being the lowest DUI-related
death state to me justifies those restrictions. In a perfect world, I think it'd
be illegal, but ONLY because a perfect society wouldn't want it
(democratically). In a less perfect world, where people abuse it and others
don't want it... we compromise. However, all law should lean towards life
preservation before ease of drinking access.Do you disagree with any
of these points?Owl,You only want facts? No religion?
Set my LDS beliefs aside and look at people who've been killed. There is your
EsquireYour faulty syllogism is too obvious, e.g. There are those who
oppose loose liquor laws. The LDS church opposes loose liquor laws, therefore it
is a religious issue. Please come up with something that is factual. Do not
insult those of us who think it is a public health and safety issue.
If Utah was honest about it's drinking laws it would either ban it all together
or open it up to the free market. The current regulations are silly
and don't keep anyone from drinking. If I were closer to the border I'd buy it
all out of state just to deprive Utah of the tax income.
"Drinking is wrong and everyone knows it. "Patently
false.The majority of people who drink do so responsibly.And there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with it.You may want to get
out of Utah more.
@A voice of reasonTemperance with alcohol is the way to go. Drinking is
NOT wrong. The Bible as a whole is pro drinking. Nowhere in the bible does it
say Drinking is wrong. People use drugs and alcohol to justify their own
behavior. One could say alcohol can make you violent, but then why can people
have wine at dinner and not be violent? People use drugs and alcohol to excuse
their behavior, until our society no longer allows that we will continue to make
laws for the 1% of problem people, costing us our freedoms and tax dollars.
You aren't my mom. Stop telling me what to do.
Hey I just want to be able to order odd drinks from all over the world. I was
trying real hard one time to find amaretto at the liquor store. Found out you
can custom order liquors over the phone or something, they have a list? Anyways
it sounded like a racket...SO, here is my suggestion, lawmakers:Open up private sales by online mail-order utah-based businesses. --
This has all the benefits of private sales (prices, variety) and will not litter
the city with cheap liquor shops, and will not increase the access to
readily-available liquor. If someone wants that they go to the state liquor
shaun_By the exact same logic saying that alcohol isn't the problem-
a nuclear weapon wouldn't be either. Which means that we all have a right to own
one.-------Peaceful society where ALL citizens can live
free trumps everything else. When citizens are abusing the use of something, you
take it away. If someone is free and owns a gun and is reckless with it,
endangering other people's lives, even killing them- you take the gun away. This
isn't rocket science here. This is about as simple as arguments get. The
'drinking class' can argue it any which way they want- but their luxury can't
replace lives.Drinking affects your ability to reason. Getting a
high of some kind is one thing. But I don't condone people essentially turning
their brain in 'off mode' while their bodies go wandering the streets with
weapons, cars, and who knows what else.Getting a 'high' off
something isn't a right. Freedom IS a right. And while drunks may ignore
everyone else's rights- saying "don't punish the responsible", there
is no such thing as responsible drinking (aka 'brain turned off' mode). That
literally defines being irresponsible.Drinking is wrong and everyone
@Mike Richards. Im not under the influence and nothing is wrong with alcohol. It
is easier to buy a gun in this state than to purchase alcohol. And
by the way Alcohol doesn't kill people, people kill people.
Ranch, I do believe that if drinking never harmed anyone it wouldn't be a
concern. But where I know for a fact that drinking DOES harm people, then there
is a problem.On another article someone compared my rational to
religion to argue that I'm promoting non-essential government interference into
our lives.Here is the problem with this argument. We are all free to
believe what we want, even exercise those beliefs into practice. The 1st
amendment was written to uphold this principle in law. However, the exercise of
that freedom cannot be at the cost of another persons freedom. I used the
example of a religion performing a human sacrifice. There is obviously a clear
line to be drawn.People are free to drink whatever they want. But
once that freedom starts killing people- our right to protect ourselves, even
our lives, is paramount. I do not believe I am being inconsistent,
but that you just don't have my complete opinion. Even if I am, my feelings and
beliefs aren't any different- I simply may have not wording something very well.
In either case, my ability to articulate consistently is irrelevant to the core
principles I support.
Your arguments in this editorial could be applied to a large number of
activities. Admit it, the driving force behind this editorial is the stance of
the Church on alcohol. You are using political arguments for a religious issue.
"Someday the consumption of alcohol will be held with the same contempt
that the public shows toward smoking."Wow Mike, do you really
believe that? What is suddenly going to change?
Alcohol is the most dangerous drug according to medical studies. It is worse
than heroin or cocaine because it not only may be a factor in cancer and other
medical conditions, but as the article points out in devastating effects of the
drinker's surroundings. When industrial alcohol was invented in England (gin)
the rate of alcoholism tripled as it was so cheap. Yes raise the price and
limit the availability as we have done in the past.
"Sensible liquor laws" is the code for "let us sell more
alcohol." It has nothing to do with common sense, it has to do with
corporate profit. Recommendations regarding alcohol from the Centers for
Disease control look very similar to Utah's current liquor laws if we would like
to bring common sense into the conversation.
Someday the consumption of alcohol will be held with the same contempt that the
public shows toward smoking. Until then, people who are not already under the
influence will agree that controlling the availability and sale of alcohol is
necessary for the public good.
VoR says;"Does someone have a right to ingest what they desire?
Yes. Most of us agree with this. My belief in free agency supports this.Does that same right have priority over everyone else's freedom and
right to live? No. Most of us, I hope, agree with this as well."---Your arguments are often contradictory to previous arguments on
other articles.In this case, you say "Does that same right have
priority over everyone else's freedom and right to live? " and then answer;
NO.But you refuse to concede that someone else's right to live their
lives as they see fit where no harm to anyone is done.You need some
It appears that it isn't going to get posted, but I had a great comment for this
If everyone who wants alcohol can buy it then why does the government controlled
sale prevent anyone from driving drunk?
Midvaliean,"...the number of problem drinkers is so low we
would ask why we are creating laws..." "We don't need laws
made to address a few bad apples"-------Does
someone have a right to ingest what they desire? Yes. Most of us agree with
this. My belief in free agency supports this.Does that same right
have priority over everyone else's freedom and right to live? No. Most of us, I
hope, agree with this as well.Does someone's right to live have
priority over others ingesting alcohol? Yes. I tend to think the right to life
trumps the right to drink (Perhaps I'm crazy but I value a human life and
everyone's freedom more than a an individuals freedom to drink a few beers).Logic- Irresponsible drinkers surfaced, then we created laws to restrict
it in order to protect ourselves after the fact. People can still drink as much
as they want in their own homes, but in public there are limits that have proven
effective in reducing deaths.And to those 'anti-Utah
"culture"' arguers, this state hardly stands alone on this topic. I've
yet to hear even a single reasonable 'less restrictions in Utah' argument.
How about a very detailed plan to help another very dangerous part of America
that is driving on our roads? The public is in danger when many of them
get behind the wheel. They are busy eating instead of watching the road! These
people are dying at rapid rates and their children are right following them.
Sanctions and laws need to be put into place in order to control this dangerous
group. Limits should be established on purchasing certain foods in grocery
stores, and in restaurants. None of the high caloric foods should be showcased
on the television cooking programs! Advertisement of junk food should be
curtailed. Obesity is out of control. It is imperative that equality of
regulations and valuable laws are in place concerning all dangerous substances.
Laws are now in place for alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Food is the next
frontier. If one dangerous substance is governed, it only correct to govern
The State is trying to control consumer consumption by limiting liquor licenses.
Does that accomplish the goal? No.Limiting licenses turns away new
businesses and jobs. That doesn't limit the consumer - they simply get their
drink at an existing restaurant or bar.Liquor licenses should be
unlimited. Consumption is controlled by exisiting laws governing alcohol
service. Limiting business is a failed concept.
Bullhockey!Personal bad decisions to abuse alcohol are not something
that can be controlled by store hours, price, location, or any other
governmental action. Total prohibition was a colossal failure, and
incremental restrictions do no better. Bans on sale of other abused substances
also fail, proven by the availability and widespread abuse of marijuana and a
host of worse drugs.Utah's low rate of alcohol abuse is unrelated to
"the success of our alcohol laws" but rather to the good decisions by
Utah citizens who mainly adhere to the "no alcohol" tenants of the
predominate religion in the state.The state should not be involved
in the sale and distribution of any legal product, period! Tax it or put age
limits if you like, but leave the distribution and sale to private
enterprise.If your approach to "ensure safety" by
controlling alcohol is justified, then the state should also be in the
automobile business, raising prices, limiting hours, preventing clustering of
dealers and raising minimum ages of buyers, and not allowing big car companies
or even private sellers to sell these death causing contraptions!A
big governemnt knows best "nanny state" approach is just wrong, as
well as ineffective.
Okay Deseret News tell me how mixing drinks behind a wall prevents over
consumption?Tell me why I can't carry my drink to a table in a
restaurant if I meet up with some friends at their table? Why does the server
have to carry it? How does that prevent over consumption?Why can't I
bring my child to the bar to eat and have a drink? How does that prevent over
consumption.Why does the state place quotas on how many bar and
restaurant licenses per the population? Do you want me to drive further to get
to where I want to go?How many people consume alcohol in a
responsible manner vs people who don't?Having one or two beers with
dinner doesn't make a person drunk or even buzzed. In fact it doesn't even make
them a bad person.
The article state:"Even small decreases in alcohol prices can lead to
significant overconsumption of alcohol among problem drinkers."Yet no where in the article does it say how many problem drinkers there are.
This is because the number of problem drinkers is so low we would ask why we are
creating laws because of so few individuals. We don't need laws made
to address a few bad apples when the rest of us can manage.
Re: "Sensible liquor laws"People wanting to drink should
be free to do so -- so long as they and the industry promoting and profiting
from it are made as fully responsible legally, as they have always been morally,
for the predictable misery and carnage resulting from it. Unfortunately, the legislature is so deep into the pockets of the
"hospitality" industry, it's unlikely to consider the best options to
prevent the misery and slaughter of innocents.As its primary tool,
the legislature should implement a long-overdue reform of Utah's lax dram-shop
laws.Extending the reach of civil judgments to the whole
"hospitality" industry, including brewers, distillers, and
distributors, would incentivize responsible industry behavior and let
entrepreneurial, out-of-the-box thinking -- by those with the clearest vision of
the problem -- craft effective solutions.This plan has the virtue of
halting a deranged immunization of cynical profiteers, sanctioning, not just the
poor drunks created [and identified only after-the-fact] by the industry, but
those organized clear thinkers best able to stop the carnage.