Comments about ‘Closely regulate liquor’

I don't drink, but while there are some negative consequences to overindulgence, you overstate the problem. Shall we tightly regulate everything? Maybe we can have the nanny state that conservatives decry, yet in practice seem to want.

This letter is correct in calling alcohol a pernicious evil which destroys countless American lives each year. However, this letter does not go far enough. Instead of calling for regulation, it should be calling for elimination.

Human knowledge has advanced to the point that society can no longer justify alcohol use. Indeed, no reasonable person can claim that alcohol use provides any positive benefit to society. To the contrary, every reasonable person recognizes that alcohol use results in increased rates of traffic deaths, crime, divorce, and sexually transmitted disease.

Let us take the final step away from barbarism. Let us become a truly enlightened society by abolishing alcohol use once and for all.

There are some people who use drugs, others dont'. If drinking led to harder drugs then the whole world (minus Utah of course) would be on hard drugs. This is a scary thing, but its just not true.

This stuff needs tight regulation and artificially high pricing. Drive it out of our community.

We make people wear seatbelts, even though, on average the chance of being in an accident is almost nil.

We don't allow people to text while driving, although some possibly could text and drive.

We don't allow people to speed through school zones when children are present, although most kids watch for cars, even if drivers don't always watch for kids.

We do a lot of things to keep as many of us safe from people who act stupidly. Why do drinkers want to be the exception - instead of the rule?

@ Mike, so you are indeed for government regulation of people's lives. And to toss something back to you, what does the Constitution say about it? Or will you just say the states can be totalitarian as long as the federal government isn't? Which is it?

Mike said: We do a lot of things to keep as many of us safe from people who act stupidly. Why do drinkers want to be the exception - instead of the rule?

DUI laws, Public intoxication laws, Zion curtain laws, can't move your drink laws...and many many more sooooo don't think they getting any kind of FREE pass.
This is about people controlling others for self interest that have nothing to do with safety.

America tried prohibition, and it was a hugh FAIL and created a problem bigger than the alcohol.
Thankfully America has been enlightened to this, and does not want a cleric government.
There are plenty of fundamentalist who share this opinion. We are freeing those countries from the
primitive beliefs of control you aspire to return to.

At the wedding party when the wine ran dry, did Christ lecture the party goers about the evils of alcohol?
Nope, he turned water to wine, that the festivities might continue.
So I'll follow Christ example.

Just as long as we also tightly regulate mini-vans, ice cream, and jello. Those things can be harmful to your health (and society) as well.

A group has come out stating that sugar is just as bad as alcohol and needs to be regulated. If we want to be controlled by Nannies there will be no end.

I never tire of listening to conservatives cry -- FREEDOM!

and then turn right around and say --
but you can't do this, or this, or this, or this, or this...

Christ called the hypocrites the lowest of lows.
He also is the advocate of Free Agency - right AND wrong.
"Never the less, thou mayest FREELY choose for thyself."

Freedom has it's own consequences.
I'll take and accept the good, with the bad to keep my Freedom,
and will allow others the same.

...rather than the FORCED goodness of Lucifer.

The Bible endorses alcohol, and discourages drunkenness. Moderation and temperance is what is needed.
I daresay that people who hide behind alcohol are using alcohol to escape. If it wasn't alcohol it would be something else they escape with. YOu can take anything and make it bad by taking it to the extreme. Religion, driving, exercise, drugs and alcohol, video games, TV watching, sex, and the list goes on.
Alcohol was intended for human consumption, our bible says it is so.

If underage individuals are already able to access liquor, then the current controls aren't very effective, are they? (No, they are not - because studies have shown that underage individuals get their alcohol at home or their friend's homes, not at the store.)

Do you have any proof that allowing alcohol to be sold in stores will increase the likelihood of underage individuals getting alcohol? (No, because people who don't drink are not going to start drinking just because buying alcohol no longer requires the extra effort and planning - which means alcohol won't start showing up in additional homes where underage individuals actually have access to it - and underage individuals still won't be able to buy it themselves.)

Do you have any proof of ANY of the claims made in your letter?

You realize the LDS churched used fermented WINE in the Sacrament for nearly 100 years until the early 1900's,
coindidentaly about the same time LDS abstinence from alcohol became required for Temple worthiness.

The change happened in part because of the U.S. Prohibition Laws -- not the other way around.

No to shake anyone's testimony or anything...

Yes Charity, let us go through another Prohibition. Just when we get over our mistakes you want to pull us back into it. It's no wonder the nation is slipping in terms of the economy, health and education. We are the world's policemen for now but that's all we can do because we keep wasting time on issues that were once resolved.

'The harder it is to obtain, the better off everyone will be.' - letter

Really?

America is suffering an obesity epidemic.

We should also put restrictions then on...

Caffine, sugar and salt.

Do we?

No.

When making claims, people will mock you...

if you do not provide FACTS, to back up your claims.

As:

**'Utah DUI arrests DECLINE despite looser liquor law' - By BROCK VERGAKIS - AP - Published by SL Tribune - 10/11/10

'Opening Utahs bars to the public didnt result in an increase in drunk driving arrests.' - article

As others have pointed out, we have examples of American history that proved trying to ban all alchohol...

failed.

It was called prohibition.

Regulation, getting a tax on liquor, is one thing.

Favoring MORE restrictions, without any evidence?

Is foolish.

There are practical limits to how tightly you can control a substance that basically makes itself out of unrefrigerated fruit juice.

Elsie, why not join the mormon church. They will keep you out of the liquor store. That being the case, then, you can leave it to me to decide for myself. After all, you didn't say anything about cigarettes, which kill way way way more people in the state than liquor or other drugs. So safety must not be your motive.

@ ugottabkidn, maybe we are over-policing our own people. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. We have 5% of the world's population and 25% of all inmates. We are doing something wrong. Who knew that China and Russia would provide more freedom for people....