Deseret News | Reader comments: 'Alcopops' disappear from Utah

Reader comments
'Alcopops' disappear from Utah

MY SLC | 12:33 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

The "great" state of Utah has just saved us from evil drink. What next? 3.2 beer no longer @ Albertsons?

The DABC has rational liquor laws for the SLC International Airport. Why not for the rest of the state?

From the DABC site on the State of Utah/org page:

"In airport lounges, liquor, wine, heavy beer, and beer may be served from 8:00 a.m. until 12 midnight. Alcoholic beverages may be sold with or without food, and patrons may be served at a bar or table. Airport lounges are located at the Salt Lake International Airport."

lost in DC | 5:46 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

what are the conspiring men trying to hide that they don't already clearly label their drinks as alcoholic?

is the 'great US dept of health' so wrong in requiring warning labels on evil tobacco?

Thanks daddy | 7:36 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

Another example of how out-of-touch or legislators are. What ever happened to the party of personal responsibility? Now everything needs a bigger label? It's just an excuse to legislate morality. Another reason I'll vote Democratic next time around.

Comments continue below

uncannygunman | 7:42 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

Truth is, I would have to be dying of sobriety before I would ever drink a Mike's Hard Lemonade. But apparently many adults enjoy them, and now they are unavailable. Thanks, Utah!

And thank YOU, D-News, for your role in this. As one of the state's largest newspapers, you could have refrained from adopting the charged, childish term "alcopops" (which you cling to to this day), and instead treated these beverages as the adult matters that they are. But no, cutesy had to prevail over accuracy. Shame on you!

Mc | 8:15 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

I think this is a great move to protect young people. I've known some who have bought or been given these drinks not realizing they contain alcohol. If they are adult drinks, not "pop," they should be clearly labeled as such and sold where only adults can get them.

Roscoe | 9:03 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

There are already laws in place that restrict the sale of beer, wine and liquor to those 21 years of age or older. This move is not necessary. Nobody drinks these thinking they don't contain alcohol. This is just another step backward for drinkers in Utah. Nobody other than newspaper writers calls these beverages "alcopops". Grow up, Utah!

duh! | 9:07 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

If these are to be sold in liquor stores only, they should be the regular 5.0% ABV, not 3.2%. Bigger print on the labels is completely uncalled for- only an idiot would not realize these are alcoholic beverages. Once these are sold in the liquor stores, the teens who want them, who WILL still get them one way or another, will realize they can just get harder stuff at the liquor store, therefore drinking beverages with a higher alcohol content. What a smart move by the legislature- once again demonstrating they are completely clueless on the subject...

Troy | 9:16 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

I agree with MC's statement, the majority of sales of these products were going to teens, because there was no way to legislate who stores could and couldn't sale these products to without a law on the books concerning the new low alchohol products. Also in response to (Thanks Daddy's) comment about voting Democratic this year, Are you advocating, more government intervention and meddling in your personal life?, that's what the Democratic Party invisions and wants for everyone. Your proposed voting stance and main argument appear to contradict one another. I wonder if you really know what it's all about, or if you've just been sipping on one too many Mike's Hard Lemonades.

astounded | 9:42 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

It's utter baloney that majority of these sold were sold to teens. You have to show ID to buy them, If not, the point of sale is violating state law. I'm in my 30's and have had to show ID to buy them. You'd have to be a moron not to know a Smirnoff Ice or Raspberry Ale has alcohol in it.

The majority of consumers of these beverages are adults, and misinformed reactionaries have now taken the choice to have them in the state of Utah away from adults. Troy, the irony of your post is staggering. This ban *is* government interference in the personal lives of adults and nanny state type policy.

These drinks were not new, they have been around for decades. Adults enjoy them, and the reactionaries have now deprived adults in Utah who want them of their choice to have them at all. Congratulations.

CeeCee | 10:40 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

If they are being sold in LIQUOR stores the why the need to change the label? Duh, it's liquor, that's the only thing sold in those stores. Why didn't they just require the change in the lables and keep them in the grocery stores. And to all you dopes out there that say they are being sold to youngsters, have obviously have not bought beer or "alcopops" lately. Practically every store's check out is electronic and it stops the transaction when alcohol is being purchased. They have to ENTER A BIRTHDATE into the computer before they can continue. If the kids have a fake id, then yeah, they're buying alcohol. But to make a law to annoy a portion of the population because parents can't control their kids actions is stupid!!

lil ole wine drinker me.... | 10:51 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

In response to MC and Troy, These drinks were always sold in the beer isle and beer coolers of the grocery and convenience stores. Most like rockstar 21 have a large 3.2 alc printed on the top front of the can. They all have the surgeon generals warning that they contain alcohol, and the argument that it can be mistaken as non alcoholic holds about as much water as spaghetti strainer. This started as a ratings grabber news story and the eventual histarical cry of "Oh will someone please think about the children!!!!"
This is just good old fasion propaganda, plain and simple. Laws being passed by folks who don't know the real facts...

If the problem | 11:00 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

is that clerks were selling the stuff to minors, then all the legislature needed to do is increase the penalty for selling to minors, enough to scare the clerks into not doing the transaction.

If a store sells to minors, suspend their license to sell alcohol for 30 days for the first offense, 60 days for the second and a full year for the third. No store would risk the loss.

And if minors are buying alcohol at state liquor stores, then they're buying from state employees. If the DABC can't control that they should all resign.

Simply put | 11:22 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Is Utah kidding? | 12:20 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

This is a joke. First, the state (slash LDS church) only allows beer and these other "mixed" beverages to be 3.2 percent alcohol. You can't even get buzzed on one beer here! Now they want to put a different label on what's considered to be a "mixed alcoholic beverage"?
What's next? Labels that just say "BEER WITH ALCOHOL" on them? C'mon, I thought people were smarter than this.

Greg | 2:26 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

Looks like WY, NV, and ID economies just got a little more of a boost from UT.

I'll be making a few more trips to Wendover...

Michelle | 4:25 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

This is one of the dumbest decisions they could ever make. Why do they have to make new labels for the wine coolers if they are already putting them in the liquor stores? If you don't understand what a liquor store is then don't go in one. If teenagers want to drink they will find a way without taking cheap wine coolers out of the reach of those who want them.

JJ | 6:00 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

In response to 2:26 pm, please continue to go to Wendover, WY, or ID for you drinks. But, do not drive drunk on my UT roads. If you slam into a member of this state it will cost you dearly.

omniveritas | 8:26 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

my daughter is upset that RUDEtahans had struck again.No Smirnoff for the ADULT Halloween sleep over.
The solution was that I will be driving into Utah on the 31st, I will buy for the party.
Because you canï¿½t buy it here, nope sorry, too bad so sad, it is a fact. The choice has been made by one and all for one and all and who is to argue with that? Next time it must needs be that we bow to the majority, obey and honor the law. By the way, has there ever been a true democracy that ever lasted 10 years? I think it equates to mob rule really. One person. One Vote. Because I donï¿½t think it ever worked. Really?
I was told once that a young Spencer W. Kimball was assigned to visit the 1st Ward of Berlin around 1945 or 46. He wrote a book or something like that, itï¿½s on my shelf somewhere I think, I have never had the stomach to read it. I didnï¿½t want the answer to the question. Did the members of the 1st Ward of Berlin honor and sustain the laws of Hitler? Aw heck, lifeï¿½s hard.

Bjornak | 8:57 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

I agree that this is a mistake. Anyone doing an economic study would realize that it is. I don't see the logic behind the law at all. I enjoy Mike's from time to time and this is the first time that I have ever heard of it called an "alcopop". And every time I have ever bought beer, any kind of beer, I have been carded. And I agree that under age drinkers are going to drink still. What's the point of punishing the responsible and NOT punishing those who break the law? And isn't there a bunch of other more pressing concerns on which our taxes should be spent?

uncannygunman | 9:05 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

"Drinker" is to "drunk driver" what "gun-owner" is to "murderer." Don't paint everybody with the same brush.

aresome | 9:58 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

now you have to realize that all your taxes are going to go up because of all the revenue that the state will lose on flavored beer. 53 million dollars every year come from taxes on alcohol. I wonder just how much of that is from your so called "alcopops". I bet at least 1/3 that's nearly 18 million dollars..... I wonder now where is that money going to come from. As quoted from the D-news on 9-6-2008 "Profits from alcohol sales - after the state's school-lunch program takes its share - is about $53 million" Did you know that alcohol sales funded the school lunch program..... that's encouraging teens to drink.... because alcohol helps pay for there lunches.... seriously utah needs to pull its head out and realize just how much tax revenue they are missing out on. Teens WILL get alcohol no matter what if they want it they will find a way to get it.

mover | 1:53 p.m. Oct. 2, 2008

You do have to be a complete idiot to think these are readily going to kids. As soon as you scan them at counters the majority of stores have a screen flash up asking for ID. The term alcopops is also so utah being from NY, I didnt think it was that bad when I first got here but Im slowly noticing things. One thing I have noticed the more and more restrictions I see being put on things the more the 21-30 party group is just going out buying straight hard 90 proof liquor to party and bringing it with them to places. The one shot thing is ridiculous as once a weekend i see people pouring massive amount of their own alcohol they snuck in into the drinks.

river | 5:18 p.m. Oct. 2, 2008

This law is ridiculous. This item will completely go away from Utah. Suppliers do not want to change a label for one state, it is very expensive. If it does go into the liquor stores, as most of you know you will be paying double what you paid for the product in a grocery or convenience store. Just another way for the state to make more money. Kids will find a way to drink, lets put the responsibility on the parents, not on the rest of the state.....if this is the arguement and they get their hands on it, it now has a higher level of alcohol. I would like to see factual reports stating this is the drink of choice of our younger generation. I think they drink anything they can get their hands on....which usually comes from the parents bar at home....

Anonymous | 7:36 p.m. Oct. 2, 2008

This is stupid, stupid, stupid. I LOVE Mike's Hard Lemonade! I can drink it and still keep the Word of Wisdom because it is just lemonade!

I hate Utah!

Anonymous | 6:14 p.m. Oct. 3, 2008

The decision is silly, but we choose to live in Utah. Good thing we have relatives in Idaho and Nevada to purchase there and support their economy. It is called creative drinking.

Anonymous | 7:50 p.m. Oct. 4, 2008

All of you complaining now should have voiced your opinions earlier this year...when the state legislature was considering the law. I'm glad it passed, I didn't need more than a friend telling me how great her Grape Smirnoff was ("just like Shasta grape!) to know so many of these drinks are marketed at our kids. I do hope, however, that the state/city ordinacnes regarding private club memberships are overturned.

Reluctant Utahn | 2:48 p.m. Oct. 5, 2008

Anonymous | 7:50 p.m.
We did voice our opposition but people like you who don't know what you're even talking about fingerwaved, had marches and belonged to your church.

AC | 7:17 a.m. Oct. 7, 2008

Yes... And we all know how well Prohibition worked the first time.

Joaquin Murrieta | 2:48 p.m. Oct. 7, 2008

Congratulations to the state of Utah for prioritizing the well being of its people over the alcohol multinational corporations bottom line. May this be the beginning of a global trend.

aneweric | 11:44 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

1) We did complain about this law change when the legislature was considering the law.
2) Show me the statistic that proves that the "majority of these products were going to teens."
3) Show me the marketing that proves that flavored beer was marketed to tweens and teens. I haven't seen Smirnoff in Nick magazine yet.
4) Go buy anything alcoholic at the grocery store and explain to me how the checker would bypass the required age verification process. Verify the checker is following the law, or otherwise.
5) You could label anything alcoholic in brown paper, and they will still be purchased because the buyer knows exactly what they're getting.
6) When these were on the shelf, explain to me how they could be confused with soda when they are clearly surrounded by BEER. Corn chips aren't stocked in the produce section.
7) Consumers are the best people to head up regulation, not lifelong non-drinkers.
8) Assuming that anyone who buys beer outside of UT is, by default, committing a DUI is naive and unintelligent.
9) The term "alcopop" is clearly biased and regional, as there are many other words for "pop" in this country.

Thank you.
aneweric.com

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.