Published: Saturday, April 20 2013 10:50 a.m. MDT
" “In an aggregate, a culture of drinking can exist — such as in
a bar setting. In these circumstances, most policy-makers feel fully justified
in regulating a culture of drinking.”Then I assume Mero has no
problem regulating Utah's culture of Religion?
I was curious and read the article mentioned.A couple of things
jumped out at me."Prohibition failed as policy because people
needed alcohol to help with pain management in a day and age when they
didn’t have all of the pharmacology we do today."If one
looks at the history of alcohol, pain management was certainly not the main
driver of alcohol.Did Jesus turn water into wine for pain management?
Alcohol had many driving forces. One was that alcohol was sometimes safer to
drink than water. Relaxation would certainly be another.To think
that prohibition failed primarily because people needed pain medication is a far
disconnect from reality."Non-drinkers are the better judges of
liquor policy because nondrinkers will be disinterested decision-makers in an
area where “experienced” observers aren’t impartial."Seriously? Certainly a bar owner may fall in the category of being non
impartial. But to suggest that people who drink or frequent a bar cannot
contribute valuable insights is just ludicrous.The Sutherland
Institute has a priority of limiting alcohol. That's fine.But
you totally lose credibility with clearly faulty logic.
"liquor never has made any human being a better person. Never." If I
were in the presence of Paul Mero of the Sutherland institute, I suspect my
consuming liquor would make him a better person. Seriously, the liquor laws here
are silly and embarrassing; their only redeeming quality is in creation of
income for opportunists. That we cannot have the most liberal liquor laws in the
nation is a damning condemnation of the very teetotalling, freedom espousing
society in which we live.
"To dismiss the ill effects on everyone of the outward culture of
unrestricted firearms as an isolated matter for criminals only not only displays
a naiveté about the real world, it also displays a sad ignorance of the
proper role of law and government in the maintenance of a free society.”
Thanks, Paul. Couldn't have said it better. Proper role of law and
government in the maintenance of a free society. Gotta love it.
I have no problem with many of our liquor laws. Some of them, however, exist
simply to inconvenience drinkers and show the majority culture's
disapproval of everyone who drinks. I'm thinking specifically of the Zion
Curtain, but there are others.
Spend a little time in state or local courts, drug court, in addiction recovery
sessions, with victims of domestic violence and with family members of DUI
fatalities and you will quickly realize that there is nothing wrong with
Utah's strict alcohol laws. Many crimes have been committed and many lives
ruined and done severe damage due directly to the abuse of alcohol.
Since alcohol kills more people and destroys more lives than guns, maybe we
should have more laws prohibiting and restricting drinking, not less? Since
alcohol kills more people in New York than 20oz.sodas, maybe there out to be a
law against more than 20oz alcohol drinks? Would background checks and mandatory
waiting periods and limited magazine (container) sizes on alcohols keep us safe
from alcohol related deaths? Do it for the children!
Laws regulating the sale and use of alcohol are necessary. Not all such laws
are sensible. The Zion curtain is certainly one such law -- it is just silly.
Boasting that Utah has the strictest laws in the country regarding alcohol is
just another example of some people in our state needing to be more righteous
than thou."Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our
vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a
constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy." Benjamin
Supreme nanny state control.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments