Published: Tuesday, Nov. 5 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
As I've learned from conservatives during the gun debate, nothing can be
done to change anything. Laws have no effect. Therefore, applying their logic
here, get rid of these alcohol laws. All they do is hurt the responsible
drinkers. People are going to get their booze one way or another.
Alcohol doesn't need to be legal for purchase all night. Our hours for
selling alcohol are fine. As a frequent traveler to Washington and Oklahoma,
I'll tell you are liquor laws and taxes are fine. There is room for
improvement, a move to privatize liquor is all I would do.
Yes free is free why should government take away freedom and run the business.
Anyone is St George would say that private enterprise and free market is the
The author gave the reasons for keeping the law as is. I am sorry
that the author can't plan ahead sufficiently to purchase his choice of
beverage earlier in the day or to keep a small supply at home for those
contingencies when neighbors drop by. His inability to plan ahead is not
sufficient reason to change the laws.Night life usually involves
drinking alcohol as I infer from his epistle, which leads to drunk driving and
other messy events. All the more reason to not change.Tax money
lost? Please. The amount to be gained by extended hours sales of alcoholic
beverages is miniscule to the damage from alcohol related events, that require
public funds to mitigate, i.e. more police presence, emergency first responder
time and effort, and court costs.People have a right to consume
alcoholic beverages, and I am not for prohibition, but responsible adults plan
ahead and don't drive impaired.
Steven,“in order to get alcohol late at night I choose to drive to
Mesquite just 40 minutes away.”Lack of planning on your part
does not obligate the state to do anything.And is alcohol so
important to you that you will drive 1-1/2 hour late at night to get it rather
than wait until the next day? Is an intervention necessary?You want
more nightlife? Is alcohol really necessary to have a good time? No –
I’m happy with our below average incidence of alcohol related
tragedies.You want alcohol cheaper? That makes it easier for those
underage to get it. Is that what you want?Maverick,As
I’ve learned from watching the whole Obamacare debate and the bartering
done and lies told to pass it, truth means nothing to liberals. Even pointing
out their outright lies has no effect on them except to generate verbal
gymnastics to try and justify their lies. The real tragedy is, they believe
their own justification.
You would think that the Tea-Party loving -- Get the Government out of our
lives, Let the Free Markets decide -- would be supporting your
suggestions.But they pick and choose ideologies based on whims, and seek to force others to "choose the right", not using sound
logic or set principles.No different the the Taliban.
The current laws are fine. Any kind of prohibition encourages profiteering,and
the free market system prevails. It isn't even the hours that encourage
this, it's the obscene pricing and availability restrictions.
The letter writer can buy as much liquor as he wants, when he wants. What he
cannot do is buy it where he wants. How many people would like to buy gas or
groceries at any time, day or night? How many would like to refill a
prescription "after hours"?Life just isn't fair.
Sometimes we don't get what we want. Adults understand that principle.
The arguments:1. To the prime mover, safety: Why doesn't Utah ban
cell phones while driving, if safety is the primary concern? This omission makes
the Utah liquor laws appear capricious. 2. Taxes: Utah already garners
more money from beer taxes alone than all minerals. Check for yourself.3.
Jobs: I ask how many investors are driven away by obviously faith-based liquor
laws? 4. Adults and citizenship: All that said, I have to agree with one
of the posts. Part of the duty of citizenship is tolerating the majority
decision, even when it seems repugnant. As is the duty to speak up against those
laws in a proper and respectful manner.
I'm going to use this letter in my English 1010 class for when we discuss
impaired logic and poor audience awareness. (Maybe the writer is
suffering from all of that increased nightlife . . .)
LDS? libyou mean the way the BO misadministration picks and chooses which
of its promises it will keep and which will turn out to be lies?you
mean the way BO and the dems force their morality onto employers and everyone
else? THAT is more akin to the actions of the Taliban.
Each state and city has the right to pass laws regulating commerce in keeping
with Constitutional rights and public safety. You may disagree with
"religion-based" laws although non-religious persons are not
automatically on the side of lax liquor laws. There is no doctrinal litmus for
public safety. Confusing cell phone laws with liquor laws is pure obfuscation.
Organize your life and buy your liquor during business hours just like you buy
other items. If some is experiencing acute alcohol withdrawal symptoms, go to an
emergency department that treats delirium tremens.
I also choose to load up the truck with alcohol when I leave the state, but my
reason is that the school lunch program is a chief beneficiary of the alcohol
tax. Mormon have large families who are clogging the schools. Why should
drinkers--non-Mormons have to feed their kids?Tax diapers, or baby
formula...then we'll have a level playing field.
Conservative logic always fails when juxtaposed to religious/moral laws and
taxes.Suddenly and magically:Socialist government business
models are acceptable...even preferable.Double taxation, If the state runs
the liquor stores and all profits go to the state, why did they start charging
tax at the liquor stores on top of their mandatory markup a few years ago?Theocratic Rule becomes "community standards" and acceptable for
certain religions to have favor in legislation.
Dear Owl (Rice alum?), see the myth busters episode on drunk driving vs. driving
with cell phone online. As to the meaning of "public safety"...
I agree with one truth that is mentioned in this opinion piece. Because of our
laws, a good amount of potential tax revenue for the state is lost to Nevada and
Wyoming. I would dare guess that some of those potential tax dollars also go to
Colorado and Idaho. Let's do something to keep that money here.
You know what's funny? After growing up in Maryland when I first got to
Salt Lake City I was shocked to see beer sold in grocery stores out here since
that wasn't something I'd see back home.
@lost in DC"Even pointing out their outright lies"As
opposed to GOP lies like the one about illegal immigrants getting insurance paid
for by Obamacare? (You can't get subsidies when the subsidies are dealt
with through tax returns...). Or how about the one about the rising deficit?
(It's decreasing, the deficit and the national debt are not the same
thing). Or the one on Hannity about that guy who said Obamacare is harming his
employees ? (he only had 4, employer requirements only kick in at 50 employees).
Or the one about how the UN disability treaty would destroy our freedom? (I
don't even know where to start on that nonsense).
I agree the state needs to be out of the liquor business. As we have seen when
ever government is involved we get corruption. Now as for driving
80 miles to get your booze, that equates to about almost $15 more to get that
booze. I doubt that is a savings at all. As for Taliban like,
didn't someone once say the gospel was the same as Sharia law, there was no
difference. And the last argument, liquor sales are legal already. If the
grocery stores were closed you would still have to drive to Nevada, to get your
late night booze. Oh but you would demand all stores stay open all night. How
draconian. Maybe if we forced Ice cream parlors to stay open all night there
would be an increase in night life.
Mike in Sandy,so you admit to being a tax cheat. Has BO asked you to join
his cabinet?your comments evidence disdain for those of a certain
religious belief. how tolerant of you.And you WANT to see your
neighbors' children starve. Spoken like the true
"tolerant" liberalyour spite is really unbecoming.HVH,so public safety has no place in the discussion? Because some
religions support abstinence from alcohol, we can not regulate it, even though
alcohol poses a signifcant threat to public safety? Talk about a real failure
when ideaology is juxtaposed with logic!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments