Quantcast

Comments about ‘LDS Church says Utah alcohol laws benefit all residents’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 22 2014 5:10 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
HeresAThought
Queen Creek, AZ

As a member, these laws do not have a negative impact on me. It would seem to me that if one wishes to change these laws, one would work to elect a politician to state government that favored your viewpoints on alcohol consumption. I was a smoker for 12 years, but since I have been smoke free since 2011, any tax hikes to cigarettes in an attempt to dissuade smoking do not have any impact on my life. I would suppose that any one person, member or not, who vehemently disagrees with Utah's alcohol consumption policies does have the freedom to move to a more relaxed state. As for us here in AZ, we have Sheriff Joe, who is infamous for harsh DUI punishments. Seems to be a good deterrent here...

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Utes Fan
"When Big Macs, bacon, and large amounts of soda kill others in accidents and cause violence"

I dunno, someone could go on a Big Mac attack.

@JSB
"because regarding alcohol abuse, Utah is the safest state in the country."

Half the state believes it to be a serious sin to drink. I'd be shocked if Utah weren't #1 in the nation.

brotherJonathan
SLC, UT

You may not want to hear this. What a citizen wishes to put in his/her own body is a personal choice, like having surgery or not. The only legal choice right now is alcohol for a drug for personal use. For many adults, with addictive type personalities, a much better choice would be Pot, cannabis, marijuana: although any mind altering drug can cause social problems, cannabis is safer to use and causes less destructive behaviors than the rest of them. Laziness and other side effects are real but are far less destructive than any other drug of choice that I know of. If a citizen chooses to be fully intoxicated and drive a powered vehicle, this is a crime and should be enforced, with fairness and level of intoxication. Many people slightly intoxicated do not present a clear risk to the public good. Example: one beer or glass of wine, one Vicodin when suffering pain, one or two puffs of pot for pleasure or to treat pain, anxiety or other medical uses. The individual's behavior is part of the formula for fair and just treatment of citizens being arrested for intoxication or other behavior type offences of law.

nonceleb
Salt Lake City, UT

Don't credit laws with lower consumption, but the high percentage of the population being teetotalers. It could actually be argued that the laws make us less safe. They discourage people from responsible drinking in public establishments, where it is monitored and regulated (they can be sued if they allow a patron to drink too much) and public transportation is available. Many Utahns opt instead for private parties in residential areas where drinking is excessive and guests drive home drunk.

Sean70
Arlington, VA

Strange is the argument that alcohol laws shouldn't be tinkered with because they are working, as evidenced by having the lowest prevalence of alcohol-related incidents. However, the article then notes Utah' isn't really "wierd," as evidenced by the 9 other states have more stringent alcohol laws than Utah's. If Utah's strict laws were responsible for having the lowest DUI rates, then why don't those 9 states have lower rate's than Utah's? Isn't a bigger factor that such a large percentage of Utah's population has decided never to drink alcohol, and that relaxing the laws will have zero effect on their decision?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I'm active LDS.
I do not drink, so Utah's liquor laws of .035%, open container this, mized drinks behind the curtain that -- are completely and utterly useless.

The fact that most Utahans are like me is why the State DUI numbers are low,
NOT because of these stupid loopity-loop -- i before e, except after c -- liquor laws do.

It's like crediting Utah's low lung cancer rates for making stupid laws about smoke shops being at least 200 feet from schools, how big their signs can be, and what days and hours they are allowed to be open.

Brahmabull
sandy, ut

The state needs to allow grocery stores to carry liquor - it can even be in a separate section with its own walls to prevent shoplifting. If somebody is going to drink and drive they are still going to do so whether they buy the product at a grocery store or at a state owned liquor store. Most people are responsible though so I don't think the numbers will change if they were to put liquor in grocery stores.

Sundriver
West Jordan, UT

Good questions being raised and I am curious, just what percentage of all liquor consumption is due to LDS church members and or other religious organizations in Utah and the rest of the country. Quite low, I'd guess, but certainly not zero.

Whether the 'Zion's curtain by itself isa viable law in reducing alcohol consumption, I'm not sure. Yet I would not enjoy an 'in-your-face' alcohol consumption when dining out. That said, I appreciate the general diligence the legislature has, so far, demonstrated in an attempt to reign in the many social ills and killing of the innocent (DUI) due to recreational alcohol consumption.

What laws are employed to that end, hopefully will result someday in further reducing the scourge of driving under the influence, and the terrible suffering caused by this social disaster.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

As a visitor to Utah, I've watched these laws unfold over the years. It appears to me that they are only giving the appearance of controlling the consumption of alcohol. The current laws are simply ineffectual and often painfully ludicrous.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

Just more of the LDS Church poking its nose where it doesn't belong.

Church leaders should be focusing on feeding the hungry, ministering to the poor and widows, and perhaps orchestrating petitioning god to relieve the droughts, rather than trying to repeatedly control the behavior of non-members through force of civil law.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Multiple factors create any situation. However the view that changing the laws to be like places with much higher rates of drunk driving will not give us more drunk driving goes against all logical reason.

We need to stop seeking to have a king like all other people, and start being willing to stand up for what we know is a better way. A better way is reasonable restrictions on alcohol.

People also have to bear in mind that "more tourism" has a negative social impact. Are we really willing to create a situation where we will be expected to provide the types of jobs "more tourism" will demand?

Money is not everything, and the quality of life in working jobs related to tourism is not generally good.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Many of the poor are such because people waste their resources on alcohol.

The attitude "church leaders should focus on feeding the poor" would have lead to Martin Luther King not working for reforms of unjust laws, because where you sit on the bus has no affect on whether you have food on the table.

Laws that lead to fewer deaths from drunk driving are good laws.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The partition hiding the preparing of alcoholic drinks is a reasonable measure against the proliferation of alcohol in society. It is clear that such a measure works to reduce the amount of drinking in some way, and there has never been any reasonable argument against it.

There is no good reason to want to be like states that have 3 times or more the rate of deaths from drunk driving.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments