Letter: Liquor laws

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 9:13 p.m.


    I noticed that no one here has yet to refute your arguments.


  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    so Lost DC

    You are fine with...
    Socialist government business models?
    Double taxation?
    Theocratic Rule?

    There's the double standard I was talking about.

    ...and I'm using Conservative Gun logic here too.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 1:33 p.m.

    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" liberal

    your spite is really unbecoming.

    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!

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    @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).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    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.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    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.

  • donahoe NSL, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    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"...

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    LDS? lib
    you 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.

  • Mom of 8 Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    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 . . .)

  • donahoe NSL, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    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.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    “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?

    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.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 6:51 a.m.

    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 only way.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 5:58 a.m.

    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.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 5:54 a.m.

    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.