To "Happy Valley Heretic" I am just pointing out the liberal hypocrisy.
Liberals claim that they see life as valuable and something that must be
protected. Liberals have claimed that they would enact any law if it saves the
life of just one person. Yet here we see that given the choice between alcohol
and regulation, the choice is alcohol.I am not saying that guns
should be purchased at a state gun shop, I just am saying that the hypocrisy is
on display.Would you enact more gun laws to save the life of 1
child? Why would you enact more laws to protect 1 child against guns yet want
to keep things the same or less regulated when it comes to alcohol that kills
more people than guns do?
RedShirt another poorly thought out analogy: "Tell us liberals, why
don't you want your alcohol more regulated? How many people do you want to
see die at the hands of a drunk driver? How many homes do you want to see broken
due to the effects of alcohol? How many children do you want to see destroy
their lives because you wanted to deregulate alcohol?"Nobody is
suggesting deregulating alcohol, don't think that's possible.But hey, since you thought of this comparison, More regulated than the state
already is?So by your measure we should acquire firearms from state owned
gun and ammo stores? How many people do you want to die at the hands of
angry American?How many children must die because of irresponsible gun
owners leaving their guns out?Alcohol is not any more evil than a
gun, in the wrong hands it can be dangerous, yet those in the church of the 2nd
amendment, believe that one should never be regulated, and the other regulated
out of existence. Guess which one the founding fathers used more often?
This is why we booze in Wyoming-
Funny to see the same liberals that claim that they would enact restrictive laws
just to save one life are against what this letter proposes.Tell us
liberals, why don't you want your alcohol more regulated? How many people
do you want to see die at the hands of a drunk driver? How many homes do you
want to see broken due to the effects of alcohol? How many children do you want
to see destroy their lives because you wanted to deregulate alcohol?Why are you not proposing to have registries of anybody who buys a pack of
beer? What about the background checks to ensure that an alcoholic or somebody
convicted of a DUI can't buy alcohol? What about the wine tasting groups
that just give out alcohol without doing background checks?
This entire opinion is based on a number of fallacies. None of them make any
If Utah has one of the highest rates of alcohol abuse and Utah has one of the
highest rates of government control do you think the problem is something else?
The whole notion of "I can drive so long as my BAC is lower than .05 is
nonsense." Drinking alcohol impairs and it impairs everyone differently.
Telling the average male that "one drink per hour" should keep you
"legal" on the highway is asking for trouble. Stop suggesting that as
long as your BAC is at a certain level you can jump in your car drive. The
message should be if you drink, you don't drive. Period. Then, the alcohol
content of the beer we consume is immaterial.
@Mike Richards; Give it a rest. Utah has continually won the "least
drunk State" award for decades. This has nothing to do with drinking
and driving- only the ability to let adults make adult choices. "
Unfortunately, drinking impairs a person's ability to think clearly, but it
does not diminish the harm incapacitated drinkers cause."
Religion also impairs a person to think rationally about subjects that
they've never experienced. Utah, for all of it's "Get government
out of our lives" is the ultimate Nanny State when it comes to alcohol.
According to a map published by the Tribune, Utah is in the second highest tier
of States that have huge alcohol problems. Only one tier has worse problems.
In that higher tier, there are only two States, Alaska and New Mexico.So, if we do what one poster opined and "butt out", then we're
showing that family and friends mean nothing to us. We're telling drinkers
to drive when and where they want, regardless of the consequences to themselves
or family. Their incapacitated driving is not their fault; it's the
beer's fault. We're telling drinkers to go ahead and abuse family and
friends. The abuse is not their fault; it's the beer's fault.
We're telling the drinking workers to go ahead and under preform. The lost
jobs are not their fault; it was the beer's fault.Some people
use that faulty logic to justify gun control. Some people seem incapable of
taking responsibility for their decisions and even less capable of taking
responsibility for their actions. Drinking is a decision that carries
responsibility. Unfortunately, drinking impairs a person's ability to
think clearly, but it does not diminish the harm incapacitated drinkers cause.
The .05 really isn't that big of deal.However when people
advocate alcohol policy they should at least be educated about it and not run on
You're right, Utah's BAC of .05 is unnecessarily restrictive and
really doesn't deal with the problem. As for beer, it should be not
unlike guns; leave the marketplace to decide what one should have or not have.
The decision to keep .05% beer production will be made by the marketplace, that
being said Utah should get out of the beer business altogether .
Oh, Good Grief. There is no "higher alcohol beer". The rest of the
civilized , non religion infected world calls it beer. Utah has watered down.
3.2 real beer. If you, or your ward members don't want to drink beer-fine.
Butt out of the sales to those of us that do.