This week I want to talk about Utah’s liquor laws – and, as usual, yours truly will cut to the quick. I think Utah’s liquor laws are confusing and unnecessarily complicated. I also believe that an unorchestrated convergence of the liquor lobby, confused Mormons, the “Utah nice” crowd, and Mormon-haters have made it that way.
As public policy, liquor laws aren’t that complicated to understand. We begin with a premise – is drinking liquor something society wants to encourage or discourage?
That discussion allows libertines the opportunity to express the effrontery that drinking liquor is nobody’s business but the drinker himself. To which, the reasonable response is – what, are you stupid? But we now they’re not stupid, their drunk – drunk with the idea that what they do personally has no impact on anyone around them – that they are an island unto themselves.
Blame it on Hume, Bentham and, especially, John Stuart Mill for the destructive idea that liberty means doing what you desire, or blame it on unschooled minds and other libertarians for insisting that their notion of liberty has anything to do with reality, let alone America – but there are a vocal group of people who honestly believe that what they do is nobody’s business. It’s not mom’s business or dad’s business or the kid’s business, or the boss’s business, or the neighbor’s business – if they want to drink liquor and “relax” (that’s what drinkers call getting drunk…relaxed) then that’s nobody’s business but their own.
Because of the large Mormon population in Utah, there’s strong public sentiment to discourage drinking. And, in fact, that would be a proper and legitimate approach to liquor laws – let’s discourage drinking, period. But we just can’t quite get ourselves to do that. You see, drinkers are constantly complaining that the non-drinkers aren’t being fair…the Mormon haters take it one step further and actually insist that, as a matter of everything holy (or everything self-righteous or whatever the best term is to describe the attitudes of anti-Mormon bigots), Latter-day Saints shouldn’t be allowed to regulate stuff they know nothing about. A very curious notion.
But, even more curious, is that many silly Mormons actually let themselves be bullied and swayed by those sentiments. Their “Utah nice” gene kicks in and all of the sudden they’re society begins to reflect the values of other people, not their own. And then we have another group of Mormons who are so righteous that they “righteous” themselves right out of their good senses and religious identity. Frankly, they’re just too smart to be fooled by their own religious values and doctrines – and so they let go of the one bar they claim to embrace and belly up to the bar of sophisticated opinion.
These myriad of conflicting opinions have led us to the current labyrinth of liquor laws. But that’s just democracy in action – sometimes getting from Point A to Point B isn’t a tidy little process.
So why do we have liquor laws at all? Two reasons. The first reason is that liquor impairs human judgment and behavior, and that impairment affects the lives of others, at home or in public. And the second reason is that we don’t want to encourage kids to impair their judgment any further than the minds of youth are already naturally impaired.
The liquor industry is every bit as culpable in the sale of their harmful product as the tobacco industry. On the one hand, they have all of these cool advertisements that have led to the myth that most people drink their products – at the very least, certainly the cool people drink their products – and youth are taken in by those images. On the other hand, and this is the high-sign when you know you’re being snookered, they run ads about “drinking responsibly.” When a company runs ads to tell you not to use so much of its product, that’s the high-sign that either their doing something wrong or their product isn’t good for you, or both.
Here is the best liquor law for Utah: sell booze from outlets where children aren’t around and require real accountability from consumers. This means that liquor, including beer and wine, should be sold from licensed liquor stores, whether state-run or not (I prefer not), or from restaurants and bars; if from restaurants and bars, then those establishments should be off-limits to children; and, lastly, consumers of liquor (no matter how many times they roll their eyes) should be required to enlist like they are shopping at Costco with a membership, whether at the restaurant or the local liquor store.
And for those who resist this sober thinking – remember, don’t drink and derive.
For the Sutherland Institute, I’m Paul Mero.
paul knows i respect him. but he’s so wrong on this issue.
While we’re at it we should make sure restaurants and grocery stores don’t sell tea or coffee when kids are around. Caffeine is a mood altering drug. I mean who needs kids more hyper than they already are. Besides, we’d be upholding the values of the community right.
I think these silly Mormons you’re talking about actually realize that not restricting someone’s freedom to drink is not the same as condoning it. If you’re not in favor of laws banning coffee is that the same as condoning coffee consumption?
I wonder what sinister advertising ploy snookered Jesus when he performed his first miracle by turning water into wine?
I think Paul has a point with the “drink responsibly” ads. It’s right up there with a bunch of legislators telling us there is no need for legislative ethics reform, and we should just go about our bidness.
That said, the only hole in Paul’s argument is somehow tying paying a membership fee to a reduction in alcohol consumption once inside. The argument seems to be that Costco requiring a membership for entry somehow reduces your spending once inside. I doubt that’s the case.
Scott S.,good to see you posting again! I agree, I am always suspicious of someone who wants to decide which ‘poison’ I get to consume.
Paul, I am going to find every person you ever drove by in your BMW, and inhaled exhaust from said vehicle, and demand you curb your use of said vehicle because the toxins spewing from that German engineered beauty adversely effect our health.
Most people don’t abuse alcohol just like most people don’t abuse food. However, some abuse one or the other or both. If we are going to “discourage” alcohol consumption, then let’s discourage overconsumption of food.
Before you say eating too much food doesn’t kill tens of thousands of innocent drivers and passengers per year, at least admit that eating too much drains tens of billions from our economy which impacts everyone. Is the damage due to eating too much food the same as consuming too much alcohol? Maybe, maybe not. Even if it’s not, why does anything have meet the “alcohol” threshold before it’s considered bad for society?
while we’re at it, let us also close golden corral to really fat people. let us also leave our personal information at every drugstore we stop at to pick up a box of sudafed, robitussin or nyquil. and for many people, their favorite mind altering drug is food. so for everyone who buys food, they should have a card for that, too.
The memebership idea is just plain goofy, Paul. As you know, I can walk into Costco with someone who’s a member and buy something on their membership. Same with our silly private clubs. The membership controls nothing and does nothing to increase responsibile drinking.
And the banning children from restaurants that serve alcohol? A new extreme, Paul. Can’t parents decide whether or not their children should be allowed to eat in such restaurants? A law like this will not only set back the restaurant industry, it will further frustrate and confuse tourist.
Can’t wait to see how these fly in the legislature.
Those who are comparing coffee to alcohol are truly grasping at straws. I tend to agree with Mr. Mero on the danger of alcohol. My experience with alcohol has been very regrettable. Would society be better off without alcohol? Definitely. Of course a ban is not likely, or possible to enforce. Alcohol is a damaging, addictive, and extremely harmful substance. For those that regularly drink, if you could choose to not drink, without any withdrawal symptoms, would you? Can you say that your life would be worse without regularly consuming alcohol?
to answer dare’s question, no, my life would not be worse without regularly consuming alcohol. however, my consumption is 1- none of your business and 2- responsible and in moderation.
alcohol is not the only thing that is addicting. many other things can be addicting, including food, sex, plastic surgery, etc. you get the idea. any addiction is harmful and can be fatal.
you have a better chance of being killed just by driving your car to work every day than i do having a glass of wine with dinner or by having a beer while i read my book.
my point is that everything we do has dangerous potential. we can’t regulate the hell out of everything just because it’s dangerous and we feel like it.
So let me get this straight…we need to not allow restaurants to serve liquor if kids are going to come in? The government is going to enforce this? I understand the family values and limited government thing is conflicting here Paul, and it looks like family values is winning out. Only it’s not true family values, it’s YOUR family values. Can I set my own family values, please?
always hot for the rest of the story is thetruant.com
http://www.thetruant.com/2009/01/utah-based-think-tank-releases-new-policy-ideas/
Paul,
We’re getting to the point where libertarians and those who claim that what they do is nobody’s business aren’t the problem. Our problem is that we have too many busy-bodies trying to control too many aspects of our lives even though there is no evidence that their interference provides any benefit to society.
Historically the vast majority of Utah’s drinkers have proven that they can control themselves and their drinking. Those whose actions represent a public danger should be punished for the harm they’ve done or prevented from harming others if possible but that really has nothing to do with the silly legal restrictions you’ve proposed.
How does banning kids from restaurants that serve liquor do anything measurable to improve society or public safety? How does requiring a club card keep anyone safe from alcohol abuse? What evidence do you have that demonstrates your measures will provide any public benefit?
You may be right that a public policy based on the whims of libertines isn’t correct…but I still say the burden of evidence is on you to prove that your restrictions on drinkers’ liberty are warranted.
Call me an anti-Mormon bigot if you like but much of our state’s current alcohol laws (and your proposed policies) wreak of the pointless religious nannyism directed towards a large non-LDS population in Utah that neither needs nor wants your efforts to protect them from themselves.
Pingback: Utah Based Think Tank Releases New Policy Ideas.
Paul your argument is based entirely on the premise that alcohol has no inherent benefit. One could unequivocally make this argument for tobacco but moderate drinking (2 drinks/day) has been demonstrated to be beneficial. There is abundant epidemiological and clinical evidence showing that light–moderate drinking is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), total and ischaemic stroke and total mortality in middle-aged and elderly men and women. The epidemiological evidence suggests a J- or U-shaped relationship between alcohol and CHD (Doll, 1997; Grobbee et al., 1999; Rimm et al., 1999; Klatsky, 2001; Rotondo et al., 2001; van Tol and Hendriks, 2001).
I think that mister Mero has the right idea here but has not gone far enough. I bealive that all drinkers should be rounded up and placed in the old internment camps used in the second world war. I feel this is the only reasonable action we can take against these Mormon-hatters and Christ-killers.
Pingback: Utah Alcohol Laws and Discrimination | KVNU's For The People
Mero one more time frames his argument with a foolish premise, and then continues along those same lines to try to convince others to think (or not think) in the same manner. “We begin with a premise – is drinking liquor something society wants to encourage or discourage?” Society should allow drinking liquor, because when not done to the level of abuse, with the exception of many Muslim countries,it is both legal and socially acceptable .
One could also ask—is eating ice cream something society wants to encourage or discourage? It makes about as much sense. Judging from the shape many Utah Mormons find themselves in, it appears that sugar is a drug just as abused as alcohol in this state, if not more so.
One must not forget the socially and morally accepted(Church approved)drugs of choice in Utah—prescription anxiety drugs and antidepressants. Hey I’ve got a great idea like Paul’s. Let’s put all of our LDS friends who have prescriptions for these drugs on a registry and make them carry a card like Costco. After all Utah is the #1 state for the abuse of prescription medications. We could keep track of their drug use in a state database and send in the narc squad when they have reached a certain level use that suggests impairment.
No matter how Mero frames his argument, the truth is that the (fast declining) religious majority in the state jealously defends the notion that they somehow have the right to legislate their religious views of morality on everyone else living in the state. Liquor laws, Sunday closing laws, gay rights laws, and the rest are all examples of trying to make the behavior of others conform to their beliefs and values. This is neither freedom of religion or freedom of expression. It is trying to force others to conform to their values and beliefs because theirs are “true/right” and those of others are “false/wrong”.
I believe that Mero’s ridiculous suggestion that children be prohibited from entering restaurants that serve liquor underlies a basic fear of the more conservative members of the LDS faith. That is the fear that the total indoctrination of their children to conform to their own narrow and inflexible mindset may be eroded by their children viewing responsible adults enjoying themselves having a social drink with dinner. Worse still those children might see two members of the same sex publicly showing love and affection for one another as Jesus did with his disciples. If one’s values were intrinsically so far superior to those of the “rest of society”, shielding one’s children from the “rest of society” would really not be necessary since those values would be so virtuous as to be self sustaining and not require strict parental control and enforcement (or outside laws and regulations).
Even if Mero is correct that alcohol impairs ones judgment, I would maintain that the intoxicants of sanctimony, self-righteousness and dogmatic views impair ones judgment even more, and in the words of Sir Winston Churchill—Mr. Mero, “I shall be sober in the morning”.