Comments on: Alcohol chats: An ongoing discussion between Mero and Riggs

By: josh

josh — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:20:46 +0000

Utah’s problem is being uptight about everything that goes against the LDS church. If you drink you drink allow them to enjoy it anywhere they can legally do it. We have more problems to worry about in this world than if someone wants to enjoy a brew after a long day.

By: Paul Mero

Paul Mero — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:29:02 +0000

I am going to write a paper on this policy for Sutherland. While everyone has expressed themselves quite well on this and the other post…and probably elsewhere…I invite concise summaries of your opposition to the current UT liquor law. I’ll be sure to go back through what you guys have written as well.

I’ll do my best to address them. Promise.

By: Tyson

Tyson — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:34:37 +0000

From what I can see, Utah alcohol laws are primarily a way for our public figures to flaunt their own righteousness, and for the relative majority to have “feel good” laws.

By: Bridge

Bridge — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:33:52 +0000

GRRRRRRRRR! Tyler I am sooooo mad at Nero’s comments in his chat to you. It is just those type of comments that make me hate living in Utah.

I’ll make a deal. We can hide liquor in resturants when all LDS books/jewlery/paintings/ext are hidden behind a closed section in stores. It is just that ridiculous to me.

I do wish the government would make stiffer penalties on drunk drivers though. MUCH stiffer. Although I do drink, I am no fan of drunk drivers.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:33:44 +0000

Sorry point being, the rest of us don’t care. We are comfortable with our behavior. And we know instinctively we are responsible for our actions and the consequences thereof. That is why that law is NOT reducing consumption, just the steps between me and a nice cold beer an/or a shot of Patron since that is what I am paying a membership for.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:30:45 +0000

And… that has an effect our tourism industry, restraunts, etc. Why is Tyler being drawn as the bad person. He is not suggesting that we drop the legal age to 18, or change the acceptable BAC to .10 or anything of the sort. He is simply stating the current laws are inconvenient and not effective. And that assuming some cooperation we can acheive goals in a better way.

I firmly believe that the ID/memberships at private clubs is designed to protect mormons who would otherwise succumb were they not required to attach their name to their behavior.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:49:34 +0000

“Michael Waddoups is making himself and this state look like a bunch of backwards religious freakjob hillbillies.”

This seems to be the crux of your argument. To which I answer, And?