Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Tuesday, January 06, 2009Alcohol Policy: A Tutorial
By John Valentine
Utah State Senator, District 14 The Senate Majority position on alcohol policy is not hard to understand. Bottom Line: Proposals that put more drunk drivers on the street will have a remarkably short run in the Senate. The same goes for proposals that would tend to entice our kids towards alcohol abuse. However, proposals that will make Utah less awkward but preserve the beneficial effect of current law will likely have my support and, I believe, the support of the Utah State Senate. Here is the key: 1. We're concerned by violence done by impaired drivers on Utah streets.Do we love "antiquated laws" that make Utah look quirky? No. And yet that unique package of law is an integral part of our low DUI rates and underage drinking. They have a substantial beneficial effect.  Utah has the lowest alcohol-related fatality rate in the nation. Compare the stats on page 6. Seventeen percent of highway deaths in Utah are alcohol-related compared to 31 percent in Arizona, Colorado and Nevada. The rate in Idaho is 28 percent. Texas is 38 percent.Underage drinking in Utah is about half the national average. It's likely someone in your current circle of family and friends is still alive today because of those unique laws. If we mimic other states' law we may soon mimic their fatality rates. The current chant ("Utah is quirky, why oh why can't we be less so?") lacks juice. Would you put your family at risk on the basis of that argument? Of course not. Less quirky if fine - desirable, even - as long as we don't sacrifice the safety associated with our unique laws. Proponents of change need to be conversant with the full impact of their proposals before their arguments can stand the light of simple, responsible scrutiny. Utah is innovative and we have no shortage of bright minds. I'm sure we can work out responsible solutions.
posted by The Senate Site at 10:03 PM | Link
|
Twitter UpdatesRadio Free SenateNew Media ToolsKeep in TouchYour Government 2.0 Lab
Current Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
64 Comments:
Thank you Senator Valentine!
http://behavioralhealth.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/20/jacqui_poster.jpg
I completely agree with your motives. I want my kids safe, too. But making alcohol some sort of forbidden fruit means our children will see it in the wrong light. (I'm referring to the Waddoups Zion Curtain articles as of late) I don't want my kids someday deciding to drink, and then abusing it because they were told it was wrong to do in the first place.
Do you know my kids came home from their annual "Red Ribbon Week" and announced that I'm a drug abuser because I drink wine? They seriously saw it in the same light they're taught about smoking crack or doing meth in.
Education is the key, and it has to be full eduction.
I see this in the same light as teaching children abstinence-only. They need the information on what happens if they do decide to have sex. Because being told it's wrong is all fine and dandy until they find themselves naked, and don't understand that if they are going to make that choice, they need a condom or they're going to have a baby.
Teaching our children that alcohol isn't ok for kids is great. But not adding that once they're an adult, if they decide to drink, they need to do so responsibly, means they're going to do something stupid, like get alcohol poisoning.
On top of that, I have yet to see real information (as opposed to inferred guesses) that private clubs do anything to prevent drunk driving. I think that the resistance to eliminating private clubs is because many lawmakers see alcohol as a sin, and are uncomfortable that much of the population does not see it that way. We're citizens too, though.
The interesting thing about statistics is that you can be selective in their use to represent any special interest, whether those statistics are relevant or not. I agree that safety is the key concern, but our laws actually encourage drinking and driving more than discourage them. Zoning laws to force people further from their homes, lack of adequate retail outlets, and of course the obvious effect of demonising alcohol thus making it more attractive for children to abuse.
Proposals such as Waddoups' ridiculous idea to prevent children from knowing that alcohol exists does not help our children. They should be taught what it is, what the effects are, and what responsible use is in the case that they choose to try it when they're older.
Lower fatality rates could be due to lower population density, less traffic, or possibly better enforcement by officers. It's not that reasonable people want the laws less "quirky" it is that reasonable people are intelligent enough to see past the thin veil of selective reasoning that our Senate seems to hide behind and want laws that are good for everyone.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Misty.
There's an administrative rules committee meeting tomorrow afternoon that will discuss the Zion Curtain policy you mentioned, above. If I remember tomorrow I'll dig up some interesting information MADD provided about the likely effect bars in restaurants have on children. It's worth discussing.
It's relatively easy to have low rates of DUI and alcohol-related fatalities when only 25% of adults in Utah drink compared with over 60% in Wisconsin. I'm curious how those rates would compared when adjust for those behavioral, cultural, and religious factors.
I think our laws have little impact. Our cultural and societal expectations likely play a greater impact. Also, it's not about education. It's about influencing behavior.
I would be interested in the MADD information. Although I see them in a similar light as PETA. MADD has gone beyond their goal of preventing drunk driving, and on to just preventing drinking. Both are extremist groups, in my opinion, and therefore less objective and less effective.
It won't hurt to look at the information, of course, but I'm a bit skeptical.
What's perhaps more telling is Utah's stats for hard and illicit prescription drug use among the youth. Where can I find those?
I have no doubt that I've been to more DABC hearings than you have Senator. I've never seen you at one. You could learn a lot there. MADD doesn't even need to show up anymore. Just have a commissioner start a projector and let it show a 3 minute film of the same poor old mangled stats and same old sad pictures they pull out every time. MADD hurts people who are looking for solutions to drunk drivers more than it helps. I was nearly killed by a drunk driver. I hate it. I speak at every public hearing for sanity. Then, more often than not, as I sit there I hear the people behind me talking. The exchange is something like this.
"Did your bishop ask you to be here?"
"Yes, they asked for at least 5 people in high council meeting to come and say something against the laws"
"Any idea what to say?"
"No, I'll just stay and show support."
I know that when I've sent reasonable e-mails to you in the past about specific legislation and it's unintended consequences, I've never even received an acknowledgement from your office it was received. I'm guessing that'so not the case with MADD. They haven't put out a useful suggestion in years. They just scream, stop anyone from drinking any way possible. Well, guess what? Drinking will remain legal. Out private club laws don't help. They cause more drinking among those I know who drink, and I don't have any friends that don't.
Come to a private club, or two. See what it's all about. You'll see that as a practical solution, they do nothing except put some extra cash in the school lunch program.
There are very strong arguments that letting children drink wine with their parents at a restaurant as young as 14, like most of the rest of the modern world, makes more sense than our laws. I spent 15 weeks over 5 trips in Amsterdam last year. The Dutch have the lowest use rate of marijuana in the modern world. You'll almost never see one in a "coffee shop". Yet they grow up with it legaly available. They are full of Americans, English and Germans. It's not the availability or visibility that matters there, it's the sensible training and culture that matters. Somehow we forget that here. I'm not advocating either of the items I suggested, but it's interesting that we don't compare out statistics with Western Europe much. They drink younger, have alccohol much more visible, yet don't have the problems we have.
Here's 2 interesting national statistics:
1) Utah has the second lowest rates of binge drinking per capita (9.2%)
2) Utah has the 5th highest rates of binge drinking among drinkers (32.1%)
The statistics tell an interesting tale. Not many Utahns drink so we don't have much binge drinking, but for those Utahns who do drink, binge drinking is a very serious problem in Utah.
Now go back to patting yourselves on the back, while justifying more useless government regulation.
(See statemaster.com for state-by-state comparison info. Alcohol consumption statistics are listed under health.)
John: Your statistics have much more to do with the influence of Mormon culture than laws. Many young adults don't drink in Utah due to the positive influence of their Mormon parents. Most adults in Utah don't drink because of their conviction of the Mormon faith, no the laws. That said, balance is the key. The fact that you can buy a fifth of whiskey in the grocery store in California is broken.
Respectfully,
Steve Fulling
Cultural norms and societal expectations of a state often translate into DUI and underage drinking laws. In Wisconsin's case it is not a crime for your first DUI. In addition, parents can give their kids alcohol anywhere, including bars and restaurants. Wisconsin also has a fatality rate of 41.4% compared to the U.S. average of 31% and Utah's 17%. In addition, the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute ( 2007) reported that they are the worst in the country in current drinking among high school students at 49%, and second worse in the country in underage binge drinking.
Our Alcohol laws have served us well and are part of low DUI and underage drinking rates.
I didn't think this "tutorial" was about selling whisky in grocery stores, or whether or not a State system is appropriate. It's about private club membership laws and the zion curtain at restaurants. Art, a simple "our laws have served us well" doesn't mean anything. One can easily say the old brownbagging laws of the 70's served us well. However, updating them to allow mixed drinks to be brought to the table in restaurants didn't cause DUI to go up, but it helped make it more sensible to get a drink in Utah. Please show us how changing private club membership will hurt?
Interesting how not a single person supporting the system will post without being anonymous, or having a hidden profile.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. The low DUI mortality percentage RATE is more a factor of our relatively low population and that we have a higher overall traffic fatality rate. The District of Columbia and Massachusetts have lower DUI fatalities per capita than does Utah. New York's is only slightly higher. These are hardly places that have tighter drinking laws. However, all of these states have overall auto fatalities that are half to two thirds of Utah's. It seems that it's not alcohol that's the problem, but a whole host of factors like our transportation systems, our development patterns that exclude neighborhood drinking establishments and stores (meaning you HAVE to drive to drink alcohol in Utah - go figure), and poorer education that are the culprit.
Also, interestingly, the number of DUI fatalities is dropping all over the country, including in Utah. Nearly half the fatalities per year compared to the early 1980's, even though the population has grown considerably.
Tighter drinking laws are not the answer. Education, better transportation options, education, better neighborhood access, education, better enforcement...oh and did I say education. This is how you address public safety.
Art:
I think you may have missed my point. Clearly our alcohol laws are influenced by local Mormon culture. My point is that the statistics quoted by Mr. Valentine have more to do with Mormon "word of wisdom" than they do the laws. As such, I have a problem with the thesis of Mr. Valentine's argument. Lastly, I don't know what "our laws have served us well" means. Served who? If the key is education and family values, then maybe the served us poorly?
Respectfully,
Steve Fulling
Here's the data for 2006 (I got this from an Alcohol awareness website and have verified data with federal highway safety stats):
State Fatalities DUI Fatalities Rate Pop Fatalities per 100K DUI Fatalities per 100K
DC 37 14 36% 582,000 6.36 2.41
MA 422 159 38% 6,437,000 6.56 2.47
UT 284 63 22% 2,550,000 11.14 2.47
NY 1,454 483 33% 19,306,000 7.53 2.50
NJ 771 285 37% 8,725,000 8.84 3.27
Sorry about the formatting. Hope you can make sense of it all. :-)
Sorry about the formatting. Hope you can make sense of it all. :-)
"Underage drinking in Utah is about half the national average."
Considering half the population doesn't drink because of their religion, being half the national average means the alcohol laws are doing nothing and our drinking population is actually on par with everyone else.
Same goes for the rest of your statistics, of course we are going to be lower than everyone else when 50% of the state doesn't drink at all.
Dear Senator Waddoups:
As I read the KSL article in regards to the alcohol legislation you are proposing, I was truly amazed at how backward thinking this legislation really is.
I was reared in a large Mormon family in Northern Utah. Alcohol was forbidden in our home. We were not even allowed to discuss alcohol. Whenever a TV show had alcohol, the evils of alcohol were reiterated and often the channel was changed. I know this took place in most of my close friends' home as well.
In spite of "hiding" alcohol from all of us, my group of LDS friends had an incredibly high amount of alcohol abuse. Alcohol became, literally, the forbidden fruit that everyone would do anything to partake of. I was the designated driver, even though that term did not exist at that time. I sobered up so many of my friends and "hid" them in my bedroom so their parents, and mine, wouldn't find out.
We knew the consequences of being found out. It wouldn't be a good tongue lashing, although that would be included. The consequences of partaking of alcohol were physical and emotional abuse.
At 35, I took my first drink. I do have alcohol in my home. It is visible and my sons have grown up with visible alcohol in the home since their early teenage years. I drink responsibly, and never partake more than 1 ounce per hour if I know I have to drive. My children have learned from a healthy example of responsible drinking. There have been no negative experiences.
In contrast, I cannot tell you how many times one of their friends comes to our home, fearful of the same consequences of my youth. We have even had Mormon relatives come to us terrified of being "found out". We have helped so many of them sober up and when appropriate, have helped them open a discussion with their parents and families.
Hiding alcohol is not the solution. The "alcopops" experiment has already shown signs of dismal failure. This legislation will harm, not help.
Our economy is on life support. Our health care system is in dire straights and too many of our families have no access to health care. Our infrastructure also needs attention. Too many people who fit into one of the many "other" boxes cannot find suitable employment or housing due to discrimination. We're exploiting and plundering our non-renewable resources at unprecedented levels.
Better we find the path to health care for even the "least of these, my brethren"; we forbid housing and employment discrimination; we invest in solar and wind power so our precious non-renewable resources are used prudently; we revive our economy with jobs rebuilding our infrastructure; we educate our children to make our world a better place.
I beseech you to concentrate your intellect, your compassion, your honorable efforts, your time and talents into what really matters today.
Respectfully,
Dominique Storni
Dominique Storni, you have, in the span of ten paragraphs, clearly articulated what many of us have experienced and felt.
I was also raised as a member of the predominate religion in Utah, and like you, alcohol was a topic that was not discussed along with sex, drugs or homosexuality. All were considered to be morally represhnable and reasons for shame.
I had my first drink when I was 17 years old, and for the next five years, continued to drink irresponsibly as I had nothing else to guide me by my own immature decision making process.
As an adult, I rarely partake of alcohol as I have an addictive personality, and I fear that if I was to enjoy alcohol more, it would become an addiction. Even though my wife and I are not heavy drinkers, we do have alcohol in the home and have talked at length with our daughters about the need to be responsible and respectful of sex, drugs and alcohol. in essence, we have removed the taboo and they see are able to discuss these issues in the full light of day.
I would hope that our Legislature would choose to represent their entire constituency, not just the members of the predominant religion, and not tighten laws, but instead provide funding for education for those children who are not getting educated at home about alcohol.
It is not the bottle that creates drunk drivers, it is in part the ignorance bred by the lack of honest and open dialog that contributes to creation of drunk drivers.
Q. Wade Billings
Herriman, Utah
Ah, we return so quickly to ridiculous assertions of causality and unjustified connections between unrelated statistics to defend our irrational positions.
Wondered how long it would take us...
Valentine makes a fool of us all with this convoluted reasoning posted here.
With all due respect, Senator Valentine, the Senate majority is wrong on this issue.
The reason Utah's alcohol related accident statistics are lower than the rest of the nation's, and the reason Utah's underage drinking statistics are half the national average are not the laws we have in place. It is the culture. It always has been, and as long as we have an LDS majority in this state, it always will be.
I stand with you and Sen. Waddoups and others in wanting to keep drunk drivers off the roads. I am of the belief that our current penalties for driving under the influence are extremely light, and would be all in favor of strengthening the laws, making a second offense a felony, any DUI offense involving property damage or personal injury at least a second-degree felony and any loss of life as a result of driving under the influence a first-degree felony.
The private club membership isn't a deterrent to drinkers. It's an annoyance. Please, Sen. Valentine, if we as a state are going to have this facade of preventing drunken driving through membership laws, let's make the membership law make sense.
Let's say I'm a member of Joe's Bar and Grill. I am allowed to purchase a membership there, paying the required fee and giving my personal information to the bar, and I can also "sponsor" several people into the bar as well as long as they accompany me on my entry to Joe's Bar.
These people never have to give their information, they don't have to purchase a membership, they basically are getting into the bar free of charge, much as someone would without the private club membership.
So what's the difference here, Senator? So often, it seems the Legislature is interested in making laws that give the appearance that "we are doing something to prevent drunk driving."
I agree with you and the Senate majority, Mr. Valentine, we need tough laws. But we need tough laws that make sense. If the problem is drunk driving, as you've stated, and underage drinking, then let's use a combination of better public education about responsible drinking and being of proper age to drink with a strengthening of our penalties for underage drinking and driving drunk. It makes more sense than setting up a few token hurdles such as private club membership requirements.
Trust me, Senator, if a teenager were threatened with loss of their driver's license if they are caught drinking underage, you'd see far fewer people attempting it. Be creative, not self righteous, please.
Tyler Riggs
tyler@kvnuforthepeople.com
I don't remember the last time I was NOT asked for a legal form of ID when I went to any bar, Private club or otherwise. Therefore, I feel that the bartenders, door people and bouncers are DOING THEIR JOB, by keeping out underaged drinkers. So why would a "membership" be needed? All it does is make patrons (and tourists...hello out of state $$$$$$$???) frustrated. Bars are local businesses, too. They contribute to the local job market and the local economy. Since lawmakers are sometimes influenced by money making prospects (yep, it's true), why would they want to put more restrictions on legitimate money spending, from responsible Utah taxpayers, who want to rightfully consume alcohol when they would like? That type of thinking has never made sense. Just because some lawmakers are afraid of alcohol (since many have never touched the stuff), that shouldn't mean they should think only of the interests of part of the voting population. All people of Utah should be thought of in the lawmaker's decision, not just the "righteous" or the "pure" (you see what I'm getting at?)
"It's For The Children" has to be the most dangerous phrase in politics. I'm surprised the Taliban don't use it.
What could possibly the motivation for this?
Is there a contest between Waddoups and Valentine for this year's Chris Buttarse Award for Stupid Legislation?
Is some Senator going to propose a Resolution to officially enter Utah in the national Most Bizarre Law contest?
Or has someone who has a patent on booze bottle cozies contributed to Waddoups' campaign?
Is there a national laughingstock award?
Fact is, these guys need to sober up. And try to remember the adverse affects of such overreaching laws.
IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO SEE ALCOHOL, DON'T GO TO PLACES THAT SERVE IT!
How do you REALLY feel Jim?
All: thank you for the thoughtful discussion. Let's keep it going and keep it respectful.
RC
"...90 percent of statistics are made up..."
As a bar-goer, drinker, taxpayer, and pretty much liberal heathen, some of the recent alcohol laws have just made me sit back and go "hu?" We increased the amount of liquor i can buy at the bar, but we got rid of Bacardi Ice at the grocery store. We told companies "hey, if you wanna sell your product here, you gotta throw stickers on them." The companies said "uh, no." The fun part about that, is the senator who is trying to get rid of the stupid alcohol stickers anyway, to save the state a million a year. Its like one hand is trying to help while the other hand digs its own grave.
Drunk driving is a problem and everyone will agree with that. Is the solution to make it harder to drink, or is it to make it tougher on DUI's? Is it put more checkpoints on the road to find drunk drivers, or is it have bartenders measure EXACT amounts of alcohol into drinks?
To the woman who's children looked at her as if she had tried to sell them all the cocaine in columbia because she had a glass of wine...i feel your pain. Alcohol in utah has become a taboo...something that is "bad." What do kids do when they find out something is bad? Well they either avoid it like the plauge, or they find the thrill in doing something bad and pound a fifth of vodka in an hour, and end up dead like the frat guy at Utah State.
Laws are intended to protect the minority, and in this instance, it looks like they're being created to asuage the majorities fears of the bottle.
As a bartender in Utah I have to deal with this issue almost daily. I am disgusted and offended by the implication that I am unable to do my job of checking IDs without a membership being part of it. I would say that about 2/3 of all the people that do come to my place of work within a year are either guests of members or individuals that buy temporary memberships. This means that we have no personal information on those people. Plus I would have to say that about 1 out of every 5 out of state customer that I could have had got so offended when I mention that they must have a membership just to be in the bar turns and leaves. To prove my point further that a membership is not required to help stop underage drinking, I had an undercover officer during a sting operation that actually purchased a temporary membership and then wanted his money back after I told him his "friend" had to leave because she was not yet of age. (BTW I did return his money)
Josh Watts Bartender
I fully support legislation that prevents underage drinking and drunk driving.
But I'd like to know how, specifically, the private club law prevents underage drinking and drunk driving... how does it?
I understand and appreciate the stats you shared... I just do not understand how the private club law influences those stats. I don't believe it does.
I've never thought Utah's alcohol laws were too restrictive... State run liquor stores - fine. Fourteen other states that have them.
Low-point beer in the grocery store - fine. Five state do that.
But the private club law, it's too cumbersome and offers no benefit that I can see.
So again, how, specifically does the private club law prevent underage drinking and drunk driving?
The private club law is the one law that should be done away with... doing so will bring the most benefit to the state (more tourism dollars) with no down side. Really, I'd like to know what is the downside of not having the private club law?
People would still have to show ID to enter a bar. Bar employees are still required to take training and not over serve their patrons.
If the downside is "More people will go the the bar so more people will drive drunk" that holds no merit. The losers that drive drunk are going to do so regardless of the private club law...
Do what's best for the state and remove that cumbersome, ineffective requirement, please.
Senator,
You have effectively established the correlation between Utah's current alcohol laws and the lower rates of alcohol related fatalities. The question is can you establish causation?
That is my challenge to you, Senator. Good public policy isn't based just on correlative facts but upon policy that mitigates the actual causes of harms.
Senator Valentine, I challenge you to provide any kind of independent analysis from a think tank or University that will establish such a causation.
Without causation we only have correlation. For example, just as you argue correlation between the alcohol laws and mortality rates, I can argue (truthfully) that the lower rates over the last two decades also correlate with Jerry Sloan coaching the Utah Jazz. But that of course does not mean Jerry Sloan CAUSED them.
So, Senator, can you establish causation? If not, how can you justify these laws?
Our low DUI and underage drinking rates correlate with our low overall drinking rates. They are not a result of our liberty-restricting liquor laws, but are a result of societal and religious influence. Our government should be protecting liberty, not restricting it.
First I see that our children do not get there alcohol from eating out. A majority of them get it from the only of their friends from their friends house.
The current laws and restrictions are costing most than they are worth. An example is that if you live in West Jordan there is not place with in the city to go drinking unless you drive across the Valley. Instead of being able to walk home from a neighborhood bar I have no choice but to drive across the Valley....
I drink - but I've never driven drunk.
I've been hit by a drunk driver - but she wasn't drinking at a bar, she was at a pal's house.
My kids have seen a cocktail being poured - they didn't freak out and start killing people; they asked for different colored crayons.
There is a bottle of 32 year old, single malt scotch on the shelf next to my desk at home - my 15 year old doesn't even look at it, let alone steal it, drink some and then freak out and start killing people.
When my kids have asked about booze, I have responded with a deep, penetrating and, in my opinion, genius analysis and explanation:
"It's something that some people, older people, do. You don't 'cause you're a little kid, and I don't because I'm driving."
You, Senator Valentine, show your kids Reefer Madness, is my guess.
Tom Grover made a brilliant point that, I fear, will sail over the heads of not only the Senate majority, but the majority of Gayle Ruzika's Reefer Madness Cheerleaders as well.
As I told Sen Bramble about vouchers: if you have to make stuff up to prove your point, then you're doing it wrong.
xoxoxo
See you up there soon,
JM Bell
I just wanted to re-iterate my point from above:
I think that the resistance to sane alcohol laws is because many lawmakers see alcohol as a sin, and are uncomfortable that a significant chunk of the population does not see it that way. But, we're citizens too.
When I moved here from the East Coast, I was mystified by the ridiculous liquor laws here in Utah.
If a child, or more likely, a teen, wants to drink, they will drink! Alcohol is everywhere: grocery stores, fast stop stores, restaurants, and let's not forget the media. Should we censor the media in addition to the "wall laws"?
The only thing that works is honest, truthful, open and unbiased education. Scare tactics do not work - just look at the results of "abstinence only".
Here's to you, Senator Waddoups!
The state doesn't care about the safety of its citizens- UDOT stops providing public transportation before most bars/clubs close.
The argument boils down to money. Utah legislature can't get any money out of the 5-20 exemption families, so they create these ridiculous laws to tax people for drinking.
I don't care about your kids' safety- I care about my liberties. I shouldn't have the hide the fact that I want a beer or some wine with my dinner. I shouldn't have to go to some state sponsored store to purchase the alcohol I want.
Utah has the lowest underaged drinking incidents because of the religious demographic- not the laws. Mormons don't drink alcohol and t his is a Mormon state.
"Proponents of change need to be conversant with the full impact of their proposals before their arguments can stand the light of simple, responsible scrutiny."
This needs to be a two way street. I've been here 26 years and during that time not one person has been WILLING to show exactly how any of these crazy laws deter underage drinking, drunk driving and overconsumption. The reason is because they do not.
These laws and governmental sale need to be eliminated.
Dear Senate Site...much thanks for doing the right thing. Liquor laws are confusing and complicated...and need reform...THEY NEED TO BE TOUGHER!
So far only I, personally, have engaged these very weak arguments in favor of liberalizing drinking (yeah, I said it), but maybe Sutherland will formally enter the fray?
To Tom Grover...are you kidding me about "causation"? You mean except that liquor gets your drunk and that "drunk driving," by definition, includes liquor, not Jerry Sloan's coaching skills?
I am surprised at the "antis" at every turn...their arguments are either lacking in clear objectives, steeping in emotion, or empty in honest reasoning.
And, so I ask of the "antis," what is your point...in one short sentence? My policy point would be to reduce alcohol consumption in Utah...and we can reform liquor laws to move in that direction. But what is YOUR simple point?
To Paul Nero: The point is this- stay out of my business. If I own a grocery store and I have customers that want to purchase a legal product, then I should be able to sell it.
These laws do not reduce alcohol consumption. There is proof or research into the idea that they do. However, they do uneccessarily interfere with my access to a legal substance.
My simple point: This proposed inane law will do absolutely NOTHING to reduce alcohol consumption
Is that clear enough for you?
I'm an "anti". I'm anti-moronic, blind following, thoughtless, sheepish, uneducated, illogical, irrational, knee-jerk, reactionary law making.
You belittle those who don't agree with you with ad hominem attacks, so I've decided to respond in kind.
Reducing liquor consumption will also take away money from our schools (40% forced state tax). Are you prepared to tax large families and illegal immigrants extra to make up the lost funds since these are the one responsible for larger than average class sizes and over-crowded schools?
As I stated in my original post, I have experienced no negative consequences in my family because I taught responsible drinking by example.
I have lost close friends to DUI accidents. I totally understand the need for protection.
Again, alcohol was completely out of sight, out of mind, and forbidden for discussion in my small 85% Utah Mormon town. At least 25% of the youth in my Moromon ward abused alcohol. Would you be so kind as to explain to me again how hiding it helped.
This proposed (again inane) legislation neither protects, reduces alcohol consumption, nor keeps our precious children from finding out about alcohol.
Senator,
Can you please explain just how our Private Club and Zion Curtain laws are responsible for low DUI and underage drinking rates?
Give me something... please... anything... you can't, there is no correlation.
With all due respect Senator you are commenting on something you apparently know little about.
Perhaps the State Senate could look at this issue through the lenses of reason, logic, and acceptance of others as opposed to the distorted lenses of religion, fear, and intolerance - or am I asking to much?
Hiding, fear, manipulation, intimidating, force and control - this is not the way to address alcohol abuse, let alone the legal and responsible use of alcohol. This approach creates more problems than it solves... every single time. And if you can not see this I truely question your judgement.
The problem here is that you are assuming that everyone who drinks alcohol is a criminal and out of control, incapable of being responsible for themselves - "They need to be kept in line". This attitude is a direct result of being raised in homes where you are taught that the use of alcohol, in any quantity, is wrong, a sin or moral issue. You are assuming the worst in everyone who decides to drink - these are the same people whom you are supposed to be a public servant to. Way to go...
Here's some legislation for ya... let's say anyone who makes under $18,000 a yr, or is under the age of 24, or who wears certain types of clothing, or is a minority- must register at the door before entering any retail establishment and may only have 2 friends with them at one time - after all we all know these people are more inclined to shoplift or hold up the store, and having this process will deter them and help us to monitor and control their behavior.
I am sure you agree that this is an ugly and inaccurate statement - but it is the same thing as our liquor laws. Whenever you discriminate and assume the worst in people it is ugly, hateful, and wrong.
Let's look at your desire to protect the children, what exactly are you protecting them from? Sin? It's not one... and it is not your job to shield my children from it - it is my job to educate them about their choices and the consequences of those choices regarding this matter. See in my house there is a place for the responsible consumption of alcohol. So what this means is that I get to actually have an open, honest, and sometimes difficult conversation with my children -it's called Parenting - you know the whole "communicating, guiding, disciplining, and holding my children to standards" thing. But what the Senate seems to be saying is "don't worry about Parenting, it's easier and more effective (especially cost effective) to just make it magically disappear, we'll just keep making more rediculous laws"... Give me a break Sir.
Whose stroke of genius was this one... "Perhaps if we remove all alcoholic drinks that look "fruity" from the store we can save our kids - will you show me one, just one kid that started abusing alcohol and leading a life of crime because an alcoholic drink in the convenience store resembled lemonaide. Talk to any counselor or health care professional (for that matter anyone with common sense) that simply is not how this works - and if you can not see the absurdity here I question your judgement. What a waste of time, energy, and money you put into place recently- job well done Senate - way to make a difference...
And dear Mr. Mero, here is a simple point for you - the consumption of alcohol, by adults, is neither a sin nor a moral issue and in fact IT'S LEGAL - so your commitment to reduce it's consumption by lawful adults, anywhere except in your own home, is rediculous and infringes upon the rights of others.
I implore the Utah State Senate to come to their senses and change these ineffective and outdated laws that are all based on discrimination and fear (and quite honestly borders on dictating ones own religious beliefs), if you can not see this I seriously question your judgement.
It is amazing that supposedly intelligent educated people have actually created our alcohol laws.
Great job Senate, way to use the smarts God gave ya.
Regards,
D.C. Lawyer
The burden of proof falls upon those who want to change the status quo. Want to change an old law? Great. But don't ask us to sign over our families as collateral. Show us how a new policy will provide more safety for families, not less. Work with us here. I don't think we're being unreasonable.
Communicating alienation and rage has a place, I suppose, but it's not super helpful to those who have to get down and craft responsible policy.
Senate Site,
There is a moral imperative to eliminate laws that serve no purpose. Particularily if these laws descriminate against a portion of the population.
Not one soul is capable of breaking these laws down one by one and giving any justification. The reason is probably because these laws are indefensible.
They are offensive, mean spirited, morally unjust and ill-concieved.
Please do the moral thing and eliminate these unjust laws.
"Do we love "antiquated laws" that make Utah look quirky? No. And yet that unique package of law is an integral part of our low DUI rates and underage drinking. They have a substantial beneficial effect."
HOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please be specific.
Thank you
"But don't ask us to sign over our families as collateral."
Nice way of putting it. Except that in exchange, you're asking me to put my family up for collateral. When my sons see these laws about alcohol, and come home from school thinking my glass of wine is somehow equal to meth, that means that my parenting could be nullified by your laws. My children are now at risk of getting older, finding themselves with access to alcohol and (because they believe I'm a liar, thanks to your laws, so they might ignore my advice on moderation) end up abusing alcohol.
Teach your own children right and wrong, don't go into restaurants that offend you by serving in plain view, and get out of my family values. The government has no business there. I'm doing just fine without your "help". The government really sucks at parenting.
Hmmm. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the one who would curtail freedom?
If all you hear is alienation and rage, you're not listening. Please address the thoughtful points as well. From a Christian perspective alienation is paramount. From a governance perspective it is also meaningful because it impacts legitimacy.
I am looking forward to write a paper on this for Sutherland. While I will happily go through each comment, meticulously, to establish all of the opposing arguments, I invite anyone to summarize their main points...points they would like the "other" side to address...and I will make every attempt to do that in the paper.
My email address is pmero@sutherlandinstitute.org if you prefer to send your thoughts to me directly.
Best, PTM
Good evening Mr. Mero.
I perused the Sutherland web site this evening. One thing struck me as odd. I read: :A Utah-based public policy research organization supporting limited government, private property rights, and personal responsibility."
How do you say that and espouse liquor control at the same time?
"...limited government"-- No
"...private property rights" -- No
"...prosonal responsibility"--No
Are you saying that you can have it both ways and be inconsistent? This flys in the face of what I teach my children.
Are you as fervent about gun control?
DMulligan...I'll add those questions to the pot. Thanks.
No offense Paul, but with a comment like "to establish all of the opposing arguments" it really makes it hard to want to spend a couple hours writing up my opinion. Unless, of course, it is "I think private clubs should stay the same." But, I don't think you'd be writing up the opposing argument to that.
What is really needed is a write-up that is specific to whether, or not, the private club membership law that was not originally written to stop drunk driving, or alcohol consumption, provides the unintended consequence of doing that. It would be interesting to see why a loophole in a law intended to allow very specific types of fraternal organizations to have drinks without food, and then picked up by some very clever people to create the modern private club, is workng to stop drinking today. Especially, when only full paid private memberships collect any information on the people holding them. Temporary memberships and guests, which are bound to cover 95% of all people who actually use private clubs, don't collect any personal information about a person. For that matter, what percentage of drunk drivers received their alcohol at a private club, and what percentage of those held a membership that would have had personal information. I'm betting that it wouldn't take much more than my fingers and toes to cover that number.
Somehow, I don't think I will ever read something from Sutherland taking an unbiased look at the pro and con issues related specifically to how membership rules have any causal impact on drunk driving. I think I will see specific comments pulled out from here, the standard rhetoric of "our children as collateral" put in and a recommendation that the current franken-mix of laws obviously work, so lets not change any of them. You just never know which one will cause the whole mix to collapse if you remove it.
If you changed "Liquor Law" in this argument to "Gun Control" it's interesting how quickly the right wingers would start using the same language as the "Stop Legislating Your Morals On My Life" crowd.
For me, being a little odd for a lefty, the reasons to leave my guns alone are nearly the same for my reasons for wanting Utah Republicans to stop shoving their religious worldview down my throat every time more than two of them meet in a room.
I'm pretty much of the opinion that the Utah GOP is more of a threat to my family with their punitive morality bills than I am to theirs if I have a cocktail.
You want me to take this as a serious issue? Then give me a DUI law that actually means something; a DUI law with some teeth.
I would like to know how we as registered voters can get some laws changed?
My 9 year old grand daughter was killed on 12/05/08 on Sardine Canyon by a drowsy driver.
He only got a slap on the wrist with a traffic violation.
We got a slap in the face for the 3people that he killed.
Drowsy and distracted drivers are just as dangerous as drunk drivers.
I have to agree with Tyler Riggs who wrote about stiffer penalties.
Just some kind of acknowledgement from this drowsy driver that he killed 3 innocent people and left 2precious children orphans.
He took my daughters only child and as far as we feel...he was negligent and should be charged as such.
Thank you, Marilyn Rockwell
Dear Senator Valentine,
In response to your question: Would you put your family at risk on the basis of that argument? Of course I would! First, my family was never at risk...so it was an easy decision. Private club laws are impotent. The elimination of private club laws do not affect the availablity of alcohol in any way, shape or form. If I choose not to join the New Yorker, I will walk next door to the Market Street Grill and have the same drink for less money (saving the membership cost). Yes...I'll order the bread to make it legit.
We all want to be safe. Why would you make the absurd or arrogant assumption that we don't. I have a wife and three sons. I am very concerned with their safety. In fact, I'm more concerned of the odds that they will be killed by a mishandled gun at the neighbors. For that matter, I consider prescription drugs to be the ultimate threat to my family. Why is that? Because the facts support my suspicions.
We have addressed the full impact of the proposal to eliminate private club membership laws. There is no impact. It has a neutral effect on drunken driving, underage drinking, and overconsumption. Can you show us otherwise?
And finally, I would like to thank you for your service to the great State of Utah!
Michael Druce
The Senate Site said "But don't ask us to sign over our families as collateral."
My goodness - I have a family. I love them. But I've still not heard how the private club laws makes them safer.
If you could tell me how the private club law reduces underage drinking and drunk driving, I'd fully support it.
Will you please help me understand how the private club law reduces underage drinking and drunk driving? That's all I'm asking for.
Thank you Senate Site. I’m very encouraged to see the transparent dialogue on this issue.
I would like to acknowledge that the contributors to this site have more in common than not.
We all agree that Utah’s laws regarding underage drinking and drunk driving are very important and that public safety is the concern of everyone. This opinion is inherent in every argument going forward.
Utah’s religious culture has the greatest impact on the statistics related to alcohol consumption, underage drinking, and drunken driving. This demonstrates the power of education and the positive social influence of the LDS Church.
Most agree that there should be a more open dialogue regarding responsible drinking, health education, and parental involvement. Rather than veil the subject, we should bring it forward with responsible regard for public health and safety.
Most agree that the best deterrent to underage drinking is the enforcement of our existing laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors. In bars, restaurants and liquor stores, checking ID’s is paramount. We agree that strengthening the consequences for minors using fake ID’s is a move in the right direction.
We all agree that drunk driving is a very important public safety issue. We need to continue to educate drinkers on their social responsibilities. We need better transportation options. We need effective enforcement.
Let’s be encouraged by how much in we have in common, it should allow us to focus on the specific impact of eliminating Utah’s private club membership laws.
Mr. Paul Mero – I believe Tom Grover’s argument for establishing causation is relevant to the debate for eliminating private club memberships in Utah. Private club memberships have no impact on the consumption of alcohol. Yes…private clubs sell liquor. Yes…liquor can get you drunk. No…private club memberships do not limit alcohol consumption. No…private club memberships are not a deterrent to drunk driving. No…private clubs are not a deterrent to underage drinking.
Our arguments are not in favor of liberalizing drinking laws…they are in favor of “rationalizing” drinking laws. There is a distinct difference for the purpose of this debate. Eliminating private club memberships does not increase the availability or the consumption of alcohol.
The objective of our argument is quite clear: we want reasonable and effective alcohol laws. Private club membership laws are neither. They cause embarrassment and frustration to our hospitality industry and the citizens of Utah. Private club membership laws have no affect on public safety, alcohol consumption, underage drinking or drunk driving.
Your policy point is “to reduce alcohol consumption in Utah..and we can reform liquor laws to move in that direction”. That’s great. But you’re in the wrong debate. This is not a debate of temperance and the restriction of alcohol consumption. Or maybe it is, and I’m in the wrong debate.
This post began as a discussion about modifying current laws to be more reasonable and effective; finding innovative solutions to reduce drunk driving; finding solutions to reduce underage drinking; and how to best educate drinkers on the harmful effects of overconsumption.
You ask the “antis” (who knows what that means) to make their point in one short sentence. Here is mine: Private club membership laws are ineffective and bad for Utah…they should be repealed in 2009. Simple.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-edwards24-2009jan24,0,3344794.story
Senator Valentine,
Let's just leave it as it is. I read about the proposed compromise and it is going from the crazy to the absurd.
We would be taking a huge step in the wrong direction.
I always believed that conservatives were for smaller and less intrusive governnment. This is the anthesis to conservatism. I would have expected something like this from the Soviet Union.
I am a gray haired father, taxpayer and citizen. The proposed ID scan is a slap in the face to me. Don't insult me and other responsible citizens.
Regards,
D Mulligan
Senate Site wrote: "The burden of proof falls upon those who want to change the status quo."
That's great but as an elected official you have a burden too, to set aside your religious bigotry and use common sense.Listen to all of your constituents. The private club rule does NOTHING to prevent drunk driving. I don't know any responsible consumer of alcoholic beverages who disagrees with keeping drunks off of the road, but any patron of Utah clubs knows the system is a silly hurdle, and not a roadblock to irresponsibility. Remember when brown bags were the status quo, Senator Valentine? I sure do.Talk about horrible policy. Imagine the families who lost members when brown bags and mini bottles were the status quo in Utah's drinking establishments. How many had to die before wrong-headed legislators would listen to reason?
I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to articulate precisely how private clubs reduce drunken driving or under age consumption.
You place a burden of proof on those you disagree with it, claim your family is being held as collateral, then refuse to listen to anyone whose opinion differs from yours. Stop the self-righteous rhetoric and listen to reason.
If any of these crazy substitutions are passed we will wish for the good old days of the private club.
Scanning ID is an egregious breech of privacy. It is a totally un-American proposal. We might as well be living in the Soviet Union.
The potential for identy theft is extreme. If a club has your ID on their hard drive for even a couple of minutes you are in danger. What if the computer is stolen before the data has been transmitted to the state (KGB wannabees)?
This will not help law enforcement at all. The only reason they (ostensibly) would reference the database is after an alleged crime has been commited. This does not stop the crime. Isn't that what it's supposed to do??
Anyone that values freedom and personal rights will oppose this bad legislation. It as a slap in the face to bar patrons. It is a slap in the face to citizens. It is a slap in the face to all good Americans.
Some clubs already scan ID and Drivers' Licenses and keep copies on the hard drives of their computers.
That is precisely why I no longer go to clubs. I love to dance, and yes, at times, I like to enjoy an alcoholic beverage while I dance.
Club owners should know they lose business from people like me who will not allow ID to be scanned.
Senator Valentine,
I just read your bill. With all due respect: Have you lost your mind? This is insane. I assume that this is a big joke???? There is not one sane person that coulsd support such madness.
The state of Utah must always maintain a strict policy on alcohol. It's for the safety of its residents, as well as a way to prevent further crimes linking to alcohol.
Regarding Senate Comment 1/10/2010 "The burden of proof falls upon those who want to change the status quo. Want to change an old law? Great. But don't ask us to sign over our families as collateral. Show us how a new policy will provide more safety for families, not less. Work with us here. I don't think we're being unreasonable." "Communicating alienation and rage has a place, I suppose, but it's not super helpful to those who have to get down and craft responsible policy."
I believe the rage comes from poor representation, leadership, and employing ones own ideals vs. legislating on behalf of the population your elected to represent. An example is HB349 allowing full strength beer on draft. This passed the house last session however was not heard in the Senate and in the current session the President of the senate said he would not hear any alcohol legislation as he "has give us to much". Given who too much, the people he is suppose to represent?
This piece of legislation is written and ready to go however isn't proposed because there is no support for it by our representatives. How the lack of support by our Senator controlling the agenda is working to represent the population I don't know, please tell me I'm interested to get your justification on this one? This is a clear example of how unwilling our representatives are in working on reform surrounding this issue. Reform is needed here in UT no doubt.
Are changing laws going to make anyone safer with out mandating breathalyzers in all autos or banning driving all together, probably not. Isn't the above quote all about drunk driving? I can't believe families aren't going to be any safer in side their home if new laws are enacted. Not like we live in Zombie Land with drunks terrorizing the neighborhoods. Let's get real here, MADD is a big problem in UT spreading false hoods and untruths, skewing the facts, the church is the other problem dictating directives without allowing the people to choose freely. Instead of brain washing and fact skewing. Proper reform is needed by people who understand the social issues and actual know what alcohol does and tastes like. Accidents will continue to occur, I myself have been hit by a drunk driver, did the laws prevent the accident, no, are stricter or looser laws going to prevent that from happening again or increase the likelihood, most likely not. It happened because someone made a poor choice to drink and drive regardless of law. The law should have prevented him from getting in the car did that stop him. Nope, would it in the future given the same choice probably not. Therefore the family collateral is again a twisted untruth in terms of laws. Laws don’t prevent stupidity.
Maybe if HB349 was heard and enacted people would not be so inclined to drink Liquor or Wine, maybe this would lead to greater safety by allowing people to choose to drink a beer instead of the full octane equivalent as the taste quality improves. Hard to correlate numbers on this however I do know if you want to prevent drivers on the road after they have been drinking you need to work with people to enact proper legislation, allowing more neighborhood establishments where people can walk or ride their bikes. Let competition dictate how many establishments the population will support vs. basing the numbers on the population. competition will weed out the weak and may even prevent people from drinking and driving. Allow people to park over night if they had too much and take a taxi without the fear of ticket or towing. Promote tipsy taxi services. Install efficient public transportation Move away from State retail control and placing higher rates of taxation on the product to pay for handling and privatize distribution refocus efforts on education, reform and enforcement.
Put HB349 back on the agenda and let it be heard. Proof is in the pudding from what you quote above. The time for change is now, and this is good beneficial legislation for Utah without collateral.
Post a Comment
<< Home