Alcohol laws by state

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by livecoug

why is the cause of so much potential heartache, pain, disease and death celebrated in the adult world? How many drinkers are anti-drunk driving yet justify a few beers (or whatever) before they go out on a drive under the guise of "I'm not impaired, I feel fine". Is there really a benefit to alcohol besides a buzz and losing all inhibitions? Is that worth the potential damage to oneself and others? I'll never get it.. oh well.

I agree the abuse alcohol has caused many societal and health problems and it probably is overglorified in advertising (then again so many other consumer products are overglorified as well). I have seen first hand some of the bad side of that abuse. That said to say the only benefit of alcohol is "a buzz and losing all inhibitions" is a grossly ignorant statement. Beverages which happen to contain alcohol have been a part of human living since before written history, and one is simply missing out on some of the tastes of life if you completely avoid such drinks. That's your perogative, but don't put down people who chose to experience more of what life offers in a responsible way.

Furthermore there are some noted health benefits correlated with alcohol in moderation and having one drink a day can increase your HDL (good cholesterol).

Regarding laws in Utah, I think the main issue is the complexity (and often absurdity) of the laws and how they relate to tourism. When you cite dry counties and cities, none of them are in ski tourism areas that Utah competes with, for example. Yes, with a small amount of effort the ski tourist can have an apres ski drink, but sometimes perception is reality.

There are aspects to having restrictive alcohol selling laws that can actually increase the risks to society. I don't know if this is still true, but it used to be that the only liquor store in SLC that was open after 5 pm on Saturday was downtown. This had two effects, one people, possibly impaired, would drive a long distance to get alcohol and people would generally overstock to avoid running out after their nearby store closed, which in some cases could lead to increased consumption.

[MikeWaters]

Utah should just allow liquor and regular beer and all that.

But tax it to the point that it replaces the state income tax. It might be $40 for a 12 pack, but who cares.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Utah should just allow liquor and regular beer and all that.

But tax it to the point that it replaces the state income tax. It might be $40 for a 12 pack, but who cares.

Sounds like a good plan in concept but I would also tax to the moon those awful sugary drinks that lead to obesity, diabeties and early death; any non-organic foods; pastries, cookies and cakes; all processed foods; television; popular music; and any violent movies.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I assume you are exaggerating about your stated percentages. The costs of alcholol are higher than you state, in my opinion.

Probably so, but I think I am correct in asserting less than one in one hundred instances of drunk driving results in an accident. In fact, that is probably an incredibly conservative statement.

How many who drink become alcoholics? No idea, just throwing numbers out. But anecdotally (and that was the point, describing the experience through the eyes of the drinker) I know probably a hundred or more people who drink and only one of them I know to be an alcoholic. I'm not trying to convince anyone there aren't negative affects, I'm just saying that where as the mormon non-drinking world imagines (I believe) that these negative things happen instantaneously to everyone, drinkers know that most of the time they don't. I'm not saying, again, that the benefits outwiegh the risks. Just trying to answer the question of why anyone would drink in light of the dangers. Because the dangers don't happen as often as we might think, or at least not enough to bother your average drinker.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Utah should just allow liquor and regular beer and all that.

But tax it to the point that it replaces the state income tax. It might be $40 for a 12 pack, but who cares.

Anytime the tax on something common becomes outrageous, bootlegging, importing, and associated illegal activity increases. $40 for a 12-pack will encourage a lot of entreprenuers to make frequent beer runs to Evanston. I'm sure Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado and Arizona will be happy for the extra business and tax income.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Probably so, but I think I am correct in asserting less than one in one hundred instances of drunk driving results in an accident. In fact, that is probably an incredibly conservative statement.

How many who drink become alcoholics? No idea, just throwing numbers out. But anecdotally (and that was the point, describing the experience through the eyes of the drinker) I know probably a hundred or more people who drink and only one of them I know to be an alcoholic. I'm not trying to convince anyone there aren't negative affects, I'm just saying that where as the mormon non-drinking world imagines (I believe) that these negative things happen instantaneously to everyone, drinkers know that most of the time they don't. I'm not saying, again, that the benefits outwiegh the risks. Just trying to answer the question of why anyone would drink in light of the dangers. Because the dangers don't happen as often as we might think, or at least not enough to bother your average drinker.

I would say less than 1% of people who drink become alcoholics. Then there are all those studies saying the occasional drink is good for you.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

You are understating the prevalence of alcoholism. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) out of NIH in Bethesda estimates that about 14 million Americans (almost 5 percent of the population) abuse alcohol or are alcoholics. The related costs are staggering.

As for the incidence of inebriated people causing accidents, I don't know how such statistical data could be derived or verified. But something tells me you are underestimating the problem.

5% sounds high to me, but again just anecdotal evidence is on my side. I don't doubt your numbers. I'm just trying to highlight that we all take risks that we think will never culminate in a tragedy. It is human nature to do this. Mormons just do it in other venues. I'm in no way shape or form trying to minimize the negative impact of alcohol. Just trying to answer the question of why a person woudl do something that to we LDS seems irrational. In other words, they aren't that different than we are. We make the same sorts of choices, just as to other risky behaviors.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by hyrum

Anytime the tax on something common becomes outrageous, bootlegging, importing, and associated illegal activity increases. $40 for a 12-pack will encourage a lot of entreprenuers to make frequent beer runs to Evanston. I'm sure Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado and Arizona will be happy for the extra business and tax income.

This is correct. You can't tax it to the point of being a de facto ban. Banning alcohol sure worked well, didn't it. From a broader perspective, "sin taxes" represent that slide toward government playing a moralizing role that inevitably is a marker for overall decline in or a low cultural condition.

It's interesting how Mormons hate government intrusion and espeicially taxes except when it uses government fiat to enforce their beliefs.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

You are understating the prevalence of alcoholism. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) out of NIH in Bethesda estimates that about 14 million Americans (almost 5 percent of the population) abuse alcohol or are alcoholics. The related costs are staggering.

As for the incidence of inebriated people causing accidents, I don't know how such statistical data could be derived or verified. But something tells me you are underestimating the problem.

My father was an alcoholic. I had several roomates in college (not at BYU) who abused alcohol regularly. Alcoholism is not the same as abuse of alcohol, I assure you. Thus, I am somewhat suspicious of the menaing of that 5%.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is correct. You can't tax it to the point of being a de facto ban. Banning alcohol sure worked well, didn't it. From a broader perspective, "sin taxes" represent that slide toward government playing a moralizing role that inevitably is a marker for overall decline in or a low cultural condition.

It's interesting how Mormons hate government intrusion and espeicially taxes except when it uses government fiat to enforce their beliefs.

Are you sure you have the causation desribed ocrrectly in that correlation? Perhaps most successful societies have moral codes that are followed rather rigidly by their citizenry and they begin to decline when the citizens collectively fail to follow or self-enforce those codes, thus prompting governemnts to begin to legislate the issues that previously required no legislation.