A Drink In Seattle Vs. A Drink In Salt Lake City

[stemelbow]

I don't know how far we can stretch that rationale. Would a person morally opposed to driving a car be the best person to go to for driving lessons?

That's not really the rationale though. Are we talking about drinking lessons here? Who says he's morally opposed to drinking? Perhaps he's fine with it and supports responsible drinkers? He simply doesn't drink because he's asked not to.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know how far we can stretch that rationale. Would a person morally opposed to driving a car be the best person to go to for driving lessons?

Like the previous comment from Johnnie Cake, this analogy ignores the essential purpose of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission. It is not an advocacy group for drinkers. It exists to help the state government protect the public from the abuse of alcohol.

[cursor]

Quite frankly, Scott, I'm not sure how the OP's stated desire to have access to a cold IPA off the shelf has anything to do with "protect[ing] the public from the abuse of alcohol." If alcohol abuse is the consumer's goal, all he/she needs to do to buy a 24-pack from the State Liquor Store ... pop eighteen of them in the fridge, and the other six of them into the freezer for just forty five-minutes ... and they're good to go. Additionally don't forget about the instant availability of cold beer at any of the local microbreweries (allowed by state law). And, obviously, there is always hard liquor sold at the State Liquor Store (if one's target is to abuse alcohol and endanger the general public).

Too many things that are absolute poison for the human body are not regulated at all by state or federal government. Anyone can buy a nice cold 64-oz Mountain Dew at the local convenience store. Boy talk about ABUSE!

[Johnnie Cake]

Like the previous comment from Johnnie Cake, this analogy ignores the essential purpose of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission. It is not an advocacy group for drinkers. It exists to help the state government protect the public from the abuse of alcohol.

I should have been more suspect in my previous posts...I in no way wish to make this an issue about David Gladwell...I'm sure he is nothing but a respectable member of our community...I was merely wanting to point out the irony of a non-drinking, former LDS Bishop, who understandably brings a certain bias to the position, as head of the State Liquor Commission.

While I acknowledge that being a non-drinker does not disqualify someone from this appointment, why would the liquor commission be stacked with non-drinking Mormons? Why only (to the best of my knowledge) one drinker on the commission? Does this make sense? I guess it does if the purpose of the commission is to restrict and control the consumption of alcohol…but are they also not responsible their consumers? How does someone who doesn’t consume what their customer consumes know what that customer wants?

I can’t imagine a non-doctor heading the AMA nor someone unfamiliar with the securities industry over seeing the SEC.

Speaking only for myself and my former-LDS perspective...I had a very unhealthy and very negative bias against alcohol consumption. It was drummed into me from an early age…that alcohol was evil…the mere sight of a beer in someone’s hand gave me the ability to instantly judge the character of the individual so imbibing…or so I thought. Just as I once thought that Mormonism had the monopoly on quality families…I too was in error in misjudging those who drink responsibly.

There is nothing wrong with the responsible consumption of alcoholic beverages…in fact oft times we fail to remember that even Christ, the original 12 apostles, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith all drank alcohol…to name just a few…

[Scott Lloyd]

Quite frankly, Scott, I'm not sure how the OP's stated desire to have access to a cold IPA off the shelf has anything to do with "protect[ing] the public from the abuse of alcohol." If alcohol abuse is the consumer's goal, all he/she needs to do to buy a 24-pack from the State Liquor Store ... pop eighteen of them in the fridge, and the other six of them into the freezer for just forty five-minutes ... and they're good to go. Additionally don't forget about the instant availability of cold beer at any of the local microbreweries (allowed by state law). And, obviously, there is always hard liquor sold at the State Liquor Store (if one's target is to abuse alcohol and endanger the general public).

Too many things that are absolute poison for the human body are not regulated at all by state or federal government. Anyone can buy a nice cold 64-oz Mountain Dew at the local convenience store. Boy talk about ABUSE!

My point being that the purpose of this state agency is not to serve the needs of drinkers, as some posts here seem to imply. It is to serve a public safety function.

How effectively it fulfills that function is a topic for a separate discussion.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

Speaking only for myself and my former-LDS perspective...I had a very unhealthy and very negative bias against alcohol consumption.

Perhaps you ought to take a moment and realize you are projecting your former biases on to others. I noticed you automatically assumed I was totally biased against drinkers. I let it pass because I assumed you were ignorant of my position. This is to put you on notice that is not my position.

[Scott Lloyd]

I should have been more suspect in my previous posts...I in no way wish to make this an issue about David Gladwell...I'm sure he is nothing but a respectable member of our community...I was merely wanting to point out the irony of a non-drinking, former LDS Bishop, who understandably brings a certain bias to the position, as head of the State Liquor Commission.

I get your point quite well. And I see no irony here. The function of the commission is to oversee the distribution of alcoholic beverages in the state and to see that laws and regulations are being complied with. You don't have to be a drinker to do that.

While I acknowledge that being a non-drinker does not disqualify someone from this appointment, why would the liquor commission be stacked with non-drinking Mormons?

Why not? What difference does it make? One's personal drinking habits bear little relevance to whether he can fulfill the purpose of the agency, which is to ensure compliance with the law. Unless the person is such a sot that he refuses to work to ensure such compliance. Then he would be quite properly judged as incompetent.

Why only (to the best of my knowledge) one drinker on the commission? Does this make sense? I guess it does if the purpose of the commission is to restrict and control the consumption of alcohol

I was starting to hope you were beginning to catch on. But then I read your continued comments.

…but are they also not responsible their consumers?

In what sense are they responsible to drinkers? And in what sense are drinkers "their consumers?" Once the agency has ensured that the law has been complied with, they should bear little or no relationship with the "consumers."

How does someone who doesn’t consume what their customer consumes know what that customer wants?

Drinkers are not the customers of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission or of the state agency it oversees. They are customers to the operators of the establishments that sell the alcohol. And those purveyors are regulated by the state commission.

I can’t imagine a non-doctor heading the AMA nor someone unfamiliar with the securities industry over seeing the SEC.

Irrelevant examples. See above.

Speaking only for myself and my former-LDS perspective...I had a very unhealthy and very negative bias against alcohol consumption. It was drummed into me from an early age…that alcohol was evil…the mere sight of a beer in someone’s hand gave me the ability to instantly judge the character of the individual so imbibing…or so I thought.

I'm not persuaded you are better off by the change in perspective -- but that is actually peripheral to the point that is being discussed here.

Just as I once thought that Mormonism had the monopoly on quality families…I too was in error in misjudging those who drink responsibly.

I don't see that this has anything to do with the matter of whether the Utah Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission has an advocacy role on behalf of drinkers. Which it doesn't.

There is nothing wrong with the responsible consumption of alcoholic beverages…in fact oft times we fail to remember that even Christ, the original 12 apostles, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith all drank alcohol…to name just a few…

Again, you are arguing different points topics here. I prefer to keep the discussion focused. If it gets too shotgun in nature, I will quickly lose interest.

To reiterate: The commission and the state agency it oversees are not charged with the responsibility of being advocates for drinkers. They exist to ensure compliance with the law.

I'll keep repeating that until I get an indication it is sinking in.

[cursor]

Actually, I think that is precisely the concern of the OP ... how effective that particular legislation is (or isn't). It certainly shouldn't require "another discussion." If the law is in fact ineffective, then why why allow it to unnecessarily inconvenience those (Utahans, or state visitors) who choose to have a cold beer or two periodically? "Free agency" is, after all, a principle mantra of the LDS faith.

[Johnnie Cake]

Perhaps you ought to take a moment and realize you are projecting your former biases on to others. I noticed you automatically assumed I was totally biased against drinkers. I let it pass because I assumed you were ignorant of my position. This is to put you on notice that is not my position.

Undoubtedly we all bring our personal bias's to any argument... glad to know that you have no bias against those who drink responsibly...can we at least agree that the "Zion Curtin" in restaurant bars is a silly idea and that they should be removed?

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, I think that is precisely the concern of the OP ... how effective that particular legislation is (or isn't). It certainly shouldn't require "another discussion." If the law is in fact ineffective, then why why allow it to unnecessarily inconvenience those (Utahans, or state visitors) who choose to have a cold beer or two periodically?

If the law is ineffective, then by all means take steps to remedy its effectiveness.

But that doesn't change the purpose and function of the state agency, which is to ensure compliance with regulation to preserve the public safety and welfare of the citizenry, not to fill a customer-service role for drinkers.

(Incidentally, the word Utahns should not have an a between the h and the n.

"Free agency" is, after all, a principle mantra of the LDS faith.

Actually, the Church has virtually discontinued the use of the term free agency ever since President Boyd K. Packer pointed out in a conference talk that it is not scriptural. The term that is now used is moral agency or, simply, agency.

I myself have not used the phrase "free agency" in written or spoken discourse in well over two decades.

And in any case, it is not the Church's "mantra" that agency equates to license or to freedom from consequences of the choices one makes.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Johnnie Cake]

I get your point quite well. And I see no irony here. The function of the commission is to oversee the distribution of alcoholic beverages in the state and to see that laws and regulations are being complied with. You don't have to be a drinker to do that.

In what sense are they responsible to drinkers? And in what sense are drinkers "their consumers?" Once the agency has ensured that the law has been complied with, they should bear little or no relationship with the "consumers."

Drinkers are not the customers of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission or of the state agency it oversees. They are customers to the operators of the establishments that sell the alcohol. And those purveyors are regulated by the state commission.

I don't see that this has anything to do with the matter of whether the Utah Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission has an advocacy role on behalf of drinkers. Which it doesn't.

To reiterate: The commission and the state agency it oversees are not charged with the responsibility of being advocates for drinkers. They exist to ensure compliance with the law.

I'll keep repeating that until I get an indication it is sinking in.

Well....according to the UDAB's own web sight... their purpose is to:

Origin and Purpose

The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has been in existence since 1935. In that year, the Utah State Legislature created the department by statute and charged it with the responsibility of conducting, licensing and regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages in a manner and at prices which reasonably satisfy the public demand and protect the public interest, including the rights of citizens who do not wish to be involved with alcoholic beverages. The legislature also mandated that the department be operated as a public business using sound management principles and practices.

Two years earlier, the ratification of the Twenty First Amendment not only ended national prohibition, but it also gave individual states the right to choose their own system of controlling and distributing alcoholic beverages. The Utah legislature at that time believed that the state, rather than private enterprise, should control sales.

The purpose of control is to make liquor available to those adults who choose to drink responsibly - but not to promote the sale of liquor. By keeping liquor out of the private marketplace, no economic incentives are created to maximize sales, open more liquor stores or sell to underage persons. Instead, all policy incentives to promote moderation and to enforce existing liquor laws is enhanced.

Utah's system of controlling the sale of alcoholic beverages is not as unique as most people believe. There are eighteen states and one county in Maryland which control the sale of alcoholic beverages at either the wholesale or retail level. These jurisdictions account for nearly 1/3 of the nation's population. These states share a common purpose - to promote moderation in the consumption of alcoholic beverages and to discourage excess and abuse.

So in actuality...one of their key purposes is in fact to make liquor available to those adults who chose to drink responsibly...their customers and to satisfy public demand to their customers

I guess where just going to have to disagree Scott...I just see things differently than you do...purhaps its my bias from reading their actual stated purpose

[Scott Lloyd]

Well....according to the UDAB's own web sight... their purpose is to:

Origin and Purpose

The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has been in existence since 1935. In that year, the Utah State Legislature created the department by statute and charged it with the responsibility of conducting, licensing and regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages in a manner and at prices which reasonably satisfy the public demand and protect the public interest, including the rights of citizens who do not wish to be involved with alcoholic beverages. The legislature also mandated that the department be operated as a public business using sound management principles and practices.

Two years earlier, the ratification of the Twenty First Amendment not only ended national prohibition, but it also gave individual states the right to choose their own system of controlling and distributing alcoholic beverages. The Utah legislature at that time believed that the state, rather than private enterprise, should control sales.

The purpose of control is to make liquor available to those adults who choose to drink responsibly - but not to promote the sale of liquor. By keeping liquor out of the private marketplace, no economic incentives are created to maximize sales, open more liquor stores or sell to underage persons. Instead, all policy incentives to promote moderation and to enforce existing liquor laws is enhanced.

Utah's system of controlling the sale of alcoholic beverages is not as unique as most people believe. There are eighteen states and one county in Maryland which control the sale of alcoholic beverages at either the wholesale or retail level. These jurisdictions account for nearly 1/3 of the nation's population. These states share a common purpose - to promote moderation in the consumption of alcoholic beverages and to discourage excess and abuse.

So in actuality...one of their key purposes is in fact to make liquor available to those adults who chose to drink responsibly...their customers and to satisfy public demand to their customers

I guess where just going to have to disagree Scott...I just see things differently than you do...purhaps its my bias from reading their actual stated purpose

The actual stated purpose in fact supports what I said. It regulates the sale of liquor but does not promote it. As your bolded emphases show.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Johnnie Cake]

The actual stated purpose in fact supports what I said. It regulates the sale of liquor but does not promote it. As your bolded points show.

Scott.. you've worn me out...I concede defeat...you win...the sole and only purpose of the DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL is to control the sale of alcohol in the State of Utah. They could care less what the wishes and wants of the consumers who actually pay for the alcohol in Utah desire, as empathized by the OP. Only non-drinkers would keep a beer warm whose taste is harmed in doing so. No wonder they put a former LDS Bishop in charge...why would he give a damn what the consumers of alcohol want...he's not a drinker, he's not a consumer of the controled product...in fact the state should pack the entire commission with non-drinkers, oh wait they did, what better way to control liquor and piss off those who legally and responsiblydrink than by having those who control and don't consume it in charge. What better way to let those that do consume alcohol know that "We could care less what you, the consuming public, want and desire" as long as we control your legal right to consume alcohol.

How very silly of me to think that they cared what drinkers want...thanks for setting me straight. This board is so fortunate to have you...I know I feel that way.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[cursor]

(Incidentally, the word Utahns should not have an a between the h and the n.

I certainly intended to include the 'a' between the 'h' and the 'n' typing the word "Utahan." It was a very simply an "oops" on my part. Hey, but thanks for the correction Incidentally ... you omitted the closing parenthetic character in that sentence. Can we now move on?

Actually' date=' the Church has virtually discontinued the use of the term [/size']free agency ever since President Boyd K. Packer pointed out in a conference talk that it is not scriptural. The term that is now used is moral agency or simply agency

agency vs. free agency vs. moral agency? Really?

I see little to no difference in definition.

Regardless of any official (or personally adopted) term, it's about individual choice.

Edited May 20, 2013 by cursor

[rodheadlee]

I should have been more suspect in my previous posts...I in no way wish to make this an issue about David Gladwell...I'm sure he is nothing but a respectable member of our community...I was merely wanting to point out the irony of a non-drinking, former LDS Bishop, who understandably brings a certain bias to the position, as head of the State Liquor Commission.

While I acknowledge that being a non-drinker does not disqualify someone from this appointment, why would the liquor commission be stacked with non-drinking Mormons? Why only (to the best of my knowledge) one drinker on the commission? Does this make sense? I guess it does if the purpose of the commission is to restrict and control the consumption of alcohol…but are they also not responsible their consumers? How does someone who doesn’t consume what their customer consumes know what that customer wants?

I can’t imagine a non-doctor heading the AMA nor someone unfamiliar with the securities industry over seeing the SEC.

Speaking only for myself and my former-LDS perspective...I had a very unhealthy and very negative bias against alcohol consumption. It was drummed into me from an early age…that alcohol was evil…the mere sight of a beer in someone’s hand gave me the ability to instantly judge the character of the individual so imbibing…or so I thought. Just as I once thought that Mormonism had the monopoly on quality families…I too was in error in misjudging those who drink responsibly.

There is nothing wrong with the responsible consumption of alcoholic beverages…in fact oft times we fail to remember that even Christ, the original 12 apostles, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith all drank alcohol…to name just a few…

Yeah but they didn't pop a cold beer while driving home from the liquor store. it doesn't take a college degree to figure out why they sell the beer warm.

[cursor]

Again, at the State Liquor Store one can buy a (tepid) bottle of wine ... or whiskey, tequila, vodka, or other hard liquor — and that would be dramatically worse than a cold beer, right? So, the state of Utah will allow immediate access to lukewarm hard liquor (dramatically higher alcohol content—a much greater potential risk to the general public), yet restrict one's access to cold beer (which sports dramatically reduced alcohol content). That very simply makes no sense at all.

Edited May 21, 2013 by cursor

[Johnnie Cake]

Yeah but they didn't pop a cold beer while driving home from the liquor store. it doesn't take a college degree to figure out why they sell the beer warm.

Actually...it's only beer sold at the Utah Liquor Store that is sold warm...these beers have a higher alcohol content than beers sold cold at your local grocery store or 7-11 ...so if their motivation is to prevent one from poping a cold beer (something only a small stupid minority might engage in doing) the law does allow these stupid individuals to achieve this goal.

[Johnnie Cake]

Teaching sexual abstanance dosn't keep teens from having sex it only keeps them from knowing that they can catch an STI during sex and keeping Craft Beers warm doen't keep those that wish to drive drunk from doing so either...it only keeps those who apprecaite these craft beers from having a quality beer they desire.

[ERayR]

Undoubtedly we all bring our personal bias's to any argument... glad to know that you have no bias against those who drink responsibly...can we at least agree that the "Zion Curtin" in restaurant bars is a silly idea and that they should be removed?

You obviously don't get around much. It is not just Mormon areas that have these laws.

[stemelbow]

Actually...it's only beer sold at the Utah Liquor Store that is sold warm...these beers have a higher alcohol content than beers sold cold at your local grocery store or 7-11 ...so if their motivation is to prevent one from poping a cold beer (something only a small stupid minority might engage in doing) the law does allow these stupid individuals to achieve this goal.

I admit I thought there was confusion on my end as to what was being argued here. I don't drink but I see cold beers for sale at convenience stores or grocery stores all the time. As ignorant as I am I didn't know the difference.

I thnk Scott raised some good points, but in all honesty I think you did too. Don't concede defeat. My goodness this is a discussion. Say your piece and let the readers decide.

[stemelbow]

Teaching sexual abstanance dosn't keep teens from having sex it only keeps them from knowing that they can catch an STI during sex and keeping Craft Beers warm doen't keep those that wish to drive drunk from doing so either...it only keeps those who apprecaite these craft beers from having a quality beer they desire.

1. Teaching sexual abstinance may keep some teens from having sex. It wouldn't be designed to keep all from having sex. Teaching sexual education in a more full way may keep some other teens from having sex who otherwise would too. There is no cure all end all. Kids are going to do it. I think the goal is to see if we can limit it and for those who do, they will do it responsibly.

2. I don't get the alcohol rules though. Simply haven't paid them much attention.

[Five Solas]

I see you bringing the discussion here, Erik, and not the Utah Legislature. Take ownership of your pettiness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Want to make sure I'm tracking with you, Wade. They (the Utah legislature) pass some laws that are, to use your language, petty. But in your worldview, it is ME who is petty because I'm complaining about the legislature's petty laws.

Would you say your logic applies across the board, that any legislative act deemed petty (by you) implies any who would complain need to "take ownership of [their] pettiness?" Or am I special to you?

;0)

--Erik

[Five Solas]

...In fact I believe that there is only 1 consumer of alcohol on the entire Utah Alcohol Commission Board...at least publically admits to consuming

Let me know when it comes time to contribute to his impeachment defense fund...

;0)

[stemelbow]

Want to make sure I'm tracking with you, Wade. They (the Utah legislature) pass some laws that are, to use your language, petty. But in your worldview, it is ME who is petty because I'm complaining about the legislature's petty laws.

Would you say your logic applies across the board, that any legislative act deemed petty (by you) implies any who would complain need to "take ownership of [their] pettiness?" Or am I special to you?

;0)

--Erik

You may not have been petty before but your not doing yourself any favors with this response

Don't worry about it. You ahve a topic you wish to comment on, go ahead.

[go_utes01]

Want to make sure I'm tracking with you, Wade. They (the Utah legislature) pass some laws that are, to use your language, petty. But in your worldview, it is ME who is petty because I'm complaining about the legislature's petty laws.

Would you say your logic applies across the board, that any legislative act deemed petty (by you) implies any who would complain need to "take ownership of [their] pettiness?" Or am I special to you?

;0)

--Erik

It might be petty to come to an LDS discussion forum to complain about governmental actions that the LDS church does not sponsor. Wouldn't it make more sense to complain to the entities making the rules (i.e. the state legislature/governor)? Being annoyed with legislation is the price we pay to live in society. We cannot ensure that every law/rule/regulation will comport with our own personal preferences. If the liquor laws in Utah (or any law for that matter) are so awful, you are not required to live/visit the state. Freedom of interstate travel is a constitutionally protected right - freedom from personally annoying rules is not.