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

[Bernard Gui]

We're talking about culture, religion, and the legitimacy imposing your values on those who don't share your convictions in D&C 89, as an example. Kindly look to the bigger picture, mfbukowski.

Ah....the BIG picture. I see a guy buying a six pack of cold beer in the store and drinking it in the car on the way home so it won't

get warm. I see another guy buying a six pack of warm beer and having to drive home sober so he can put it in the fridge. I would

rather live around the first guy.

Listen........I can hear the sound of a very, very small violin playing "My Heart Bleeds for You."

BTW, I live in WA, too.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

With my vast experience with ice cream I can tell you this is so.

Ice cream always tastes a little better when it is a tad melty.

Does beer taste better when it's a tad malty?

[Bernard Gui]

And further, only one member of the "Utah Alcohol Commission Board" will publically admit to enjoying an adult beverage (talk about Profiles in Courage!).

Never did understand what was "adult" about drinking.

[go_utes01]

Well, the thread has pretty well agreed the Utah legislature is overwhelmingly LDS (and all out of proportion to the actual LDS population, I might add). And further, only one member of the "Utah Alcohol Commission Board" will publically admit to enjoying an adult beverage (talk about Profiles in Courage!). And yet you suggest there's no connection to be had between the laws of Utah and the LDS Church. And that it is senseless & inappropriate for me to bring my concerns to an LDS internet forum...

That, my friend, beggars belief. If 7 pages of this thread has established nothing else, it's at least overcome your objection.

;0)

--Erik

PS. No, I'm not "required" to visit Utah. But my folks live there & I love them and want to spend time when I can. You appreciate that, right?

It takes courage to enjoy adult beverages? Interesting perspective. I can appreciate your desire to visit your parents, I don't understand your apparent need to try to impose your idiosyncratic desires on citizens of a state who, through their representative government, disagree.

[Calm]

But my folks live there & I love them and want to spend time when I can. You appreciate that, right?

Ask your parents to buy your beer ahead of time and put it in the cooler. Edited May 22, 2013 by calmoriah

[Yirgacheffe]

Ah....the BIG picture. I see a guy buying a six pack of cold beer in the store and drinking it in the car on the way home so it won't

get warm.

Why, do you eat your ice cream on the way home from the store so it won't melt?

[ERayR]

Why, do you eat your ice cream on the way home from the store so it won't melt?

Yup sometimes do. There is one place which sells cones so big that it is hard to eat them before they melt and drip all over.

[Johnnie Cake]

http://www.alcoholal...stics-2010.html

Next lowest is Iowa with 25%.

For 2008 in comparison to 2010 above:

I'd like to see a map of where the DUIs are found across the state.

http://www.forbes.co..._1120drunk.html

Were you to make some extrapolations on Utahs drinking/non-drinking population...would you agree that Utah's number are rather squewed to the lower end due to 50-60% of our populations views regarding alcohol consumption...maybe once all those non-drinkers are removed, Utah has a rather high number of alcohol related deaths...which would suggest that Utah's current control system isn't really having much of an impact

[ERayR]

Were you to make some extrapolations on Utahs drinking/non-drinking population...would you agree that Utah's number are rather squewed to the lower end due to 50-60% of our populations views regarding alcohol consumption...maybe once all those non-drinkers are removed, Utah has a rather high number of alcohol related deaths...which would suggest that Utah's current control system isn't really having much of an impact

Your conclusions don't rationally flow from the information you provided.

[thesometimesaint]

I always get a kick out of LDS faithful using the term "World Wide Church"...its common use suggests something far different than reality would support. While I concede that the church has expanded far afield from its central Utah base and is found in many countries through the the world and would thus qualify to be called a world wide church...so does the 100,000 member world wide church of god...who claims to have members throughout the world...both are World Wide churches and I suppose that any church with membership in more than one country say a membership of 3-4 could qualify to be called world wide...guess it could also make them seem larger than they really are...

There are more LDS outside the US than inside. Considering that less than 200 years ago we could put all the members of the Church in a small log cabin we're doing pretty good. I don't expect us to be the dominate religion this side of the Millennium.

[mfbukowski]

Does beer taste better when it's a tad malty?

Unquestionably!

Er....., uh...

How would I know?

Before I joined the church, one of my favorite things was a tall (cold- sorry Brits!) glass of Guiness Stout!

Oh man, my mouth just waters thinking about it!

But I like the gospel better.

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited May 22, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Your conclusions don't rationally flow from the information you provided.

And this is surprising?

[Johnnie Cake]

Your conclusions don't rationally flow from the information you provided.

Well lets do the math....

Utah currently has a population of 2.855 million residents. Assuming 50% of Utah’s population has an aversion to the consumption of alcohol and thus would not be included in the population that could potentially drink and drive (however we know from recent stories in the news that many who claim to be part of that portion of the population who have an aversion to drinking alcohol do in fact drink and drive) but again for the sake of this illustration we will assume that all those who claim to be non-drinkers, during interviews with their bishops, are in fact non-drinkers…even though we know that this is not the case.

So if 21% of Utah’s highway fatalities are alcohol related…but only 50% of the population engages in this sinful behavior….wouldn’t it stand to reason that if Utah’s drinking demographic were similar to that of the rest of the nation that this percentage would increase? In other words ERayR, the numbers are being squewed down ward because of a smaller percentage of the population that is drinking.

Utah’s has alcohol related deaths of 17.16 per 1 million created from the 50% of the population that do not have an aversion to drinking. If Utah's demographics were similar to other states that number would be more in line with other states numbers. Take Nevada with a similar aggregate population, it has 30.35 deaths per million…so what’s the difference? More of their population drinks.

If Utah’s drinking demographic was similar to that of Nevada’s…we would have a similar death per million. Is it really that difficult to figure out? Utah’s numbers are lower because we have a lower population of drinkers. Is it really that difficult to understand?

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not perfectly fine, as local residents, institutions and media have it as Utahn, as shown by your link to the KSL article. I maintain that on such things as this local usage does and ought to determine what is normative.

For the most part, it seems to be outsiders who, whether through ignorance or not, put in that extraneous a. And for someone born and reared here, as I have been, it really does mark them as outsiders.

I shouldn’t be beating this to death (or derailing the thread), but I can’t resist. This will be my last word on the subject (unless someone tries to pick a quarrel with me over it).

I thought about this on the train going home from work last night, and concluded that Utahns makes far more sense than Utahans. I shall explain:

When pronouncing the word Utah, the h is not voiced. Since the h is silent, and since it follows an a, that makes Utahns comparable to other words denoting state residents, such as Californians, Arizonans, Alaskans, Nevadans, Virginians and Iowans. It would be awkward indeed to see these words written or pronounced as California-ans, Arizona-ans, Alaska-ans, Nevada-ans, Virginia-ans and Iowa-ans. Likewise, there is no rational purpose for inserting an extra a into Utahns, thereby giving it a superfluous syllable and making it awkward to pronounce.

Aside from the fact that the h in Utah is silent, if one seeks a precedent for dropping the final letter after the a and simply adding ns, one need look no further than such names for state residents as Texans, Kansans, Arkansans.

Compilers of the dictionary that cursor cited exercised poor judgment in this instance. They should have designated Utahn as the preferred usage above Utahan, if indeed they were to list Utahan at all. Aside from the reasoning I have articulated above, a dictionary should be, in large measure, a reflection of normative usage. It stands to reason that institutions, media and residents within Utah would refer to Utah residents as Utahns far more frequently than outsiders would refer to them as “Utahans.”

Edited May 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Well lets do the math....

Utah currently has a population of 2.855 million residents. Assuming 50% of Utah’s population has an aversion to the consumption of alcohol and thus would not be included in the population that could potentially drink and drive (however we know from recent stories in the news that many who claim to be part of that portion of the population who have an aversion to drinking alcohol do in fact drink and drive) but again for the sake of this illustration we will assume that all those who claim to be non-drinkers, during interviews with their bishops, are in fact non-drinkers…even though we know that this is not the case.

So if 21% of Utah’s highway fatalities are alcohol related…but only 50% of the population engages in this sinful behavior….wouldn’t it stand to reason that if Utah’s drinking demographic were similar to that of the rest of the nation that this percentage would increase? In other words ERayR, the numbers are being squewed down ward because of a smaller percentage of the population that is drinking.

Utah’s has alcohol related deaths of 17.16 per 1 million created from the 50% of the population that do not have an aversion to drinking. If Utah's demographics were similar to other states that number would be more in line with other states numbers. Take Nevada with a similar aggregate population, it has 30.35 deaths per million…so what’s the difference? More of their population drinks.

If Utah’s drinking demographic was similar to that of Nevada’s…we would have a similar death per million. Is it really that difficult to figure out? Utah’s numbers are lower because we have a lower population of drinkers. Is it really that difficult to understand?

So if alcohol-drinking residents and visitors in Utah are causing a disproportionate number of fatalities, isn't that an argument for making the regulations governing alcohol distribution more — not less — restrictive?

[go_utes01]

So if alcohol-drinking residents and visitors in Utah are causing a disproportionate number of fatalities, isn't that an argument for making the regulations governing alcohol distribution more — not less — restrictive?

No, Utahns should encourage more drinking, so that the state's alcohol-related deaths can become more in line with other states - Utahns wouldn't want their state to be "weird."

[stemelbow]

Well lets do the math....

Utah currently has a population of 2.855 million residents. Assuming 50% of Utah’s population has an aversion to the consumption of alcohol and thus would not be included in the population that could potentially drink and drive (however we know from recent stories in the news that many who claim to be part of that portion of the population who have an aversion to drinking alcohol do in fact drink and drive) but again for the sake of this illustration we will assume that all those who claim to be non-drinkers, during interviews with their bishops, are in fact non-drinkers…even though we know that this is not the case.

So if 21% of Utah’s highway fatalities are alcohol related…but only 50% of the population engages in this sinful behavior….wouldn’t it stand to reason that if Utah’s drinking demographic were similar to that of the rest of the nation that this percentage would increase? In other words ERayR, the numbers are being squewed down ward because of a smaller percentage of the population that is drinking.

Utah’s has alcohol related deaths of 17.16 per 1 million created from the 50% of the population that do not have an aversion to drinking. If Utah's demographics were similar to other states that number would be more in line with other states numbers. Take Nevada with a similar aggregate population, it has 30.35 deaths per million…so what’s the difference? More of their population drinks.

If Utah’s drinking demographic was similar to that of Nevada’s…we would have a similar death per million. Is it really that difficult to figure out? Utah’s numbers are lower because we have a lower population of drinkers. Is it really that difficult to understand?

it would make more sense if there weren't so many danged mormons in Nevada too, then again it'd be interesting to know how many of those deaths in Nevada are cuased by outsiders of that baren state. But interestingly you raise another issue, if there were no drinking at all, then we wouldn't have so many deaths related to drinking. If that commission wants to keep the residents of our state safe they'd be putting an end to drinking altogether. Less drinking=less deaths related to drinking.

See? its not that they're mormon that keeps them trying to control the drinking. They simply want me and you to be safe as we drive down the highway, ride our bikes in our bike lanes, or walk down the side of the road. Its good to know we have such fine folks looking out for us.

Peace, dear fellow.

[stemelbow]

No, Utahns should encourage more drinking, so that the state's alcohol-related deaths can become more in line with other states - Utahns wouldn't want their state to be "weird."

Shoot. You guys are too quick and too to the point for me.

[EllenMaksoud]

Well, it could be worse. At least your folks don't live in a dry county, of which there are many. All over the country, even in the uberr-liberal Norheast. BTW, on the accompanying map, red means completely dry-no booze sold at all in the county, yellow means significant restrictions. Utah is blue-you may have to go to a state store, but at least you can get what you want. Sorry if we don't measure up to the fleshpots of Seattle.

I don't get this map. When I lived in Ohio, very close to Kirtland, I think I saw hard liquor in grocery stores.

[Johnnie Cake]

So if alcohol-drinking residents and visitors in Utah are causing a disproportionate number of fatalities, isn't that an argument for making the regulations governing alcohol distribution more — not less — restrictive?

What it suggests is that the efforts to control alcohol consumption in the state of Utah has little or no impact on alcohol related deaths. Those who chose to drink and drive will find drink and drive...the only preventive solution is the complete abolution of alcohol...and we already tried that once...the only reason Utah's number look so good on paper is that 50% of the population (approximate) don't drink...or claim not to drink.

You can't legislate Stupid

Edited May 22, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Ahab]

You can't legislate Stupid

What do you call it when people in the legislature make stupid laws, then?

[Johnnie Cake]

it would make more sense if there weren't so many danged mormons in Nevada too, then again it'd be interesting to know how many of those deaths in Nevada are cuased by outsiders of that baren state. But interestingly you raise another issue, if there were no drinking at all, then we wouldn't have so many deaths related to drinking. If that commission wants to keep the residents of our state safe they'd be putting an end to drinking altogether. Less drinking=less deaths related to drinking.

See? its not that they're mormon that keeps them trying to control the drinking. They simply want me and you to be safe as we drive down the highway, ride our bikes in our bike lanes, or walk down the side of the road. Its good to know we have such fine folks looking out for us.

Peace, dear fellow.

The whole point I was making is that State control i.e. "Zion Curtin’s" etc. has ZERO impact on reducing alcohol related deaths on our highways. It’s really just a ratio of drinkers to population.

Alcohol consumption is legal. I could , if I so desired, back my cargo truck up to any state liquor store and fill it to capacity...take it home and drink to my little hearts content…what I can't do legally is drive after so imbibbing...just as I can go and fill my home to the rafters with ammo and guns…but I can't legally go shoot people. It’s the people who drink and drive and killers who pull triggers irrespective of state control that are the ultimate variable.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Scott Lloyd]

What it suggests is that the efforts to control alcohol consumption in the state of Utah has little or no impact on alcohol related deaths. Those who chose to drink and drive will find drink and drive...the only preventive solution is the complete abolution of alcohol...and we already tried that once...the only reason Utah's number look so good on paper is that 50% of the population (approximate) don't drink...or claim not to drink.

But you claim that the vast majority of alcohol drinkers do it responsibly. Apparently that's not as true for imbibers among residents and visitors to Utah if your assumption is true — that they are causing disproportionate fatalities despite the Mormon influence on the state.

If that's true, they pose a public menace that calls for an urgent remedy, and it is counter-intuitive that such a remedy entails relaxing restrictions on alcohol distribution — which is what you and others seem to want.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Johnnie Cake]

Why Can't we all just acknowledge that the so called Zion Curtin law is stupid and jsut makes we Utah(n)'s* look stupid and silly?

*For Scott