Study Shows Low Rate Of Alcohol-Related Deaths In Utah

[Scott Lloyd]

Why use logic when none is clearly needed?  It's quite obvious the low alcohol-related deaths are a result of the "Zion Curtain". No doubt countless lives (and at least as many testimonies) have been saved by shielding the eye's of the innocent from the offending view of poured alcohol.  I'm sure our righteous priesthood lead...er, I mean state legislatures are working on and will soon present the relevant data to back me up.  I await with bated breath...

As I said, your ridicule rings hollow when I think of all the alochol-related deaths that have not occurred.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I believe it tells us that the alcohol-consumption in the state poses such a menace that we need the laws in place to protect the public. Arguably, if anything, they should be more stringent to provide even greater protection to the public. I note that of the 11 states measured in the study, the one with the highest incidence of alcohol-related deaths is New Mexico, which is a neighbor to Utah. (There are no other states in the group that border Utah, and California is the only other western state among the 11.) If that indicates a tendency in the mountain-states region, maybe the deaths in Utah caused by alcohol consumption would be much higher than average were it not for the laws in Utah.

 

 

Yes, bring back Prohibition....it worked so well the first time around!

 

Utah has the lowest incidence of alcohol-related death in the nation.

 

So, explain to me again: What's not working?

[Scott Lloyd]

1)That's an incredibly weak argument and 2) it wasn't a "beer joint"; it was a sandwich place that my little Mormon sister happened to notice and pickout (because she likes sandwiches), and it wasn't until we were in there that we could see it had a bar towards the back, and 3) said bar wasn't even open.

 

So again, how does that contribute to public safety?

And you couldn't find a Subway somewhere?

 

Edited to add:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/alcohol-laws-utah

Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Five Solas]

And you couldn't find a Subway somewhere?

That will surely silence the critics!

[Scott Lloyd]

That will surely silence the critics!

How about this?

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/alcohol-laws-utah

 

Elder Christofferson: "A bar is a bar and a restaurant is a restaurant."

 

Seems like a simple enough concept to grasp.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Yet Utah is the highest use of anti-depressants in the US.

 

Does this have to do with Mormonism? Well, I do not think it is because people are depressed because they are not perfect as critics say.

 

Could it be a recreational drug thing? A Mormon may not be able to have alcohol to get that high, but if they can get a doctor to percribe you meds, they may be justifying themselves off the hook to the letter of the law. (Even though they probably know better)

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/640196840/Why-high-antidepressant-use-in-Utah.html?pg=all

[omni]

As I said, your ridicule rings hollow when I think of all the alochol-related deaths that have not occurred.

 

Please provide the relevant data supporting the belief that the "Zion Curtain" has reduced alcohol-related deaths.  In your quest for public safety do you also support onerous and draconian laws preventing the purchase and use of fire arms?

 

Our illustrious legislatures will jump at any opportunity to condemn the overarching arm of the government - demanding freedom, liberty, and free-market capitalism!  Then continue to create and support these confusing, embarrassing, and economically-stifling laws.

 

FWIW, I am a non-drinker so these laws have little effect on me, however I do believe in allowing others to do drink responsibly. 

Edited March 20, 2014 by omni

[sdc999]

Utah has the lowest incidence of alcohol-related death in the nation.

 

So, explain to me again: What's not working?

What's not working?      Liberty is not working.  

[seriously honestly]

And you couldn't find a Subway somewhere?

 

Edited to add:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/alcohol-laws-utah

And you can't logically explain how not letting a minor eat lunch wherever she wants to eats because the business sell alcohol contributes to public saftey? It's LUNCH, not alcohol.

[seriously honestly]

How about this?

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/alcohol-laws-utah

 

Elder Christofferson: "A bar is a bar and a restaurant is a restaurant."

 

 

Seems like a simple enough concept to grasp.

 

 

By definition, a restaurant is an establishment that serves a meal to patrons. It makes no destinction between an establishment that does or doesn't serve alcohol (hence, both Subway and the Outback Steakhouse are both restaurants).

 

Also, there is a restaurant close to where I live called Fedora Pub and Grill.  It's a family establishment that *gasp* has a bar off to one side. Any 16 year old that wants to go and have lunch there can, and you know why? Because they aren't drinking and their eatting lunch there doesn't affect the public in any way, shape, or form (common sense).

Edited March 20, 2014 by seriously honestly

[Five Solas]

How about this?

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/alcohol-laws-utah

 

Elder Christofferson: "A bar is a bar and a restaurant is a restaurant."

 

Seems like a simple enough concept to grasp.

It might be simple enough for you to grasp, Scott.  But I can tell you here in Seattle, most restaurants (not counting fast food) have a bar area (for 21 & over)--where you seat yourself & no one looks at you funny if you just order a beer or cocktail and don't place a food order.  I'll tell you something else--brace yourself--it's pretty much the same way in every major city in America.  Restaurants w/ bar areas. 

 

But imagine if the LDS Church augmented its "I'm a Mormon" campaign with Elder Christofferson's catchy slogan: The whole country, following Utah's lead.  Wouldn't it be grand?  Write your GA today!

;0)

 

--Erik

[Calm]

Yet Utah is the highest use of anti-depressants in the US.

 

The study you are likely referring to was for one antidepressant, not all (now that I think of it, it might have been one company's anti-depressants, but I am pretty sure it just measured the dispensing of one drug).

Edited March 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

What's not working? Liberty is not working.

Histrionics about "liberty" and "bringing back prohibition notwithstanding," notwithstanding, nobody's stopping you from buying whiskey in Utah, if that's what you want.

[Walden]

Utah has the lowest incidence of alcohol-related death in the nation.

 

So, explain to me again: What's not working?

What's not working is the logic that states that because Utah's strict alcohol laws lead to decreased rates of death from alcoholism, those types of laws could/should be utilized in other states to drive down alcohol-related deaths. No other state in the union has as homogeneous a populace as Utah when it comes to views on alcohol. 

 

The other thing that is not working is the fact that Utah's rate of the use of anti-depressant medications is nearly twice that of the rest of the nation. Utah can pat itself on the back for it's low rate of alcohol-related deaths, but apparently, it's citizenry is opting to pop pills rather than swizzle booze. It is likely debatable which substance is more harmful.

 

I am sure the pharmaceutical community would absolutely love it if the nation adopted Utah's strict restrictions on alcohol.

[Five Solas]

A week on and this thread seems pretty done.  So how about we do a little post-mortem, Scott?

 

Did it meet your expectations?  After a fairly indifferent start (first half page or so) subsequent posts went overwhelmingly against your premise that Utah’s liquor laws, championed by the LDS Church, were yielding great societal benefits.

 

And along the way you morphed into Marie Antoinette in reverse—let them eat at "Subway" [post #28], let them drink "whiskey" (but not good Whisky—because you can’t get a membership to the Scotch Malt Whisky Society in Utah) [post #38].  Do you still think that was a good strategy—or in retrospect, do you think you needlessly antagonized board participants with means & taste?

 

Then there was your dismissal of “liberty” concerns as “histrionics”—stunningly ironic from someone who had linked an article from the right-wing Washington Times. 

 

Would appreciate your thoughts on lessons learned and whether any of this has caused you to curb your enthusiasm for Utah’s ridiculous liquor laws.

 

--Erik

 

[Tiki]

A week on and this thread seems pretty done. So how about we do a little post-mortem, Scott?

Did it meet your expectations? After a fairly indifferent start (first half page or so) subsequent posts went overwhelmingly against your premise that Utah’s liquor laws, championed by the LDS Church, were yielding great societal benefits.

And along the way you morphed into Marie Antoinette in reverse—let them eat at "Subway" [post #28], let them drink "whiskey" (but not good Whisky—because you can’t get a membership to the Scotch Malt Whisky Society in Utah) [post #38]. Do you still think that was a good strategy—or in retrospect, do you think you needlessly antagonized board participants with means & taste?

Then there was your dismissal of “liberty” concerns as “histrionics”—stunningly ironic from someone who had linked an article from the right-wing Washington Times.

Would appreciate your thoughts on lessons learned and whether any of this has caused you to curb your enthusiasm for Utah’s ridiculous liquor laws.

--Erik

How awful. We're to dismiss a Federal Study of alcohol-related deaths because it was reported by the "right-wing" Washington Times.

Since the Federal Study wasn't reported by a "left-wing" publication, we're supposed to dismiss said Federal Study and the State of Utah should curb its enthusiasm for its ridiculous liquor laws. And since Scott Lloyd morphed into the filthy rich 'bourgeois' Marie Antoinette, the peasants are obviously being restricted by the upper class in allowing them their liquor ration. Let them move to Colorado and eat marijuana-laced cupcakes! The Wall Street Protestors should gather in Utah and protest against the 1%! Long live Che Guevara!

Edited March 30, 2014 by Tiki

[barbarbar]

This was linked to in a post on Daniel Peterson's blog.

Utah and its culture have been ridiculed on this forum in the past for its liquor laws that are presumably influenced by the predominance of the Church and its members.

Statistics like these take a lot of the sting out of such ridicule.

Not sure we know that the lower number of deaths is due to the state liquor laws or a greater percentage of residents that don't drink. I think Utah's regulation of alcohol is generally a good thing, yet there are some dumb facets to the liquor laws; e.g., Zion curtain. I would be more inclined to attribute the relatively low number of deaths to obedience to the word of wisdom and abstinence by others than to the liquor laws.

[Five Solas]

How awful. We're to dismiss a Federal Study of alcohol-related deaths because it was reported by the "right-wing" Washington Times.

Since the Federal Study wasn't reported by a "left-wing" publication, we're supposed to dismiss said Federal Study and the State of Utah should curb its enthusiasm for its ridiculous liquor laws. And since Scott Lloyd morphed into the filthy rich 'bourgeois' Marie Antoinette, the peasants are obviously being restricted by the upper class in allowing them their liquor ration. Let them move to Colorado and eat marijuana-laced cupcakes! The Wall Street Protestors should gather in Utah and protest against the 1%! Long live Che Guevara!

Going to assume you weren't reading carefully and just got confused, Tiki.  (As opposed to having recent first-hand experience w/ the aforementioned cupcakes.)

;0)

 

No one has suggested dismissing the article on account of its source.  The point (which you completely missed) is it's highly ironic for Scott to quote from such a source and then demonstrate a cavalier attitude toward the value of liberty ("histrionics," he wrote).  The right-wing media (e.g., Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, most Fox News commentators) are rather fixated on the subject of liberty.  If you're not from around here and can't appreciate what I'm saying--just Google "Liberty" and "Obamacare"--keep clicking the links until you're able to grok.  It ain't subtle.  

 

Actually, I'd hazard a guess Scott cares a great deal about liberty much of the time (e.g., gun rights).  But as he's made clear on this thread--liberty as a value or ideal is inconsequential in comparison to doctrines/policies/announcements from the LDS Church (e.g., the Word of Wisdom).  Scott--please correct me if I'm reading you wrongly. 

 

Regarding the "filthy rich bourgeois"--again you missed the point, Tiki.  I wrote Scott morphed into Marie Antoinette in reverse.  "Subway" isn't where you go if you want premium organic cold cuts--it's where you go if you want to eat out on the cheap.  Likewise he tells his readers they're free to drink "whiskey," as though the State/Church was being magnanimous.  But again, you can't have the good stuff like the membership I enjoy to the "Scotch Malt Whisky Society"--a membership that is verboten in the state where LDS control the legislature. 

 

Scott's message really has been--let them eat bread to those who enjoy a little cake.  That's why I wrote "in reverse."  Please tell me that was helpful and you understand it now. 

 

--Erik

Edited March 30, 2014 by Five Solas