Put Down The Bottle and Step Away From The Regulations

This is another post that has been on the back burner for quite some time due to schedule. What spurred me into action today was a post yesterday by KVNU's Tyler Riggs on the current debate about liquor laws in Utah.

For my non-Utah readers, Utah has a very unique set of liquor laws. You can not just go to your neighborhood bar to get a beer. In order to buy an alcoholic beverage you have to join a private "club". Now most bars will sell you a temporary membership so that tourists can come more than once. The rationale behind is is that by making alcohol harder to get people will drink less, but as Tyler points out in his first post, that does not always work.

On the surface, Utah’s liquor laws seem to have little or no impact on consumption with the average Utahan consuming 2.076 gallons of alcohol a year. While this amount is on par with most other states, the statistic fails to address the fact that Utah is not like other states. Utah is the home of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints whose member makes up over 60% of the population. It is well known that Members of the LDS Church live a lifestyle free of alcohol. As such to get a better picture of Utah’s average alcohol consumption we should remove the LDS population from the statistic. Once we apply the statistic to only those who are likely to consume alcohol we find that the average Utah drinker actually consumes over twice the amount of alcohol as the average drinker in other states. If Utah’s strict and often bizarre liquor laws truly were effective, one would expect that our great state would actually have one of the lowest consumption rates. WE DO NOT!

My only fault with that theory is that not all Mormons in Utah are devout, practicing Mormons, so his figures are probably a little high. However the overall point is relatively valid.

Tyler has many other valid points in his post, but one I take some issue with is his point that the laws are discriminatory in nature. The quirks in the law, as I see them, are made out of ignorance, not out of discriminatory malice. Putting 100 Mormons who have never had a drink in the same room to make alcohol law is just like putting 100 non-Mormons in a room to make laws about what a "good Mormon" does. At some point in time, you must consider of the people who have to LIVE by the laws you make and what you are imposing upon them.

One of the arguments used by the folks defending these laws is that restriction to access causes people to drink less. Well we tried that once before - it was called Prohibition and we all know how well that worked don't we? Restricted access does not cause fewer drunk driving incidents either. Only enforcement of drunk driving laws does that. Make it painful for people who get caught driving drunk and they won't drink and drive. Releasing them with a slap on the wrist and a stern admonition to "get help" won't. There have to be consequences to the actions.

Tyler posts a transcript of a back and forth that he had on the subject with the Sutherland Institute's Paul Mero on the subject that is a great look into the debate here in Utah. I do share Tyler's disappointment that a group that claims to promote small government is OK with expanding government intrusion into private lifestyle choices. It does seem to be a rather odd position for Sutherland to take.

And SPEAKING of government intrusion into private lives, we have Senate Majority Leader Mike Waddoups. Apparently Senator Waddoups thinks that Utah parents are incompetent and incapable of instructing their children on the dangers of alcohol consumption and so the state must magnamously step in and sheild them from the hideous sight of an alcoholic beverage being mixed or consumed. Perhaps, Senator, you should go back and read your state party platform (paying special attention to paragraph 2) and your US Constitution!

Expanding government intrusion into the citizens lives is not a "Republican" or conservative value.