utah & alcohol... (Cedar City: tax, living in, legal)

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by cinnabon

You contradict yourself! I don't like the alcohol laws at all, but they play absolutely no part in my decision to move there. Now, if the entire state was completely dry, then I might not want to move there, but as it stands, it's just a bit of an inconvenience to get it, but not really a big deal... Also, as the overall percentage of Mormons drops in Utah, as it seems to be doing, maybe eventually the laws will loosen up a bit more.

Sorry, I just wish people would stop saying "If you don't like it, don't come" about every issue people bring up. There are pros and cons to living ANYWHERE. In my view the pros in Utah seem to far outweigh the cons, although that may not be true of everyone. But just because someone has concerns about the Mormon influence or the availability of alcohol or the inversion smog does not automatically mean they should just give up and go elsewhere. Some things are worth putting up with!

You obviously are not basing your decision on living in Utah solely on the "alcohol" thing and my post was not directed at you, cinnabon. I don't see anything contradictory in my post, though. I have never found Utah's alcohol laws restrictive enough to keep me from buying a drink if I really want one. I also applaud Utah, for whatever reason, for having less of a problem with drunk driving than many states. I compare it with a neighboring state, New Mexico, which--until recently--had one of the worst records in that regard. Now, I love New Mexico, too, but the closest I have come to being at the Pearly Gates (on two different occasions) was encountering drunk drivers on New Mexico highways. There ARE some places in that state that I would not live in for that reason alone--it's just too risky.

I will bow out this discussion by saying that I think the whole "alcohol" thing is way overblown by non-Utahns--compared to what else the state has to offer, it's just not a big deal.

[cinnabon]

Yeah. I agree, not a big deal. But I think the reason people bring up these questions is genuine curiosity about a place someone has never been. Many areas have reputations for certain things, not just Utah. When I mention to people that I am thinking of moving to Utah people make polygamy jokes & "good luck getting a drink" comments, etc. Lots of misconceptions out there...

[therewego]

Originally Posted by cinnabon

Yeah. I agree, not a big deal. But I think the reason people bring up these questions is genuine curiosity about a place someone has never been. Many areas have reputations for certain things, not just Utah. When I mention to people that I am thinking of moving to Utah people make polygamy jokes & "good luck getting a drink" comments, etc. Lots of misconceptions out there...

Exactly....very good. I brought up this question because throughout many threads I was reading about how mormons control everything even the drinking for which you need a "membership", etc. so it made me curious. And I did say it was a "dealbreaker" but that comment was meant in humor (so can jazzlover not take a joke?)...and at one point I wrote that Utah makes it really tough for those that depend on alcohol to get through the day as they should. Well I am on the other side, I don't live to drink but every so often I would like to be with cinnabon having a mixed drink at the local TGI Friday's and hope that cinnabon and I would not be labeled as the town drunks the next day... Cheers!

[dogmom]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

You obviously are not basing your decision on living in Utah solely on the "alcohol" thing and my post was not directed at you, cinnabon. I don't see anything contradictory in my post, though. I have never found Utah's alcohol laws restrictive enough to keep me from buying a drink if I really want one. I also applaud Utah, for whatever reason, for having less of a problem with drunk driving than many states. I compare it with a neighboring state, New Mexico, which--until recently--had one of the worst records in that regard. Now, I love New Mexico, too, but the closest I have come to being at the Pearly Gates (on two different occasions) was encountering drunk drivers on New Mexico highways. There ARE some places in that state that I would not live in for that reason alone--it's just too risky.

I will bow out this discussion by saying that I think the whole "alcohol" thing is way overblown by non-Utahns--compared to what else the state has to offer, it's just not a big deal.

Guess I need to jump in here..as far as drunk driving goes...has anyone ever looked in the paper or online at the arrests? Good golly miss molly...not only DUI's, but drugs, paraphernalia, on top of domestic violence, etc...lots of child endangerment, abuse, sex crimes...who would have thought good Ol Utah would have so much...I have to admit I was a little surprised, so it's not all that different than anywhere else in the drunk drugged driving arena...

Not every one who moves to Utah has a choice...Lots of us come for job transfers, family, whatever...and it is a culture shock...no matter what anyone tells you, it is just earth shattering shock. It is what it is...and it is what you make of it..not everyone can just LEAVE. I am so tired of hearing that song and dance. And those of us who are not crazy about living here are not the ones that start these posts...obviously the word is out about Utah or else why would so many out of staters question these things.

[cinnabon]

Originally Posted by therewego

Exactly....very good. I brought up this question because throughout many threads I was reading about how mormons control everything even the drinking for which you need a "membership", etc. so it made me curious. And I did say it was a "dealbreaker" but that comment was meant in humor (so can jazzlover not take a joke?)...and at one point I wrote that Utah makes it really tough for those that depend on alcohol to get through the day as they should. Well I am on the other side, I don't live to drink but every so often I would like to be with cinnabon having a mixed drink at the local TGI Friday's and hope that cinnabon and I would not be labeled as the town drunks the next day... Cheers!

LOL We really need an lol smiley in this forum!

[dogmom]

Originally Posted by cinnabon

LOL We really need an lol smiley in this forum!

Can I join you for that drink? I don't really care if I am the town drunk...at least I am having some fun...hehe

[therewego]

of course you can have a drink w/us!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SergeantL]

Originally Posted by john2timex

Sarge, I think that you would agree that with great freedom comes great responsibility. I understand that others don't live up to your expectations of how people should behave. The problem that I have with many of your posts is that you belive others need to meet your standards or leave the state. As a non-member, alcohol drinking, probably less than perfect individual by your standards, person. I still think that I have the right to live wherever I choose within the United States. It would be convenient to give away our freedoms and have the government regulate what is and isn't appropriate. For many this would be a utopia, because the negative social consequeces of drug use and alcohol abuse would go away. But the reality is that people will always shirk thier responsibilities and it is not your place to dictate what behaviors are appropriate for me. I would suggest that if you don't want to live in an area where people have the freedom to live as they choose, you should move someplace which does not fall under the purview of the US constitution.

John, you must be reading too much into what I have written. I have explained the states reasoning for its alcohol laws. I have explained that the current—subject to change as demographics change—dominant position in Utah is not supportive of drinking. I have acknowledged that non-LDS may be unhappy with this situation. I acknowledged that many laws in Utah may be disagreeable with the non-LDS population. I made a personal statement regarding my dissatisfaction with California standards, and rather than suffer, I changed my environment so that I could find a place that more closely matched my perspectives. Because I am much happier in Utah, I suggested that those in Utah, who are not happy, might consider the same action I took and find greater representation and satisfaction in another state. I have made no demand that anyone meet my standards. In fact, I made no statement regarding my standards, other than to state they were not in line with the dominant political and moral values found in California.

Yes, John, with freedoms come great responsibilities; however, this old flatfoot has noted most people don’t want the responsibilities when it’s time to be held accountable.

Next, John, you forget what the government is. The government is us. We have told our representatives in Salt Lake that we want alcohol consumption controlled. Yes, this is a result of the fact that we are LDS, but that’s politics. The dominant value wins. If I were Gay and wanted strong political representation, I would move to San Francisco. If I were Latino and wanted strong representation, I would move to Los Angeles. If I wanted legalized gambling and prostitution, I would move to Nevada.

Finally, I am well aware that many cannot relocate as I did. I couldn’t relocate until I retired, but I learned to live with the system in which I found myself, until such time as I could effect my escape. While in California, I didn’t blame Gays, Latinos, or any other group, religious or otherwise, for the laws and values I found objectionable in California. In Utah, however, I note the common demon and cause for all social ills in the minds of non-LDS is the Church, and I find such reasoning hollow and intellectually dishonest.

[john2timex]

"While about 60 percent of Utahns are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, about 90 percent of legislators are Mormon, as is the attorney general, lieutenant governor and Huntsman." (taken from the KUTV website)

Before each general [Utah legislative] session, GOP and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate sit down separately with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints special affairs committee, a group made up of church general authorities, church public relations officials and their lobbyists, to discuss any items on the minds of both legislators and church leaders. Quoted from Times & Seasons
It is neither hollow or dishonest to say that our government is not represenative of us here in Utah. The influence the LDS chuch wields within the walls of the capital should be considered unconstitutional. My opinion is also that the legislature doesn't even represent mainstream LDS members views.
That being the case it is reasonable to blame my displeasure with the laws of this state on the doorstep of the LDS church. When the leadership of the LDS church realizes that state government should be secular in nature and only concerns itself with controlling the behavior of it's members I will stop blaming it.
As a catholic I have strong views about what a proper lifestyle entails but I would never seek to have my religous tenents legislated upon everyone. It is similar to the argument concerning flag burning. I hate it and can't concieve of a set of cercumstanses where I would engage in it, but I would fight to the death to preserve your right to do it. I don't have a problem with you abiding by your Word of Wisdom, but don't use the laws of the state to either 1)reinforce your ability to follow them or 2)pretend that other lifestyles don't exist or 3)try to control those lifestyles.
While again I don't have objective empirical data to support this, I would say that for mainsteam LDS members this is not even on the radar. Most LDS members have wrapped their heads around the idea that gentiles aren't going anywhere and need to be tolerated. But for those that are in leadership positions (both within the church and Politics), they would be treated as pariahs if they made any statement which wasn't in line with church teachings. They can't be pro alcohol, or anti family, or pro sexuality or anti wholsomeness. Well you know what, I think that alcohol is OK, and it's OK not to have eight children, and if my wife wan'ts to wear lingere I like it, and I'm tired of having to drive out of state to lose money at the casino.
But the most glaring fault in you argument is the presumtion that I need to go somewhere else to find what I what

Yes, this is a result of the fact that we are LDS, but that’s politics. The dominant value wins. If I were Gay and wanted strong political representation, I would move to San Francisco. If I were Latino and wanted strong representation, I would move to Los Angeles. If I wanted legalized gambling and prostitution, I would move to Nevada.

This is america,and if I want strong representaion I am entitled to it no matter where I choose to reside. It just means that sometimes I have to speak out and fight to be heard. If there were laws in california that you objected to,you had the right to seek and change them. You didn't have to move to where the demographic was more homogenous. Freedom isn't always easy, ask Dr. Martin Luther. To simply say that the "dominant value wins" is a cop out. That is a weak arguement from someone in a position of social power, lacking the backbone to objectively view the situation and admit that the way it is, isn't fair. You are comfortable. Surrounded by a group to which you belong. Having no desire to protect the welfare of the politically weak. In a true democracy it is the responsibility of those in power to listen and safeguard those minority positions to prevent the decay of the government into an Oligarchy.

[coolcats]

Interesting, and a few thoughts

Originally Posted by john2timex

"While about 60 percent of Utahns are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, about 90 percent of legislators are Mormon, as is the attorney general, lieutenant governor and Huntsman." (taken from the KUTV website)

They are still elected by the people, no? If enough people like yourself become dissatisfied, they will boot out the legislators that they disagree with.

Originally Posted by john2timex

Before each general [Utah legislative] session, GOP and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate sit down separately with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints special affairs committee

The implication is the Church A) has no right to do this, and B) other groups are not afforded the same opportunity.

As far as point A is concerned, any organization can lobby, and I don't think the LDS church is the only church in the country to do this. As for B, I know there are other lobbiests around. Their influence has raised concerns because there is legislation to reduce the number of perks (meals, tickets etc.) they are handing out. I believe it is the legislators' responsibility to act ethically when it comes to lobbiests, and that includes LDS legislators dealing with the LDS church. I can already sense the counter-argument brewing that they will not stand up to the Church because of the respect they have for religious leaders -- a "Kennedy and the Pope" argument. I can see both sides of the argument. Here is the link to the discussion referenced Times & Seasons » Mormon Church and Utah Politics

Originally Posted by john2timex

This is america,and if I want strong representaion I am entitled to it no matter where I choose to reside. It just means that sometimes I have to speak out and fight to be heard.

I'm not totally on board with this. You have the right to seek representation, but the voice of the majority will choose. For example. Let's say you believe the Earth is flat, and you want a representative to advance this belief. If you can find someone willing to do this, you are free to vote for that person. Or you can run yourself on that platform. However, if the majority does not want that platform, you will not have the representation you want. But your right to vote on that issue remains.

In short, Utah has some quirky alcohol laws. These laws create a standard,for better or for worse, that does not exist in other places. But other places have their own set of quirky laws. Maybe Utah is quirkier than other places, maybe not. But every place has standards. Some are tigher, some are looser, and some are just different. For example, Nevada has legalized prostitution. It is the only state to allow the practice legally. Are the other 49 states wrong, is Nevada wrong, or have the various states disagreed on what is appropriate?

Utah's standard on drinking is not what you wish it would be. Maybe if enough people want change, that will become a hot enough issue that they will choose representatives to change that. So far, there is a minority who doesn't have what they want, a bunch of people in the middle who don't care, and some people who like the restrictions.