February 29th, 2008 - Richard Okelberry

The following letter concerning Utahs Liquor laws was mailed to Governor Jon Hunstman Jr. on Wednesday, February 27th, 2008.

Dear Governor Huntsman, I am writing to encourage you to veto S.B. 211 should it come before you containing language that would remove favored malt beverages from retail stores. I came to many of the following conclusions while researching an essay on the topic for LincolnsBlog.com, a site that I currently publish and manage. While compiling information on this subject; it occurred to me that the most powerful and underlying issue in this case had to do with the fact that many Utahans see this

legislation as an assault on non-LDS cultures and values. I would like to outline for you why the so called "alcopop" provision is truly unnecessary and would also argue that rather than continuing a tightening of Utah liquor laws, legislators should continue the course begun during Utah's bid for the Winter Olympics of working towards "normalizing" state liquor regulations. Additionally, I want to illustrate that such legislation like that contained in S.B. 211 only helps to fuel bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I hope as you read this that you will know that I truly love my Mormon friends and neighbors and understand that it is not my intention to attack the LDS Church. I only want to point out that many in the state have strong feelings of intimidation, frustration, humiliation and discrimination.

Killing one bird with two stones

The alcopops portion of S.B. 211 is much broader than necessary and is crucially flawed. If the intent of the bill, as expressed by statements from the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (UDABC), is truly designed to simply remove confusion over which drinks contain alcohol while inhibiting the sale of these beverages to minors; both objectives could be achieved by a much simpler and less intrusive piece of legislation. If the UDABC had simply stepped up compliance checks, requested stiffer penalties for those selling or providing alcohol to minors while mandating that improved labeling on all alcoholic beverages be implemented, the alcopops section of S.B. 211 would be completely unnecessary. Instead it appears that the UDABC decided to make a strong political statement against alcopops because flavored malt beverage simply taste too good. Legislating against how good something tastes is a slippery slope that will likely end up including the wide range of flavored beers; many of which are produced here in Utah. In gathering their information on alcopops, Sharon Mackay said in a written statement to me that the UDABC relied heavily on a so-called "study" by James Mosher of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (P.I.R.E.). In fact, Mr. Mosher is not a clinical researcher but a law school graduate from Berkley, who has made a name for himself by becoming a top advocate and lobbyist for alcopops legislation. He has done so by compiling selected pieces of data that support his claims while ignoring pertinent information that might discredit his agenda. In a 2006, California affidavit Mr. Mosher stated under penalty of perjury,

"Because virtually all "entry level drinkers" are minors, alcopops are intentionally marketed to minors."

Not only does this statement have a logical flaw but it implies that manufacturers of flavored malt beverages have been purposely positioning and producing these products for sale to minors. Using Mr. Mosher's logic the similar statement "Because virtually all "entry level drinkers" are minors, ALL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES are intentionally marketed to minors," would also be true. For Mr. Mosher to make such a disparaging statement, without concrete evidence or proof as that found in past "Big Tobacco" cases, is completely unethical. Mr. Mosher has also failed to disclose in his research that the Federal Trade Commission has published information that contradicts his claims and sworn testimony. Mr. Mosher attempts to back up his claim by stating in the same affidavit,

"The Center on Alcohol Marketing to Youth has conducted a series of studies on youth and adult exposure to alcohol advertising. These studies reveal that those younger than 21 are overexposed to magazine, radio, and television advertisements for alcopops - that is, they see and hear more alcopops ads per capita than adults. For example, CAMY's report on alcopops advertising in magazines found that in 2003, on a per capita basis, teens saw 92% more alcopop magazine advertisements than adults."

Mr. Mosher conveniently omits the fact that because teenagers watch far more television and read many more magazines than adults they are consequently exposed to more advertising of almost every product, including those that contain no alcohol. The P.E.W. Charitable Trust found that "In 2001, 2002, and 2003, almost a quarter of alcohol ads that aired on television were more likely to be seen by underage youth per capita than by legal-age adults," and "Ninety-seven percent of teens aged 12 to 19 said in the spring of 2004 that they had watched television in the last week, reporting an average of 10.45 hours in front of the television that week." Even with the average teen having greater exposure to all forms of advertising the P.E.W. also reported that, "Three "alcopop" ads were seen by the average underage person for every four seen by the average adult." Considering that P.E.W. also stated that "More teens reported watching television than doing any other activity" they still had less exposure to alcopop advertising. In 2004, teens 12 to 19 chose commercials by Budweiser, GEICO, Pepsi, M&Ms and Nike as their favorites. No ads featuring alcopops where listed by teens as memorable favorites in this study. This illustrates that Mr. Mosher's conclusion about the industry "targeting" minors is plainly fabricated. The fact that state of Utah is relying so "heavily" on such a biased source without bring industry experts and manufactures before a committee to contribute their counter opinions and defend such charges, only illustrates an almost "witch hunt" mentality on the part of both the UDABC and state legislators. It should also be noted that if the Legislature decides to move alcopops to the State Liquor Stores, only the highest alcohol versions of these drinks will be available, leading to much stronger versions making it into the hands of the far majority of minors who currently obtain their alcohol from illegal adult sources. I want to reassert that simply requiring better labeling of all alcoholic products sold in the state along with increased enforcement will adequately solve any perceived problems with alcopops while allowing consenting adult to more freely purchase and consume these products.

Liquor Laws as a tool of discrimination.

Currently non-LDS residents who consume alcohol pay an additional combined $89.3 million in taxes. While many states collect such taxes, in Utah a full two thirds of the population will never contribute to this tax base by virtue of their religion. I challenge you to find a similar disparity concerning taxes and religion anywhere else in the nation. The high state liquor taxes, restricted access to alcohol products in stores, pubs and private clubs and what is often seen as bizarre, unnecessary alcohol regulations coupled with the fact that typically between 80% and 90% of state legislator are LDS has led many non-Mormons to conclude that the ever tightening of already strict liquor laws are purposely design to punish non-Mormons for their culture and lifestyle. Additionally, people feel many legislators are using liquor revenue to funding government projects because it doesn't affect their largest voting block, fellow Church members. Regardless of whether a broad conspiracy exists, I can tell you with all certainty that a sizable group of individuals here in Utah feel that they are under intense religious pressure from the state government. I invite you to walk into any bar in the entire state of Utah and ask any patron if he or she feels discriminated against by state liquor laws. I promise that you will get an emphatic yes from nearly every person you speak to. Many argued that when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus that she wasn't truly being discriminated against because she was at least being allowed to ride. A similar attitude expressed many of the moral majority here in Utah concerning alcoholic beverages has only led to the fermentation of intense feelings of separation and discrimination among many of the non-LDS population. The very fact that such a large portion of the population feels religiously oppressed is by itself strong evidence that something is terribly wrong in the state of Utah. It is also typical that when people feel suppressed and discriminated against, they have a tendency to retaliate with a similar disdain and will often act out of the character. I would also argue that so many non-Mormon people in Utah feeling like second class citizens at the hands of what they perceive as a non-secular government has led to increased animosity towards the LDS Church. I believe that simply adhering to the LDS Church's call for mutual respect of other cultures and beliefs by now President Monson during the last LDS General Conference would go along way toward healing old wounds and dispersing a growing hatred for the LDS Church. Finally, if you adjust the UDABC reported average of 2.076 gallons of consumed alcoholic products per person in the state of Utah to include the fact that a full two-thirds of Utahans don't consume any alcohol by virtue of their religion; you will find that non-Mormons in this state are some of the heaviest drinkers in the country. While this fact may seem alarming, it indicates that the restrictive laws that are supposedly intended to curb alcohol consumption have actually had the complete opposite effect with the average non-LDS person consuming over 4 gallons of alcohol per year. Of course, these numbers only include legally purchased alcohol from here in the state of Utah and don't include those drinkers that regularly bootleg their alcohol from out of state. This tendency to rebel and act out against authoritarian repression is an effect that can be widely seen throughout history. During prohibition, abusive drinking behavior actually increased once alcoholic beverages were made illegal. These behaviors soon abated following the repeal of prohibition. I believe the same thing would happen here in Utah, should the Liquor laws in the state be reformed.

Legal Standings

Can anyone honestly say that the often bizarre and restrictive alcohol laws in the state of Utah have not been heavily influenced either directly or indirectly by the LDS Church? I am essentially asking; If Utah did not have such a large Mormon population, and if Salt Lake City was not the world headquarters of the LDS Church, would Utah's liquor laws be so out of line with other states?

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state. - MSNBC, www.msncb.com

But the judge said: "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom." - MSNBC, www.msnbc.com

This suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State against the Dover PA School Board might help potential litigants bring a successful complaint against the state of Utah. The turning point in the Dover PA School Board case came when the plaintiff was able to show that the purposed school text "Of Pandas and People," had religious beginnings. A case brought against Utah might only need public statements by government officials, the LDS Church and Elected officials to make a similar connection. Certainly, a plaintiff in such a case would move to seize both government and Church documents relating to this issue under general rules of discovery. Regardless, because damages in civil rights cases are implied, this ruling by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones would likely trump any motions for a pre-trial dismissal. Such a suit would likely bring strong national media exposure and could result in the state ultimately loosing control of its own liquor laws. Additionally, civil rights case can bring large settlements, putting a sizable economic stress on the state government. I would invite you to refer this matter to the State Attorney General's office so that he might be able to issue his opinion on this matter. Recently, House Minority Whip David Litvack was ask by a reporter from the Deseret News, following an annual meeting with LDS Church lobbyists, if he thought such (alcopop) alcohol regulations would pass the Legislature, where 80 percent of lawmakers are members of the LDS Church. Mr. Litvack was reported to laughed and said, "Yeah, we'll see on that one." Finally, if there is no perceived moral or religious bias behind the purposed alcopop legislation, why has the UDABC director, Dennis R. Kellen been compelled to issue public statements to the contrary?

Leaders of the LDS Church have publicly said that they want all distilled liquors, no matter what the alcohol content, to be sold by the state and not sold to the general public in grocery stores - a stand that the state has taken for years. The church's public statement gives the legislation almost guaranteed passage, since approximately 80 percent of the legislators are Mormon. - Deseret Morning News, By Lisa Riley Roche and Bob Bernick Jr. - Jan. 23, 2008

A Better Utah for Everyone

I would like to ask you to take a step towards ending Utah's long standing fight against this states non-Mormon culture by encouraging the legislature to convene a commission to look into how Utah can restructure its Liquor Laws so that they are more in line with other states. I am not asking that people be able to throw wild drinking parties in the streets. I am only asking that the state of Utah treat its non-Mormon residence the same way that they might typically be treated in other states when it comes to alcohol use. By doing so, Utah not only will do right by its entire population but will also help shed the national perception that nothing in Utah is done without Church approval. Utah state liquor laws are so bizarre and out of line with the rest of the nation that even the state government web site has to have a complete section dedicated to explaining to visitors, how the backward system works. I am certain that there will be those around you advising that our laws are there to protect minors and discourage over consumption. Just keep in mind that to a member of the LDS Church even one drink is considered excessive. Also remember that the only way to stop underage drinking without imposing policies that simultaneously punish those of legal drinking age is through strict enforcement of stiff penalties for both the minors and those that would provide them with alcohol. While this issue may seem trivial to some, I hope you will understand that is in reality the most divisive issue in the state. You have the chance to be the first governor in the state of Utah to truly represent all people in this matter. I hope you will take up this challenge and create a legacy that helps to bring Utah's differing beliefs and cultures into a place of greater mutual respect and kindness. Because even perceived hate and bigotry can breed hate and bigotry; I truly beg that you will break this cycle and help Utah become a right and just society for everyone. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Richard Okelberry, Managing Editor, LincolnsBlog.com