Let’s apply this statement to various other laws to see if it makes sense.

Traffic: “To pass rules that might cause one person somewhere to [drive slower] is an abuse of government power.”

Narcotics: “To pass rules that might cause one person somewhere to [not smoke crack] is an abuse of government power. ”

“To pass rules that might cause one person somewhere to [not physically or sexually assault another human being] is an abuse of government power. ”

Nope. It’s a stupid statement any way you slice it.

There’s plenty of data to suggest consumption of liquor has deep social and criminal consequences.  Do I really have to post tons of links right here for you?

For instance, let’s say we had chosen to legislate Buddhism instead of the Book of Mormon. Did you kill the spider that was “threatening” your wife last night? What about those weeds in your garden? Looks like jail time for you, because we believe that all life is equally sacred, so you might as well have murdered those thirty three plants…too bad it was so many, looks like you’re never coming out!

Back to Utahs situation, should I now be able to fined for wearing a top that shows the teensiest bit of cleavage? How about swearing? A lot of mormons feel so strongly about that. Oh, and while we’re at telling everyone else what they can drink, Starbucks needs to start pouring their drinks out of sight. It’s been shown that caffeine is terrible for young children, and it falls under hot drink in the word of wisdom! Can’t have them tempting our youngins!

I could go on, but I think I’ve made the point that laws based just on religion result in silly, unreasonable things. If you are going to restrict the freedoms of others in America you need a better reason than “Well, my god says…”

Sorry, but to have my freedoms restricted with that as the justification has been really rubbing me the wrong way, so thanks for bearing my rant.

Children see others doing things they are too young to do all the time as well, and the parent must teach the child to deal with that disappointment. “No Suzy, you can’t open that present, it’s not your birthday”…”Sorry Jon, but you’re to short to go on this ride, you could get hurt.”…”I’m sorry Dave, but that drink is for adults. Let’s get you a fancy drink that’s all for you!”

In fact, taking this away is taking a learning opportunity away from child and parent. It is vital in the raising of a child that a parent establish rules and boundaries that the child must follow even if they seem arbitrary. Otherwise, how will the child deal with it when similar rules and standards are enacted in the work place? Not only is it important to their future, but, as any episode of SuperNanny will tell you, children crave these boundaries, they help them understand the world, and many behavorial problems are due to the parents not expressing clear expectations. Children want this guidance from the PARENT not the STATE.

It’s too convenient to say that establishing correlation and/or causation can’t be done, and then do whatever “feels right” without regard to consequences. (And yes, it cuts both ways.) There are numerous other states where liquor regulations have changed decades ago and the effects can be measured. Not doing so because it is difficult is to eschew good data-driven public policy. You should (and can) be better than that.

The studies referred to in Korry’s post also don’t address the negative effects alcohol may have on other areas of a person’s health, even while possibly providing positive effects on the cardiovascular health.  For instance, liver damage or a person’s genetic disposition to become addicted which can’t be known before trying alcohol.  Do the negatives outweight the positives?