The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Wednesday released an eight-page statement reiterating its opposition to more liberal advertising of alcoholic beverages in Utah.
Jerry Fenn, an attorney who represents the church on alcohol issues, said the same statement was mailed to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission on Friday, the last day for public comment on proposed rules that would relax Utah's strict laws on wine and liquor advertising.
An attorney for tavern owners who are suing over state alcohol laws says the church's statement ignores basic constitutional issues.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission will meet Friday afternoon to fine-tune the proposed rules before submitting them Monday to the state Division of Administrative Rules. They will be published Nov. 1 and would become law by Dec. 4 unless public comment received during that time prompts the commission to go through the process again.
The commission, prompted by a federal court ruling that found Utah's laws to be unconstitutional, passed temporary laws this summer that allow wine, hard alcohol and heavy beer to be advertised in the same manner permitted for beer that has an alcohol content of 3.2 percent or less.
Those rules, which have led to the appearance of wine and hard-alcohol products on restaurant menus and billboards throughout the state, expire Dec. 7.
But the commission could adopt similar rules on a permanent basis, requiring a change in state law. And that's exactly what has church leaders concerned.
The church's statement urges the "continuation of existing sound practices and regulations" and makes the following assertions:
The impact on society from the abuse of alcohol, in terms of pain, sorrow, misery and lost lives, is incalculable.
Existing alcohol laws are supported by a majority of Utah residents.
No social or economic benefit from liberalization of existing policy can outweigh the negative societal consequences that would follow from erosion of existing state controls or the failure to vigorously enforce alcohol laws.
Utah's interest in discouraging overconsumption, intoxication, drunken driving, underage access and consumption and in minimizing alcohol's health and public-safety consequences supports restrictions on advertising for all types of alcoholic beverages.
In addition to a thorough review of existing studies, new studies should be commissioned to analyze the impact of advertising on the state's temperance interests, especially advertising's impact on youths.
The church believes that the purveyors of alcohol should not be accorded the same First Amendment protections to promote use of their products to youths as those who speak out on political, social, religious and other issues of human discourse.
Current laws already provide for the availability of alcoholic beverages for adults who wish to responsibly consume.
The commission is required to protect the public interest, including the rights of those residents who do not wish to be involved with alcoholic beverages, by continuing to uphold and enforce existing alcohol-control policy.
The church's comments expanded on a three-page statement, presented by Fenn to the commission on Sept. 21, in which it said the state should stand by its policy to restrict alcohol advertising and anything else that promotes drinking.
Brian Barnard, a Salt Lake attorney who has represented a local magazine and tavern owners in a suit against the state's alcohol laws, reacted to the church's statement by noting, "Matters of constitutional rights are not determined by majority rule."
"You don't put constitutional rights up to a vote of the people. That's why we have a constitution," Barnard said. "If you did, 150 years ago in Missouri, the majority would have voted the LDS Church out of existence, and you don't do that. . . . You have to protect the rights of the minority."
From his analysis of the statement, Barnard said it appears to him the church is asking the state to "spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do studies to further the church's agenda."
Also, he said, church leaders appear to want information intended for adults to be "filtered such that it is appropriate for the sandbox."
"What they're proposing is that information available to adults be limited or restricted for fear that minors may be exposed to that, and the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically said, 'No, it doesn't work that way,' " Barnard said. "You can't reduce everything to pap so that you're not offending anyone."
E-MAIL: zman@desnews.com