# Constitutionality of Utah's anti-liquor laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 31, 2002, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-utahs-anti-liquor-laws/145884 "2002-12-31T16:31:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-utahs-anti-liquor-laws/145884/21 "2003-01-01T11:43:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by racer72 \* > \*\*There are two points missed in this discussion. > > 1. The consumption of alcohol is a privelige, not a right. > \*\* And what if the consumption of alcohol is wine taken during a passover service? Freedom of religion and all that rot, you know. Of course, most inhabitants in Utah are not intrested in the freedoms of any religion other than Mormanism. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-utahs-anti-liquor-laws/145884/22 "2003-01-01T13:05:08Z")
An important thing about considering the Constitution is that each part of the Constitution is weighed equally with each other. Section 2 of the 21st Amendment, quoted by MEBuckner above, specifically gives states the right to control the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages. Because of this, just about any state law regarding the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages CANNOT be Unconstitutional, because the Constitution specifically gives the states the right to pass such laws. It’s only where there are other Constitutional provisions implicated (like free speech) that a state law regarding alcohol might be Unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-utahs-anti-liquor-laws/145884/23 "2003-01-01T15:12:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pkbites \* > Of course, most inhabitants in Utah are not intrested in the freedoms of any religion other than Mormanism. > :rolleyes: That is a false statement. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-utahs-anti-liquor-laws/145884/24 "2003-01-01T16:50:38Z")
And a bigoted one. **pk** , keep that crap out of my forum. This whole thread is running pretty far afield. The OP is answered. Are there any General Questions remaining here? ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-utahs-anti-liquor-laws/145884/25 "2003-01-01T19:34:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > \*\*Are there any General Questions remaining here? \*\* Yes. Just what about the use of alcohol in religious ceromonies. Does Utah law have exceptions? Do ministers have to buy their wine at special places, only during certains times of the day/week? ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-utahs-anti-liquor-laws/145884/26 "2003-01-01T19:52:55Z")
[Utah’s Advertising Restrictions Challenged](http://www.hklaw.com/publications/newsletters.asp?ID=218&Article=1226) Pretty comprehensive description of court case. Small part of very long article > [@](#): > > Utah’s Advertising Restrictions Questioned > > The difficulty state agencies and state legislators face in attempting to restrict alcohol advertising is illustrated in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Utah Licensed Beverage Ass’n v. Leavitt, 256 F.3d 1061 (10th Cir. 2001), which enjoined Utah from enforcing certain statutory provisions governing the advertisement of alcohol beverages. In so doing, the court cast doubt on the constitutionality of such advertising restrictions in light of Rubin v. Coors Brewing Company1 and 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island2. A review of the 10th Circuit’s decision also provides an opportunity to outline the analysis courts typically employ when examining content-based advertising restrictions. > > In 1996, the Utah Licensed Beverage Association (ULBA) and others filed suit in federal district court to enjoin Utah from enforcing certain state provisions restricting advertisements of distilled spirits and wine. After three years, the district court denied ULBA’s request for an injunction. ULBA appealed this decision. > > At issue on appeal were essentially two statutory provisions. UTAH CODE ANN. §32A-12-401(2) (2001) effectively banned all advertising of distilled spirits or wine, except that retailers could post a sign that designated the retailer as the holder of a state alcohol beverage license.3 Similarly, Utah Code Ann. . §32A-12-401(4) (2001) prohibited retailer price advertisements that could be viewed by passersby. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-utahs-anti-liquor-laws/145884/27 "2003-01-01T21:56:47Z")
Well, pk, here’s a link that will both answer your question about sacramental wine and disabuse you of the notion that LDS don’t care about other folks’ religious freedom: [http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2001-March/007526.html](http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2001-March/007526.html) ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-utahs-anti-liquor-laws/145884/28 "2003-01-01T22:36:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jklann \* > **A “no sale on Sunday” law strikes me as being much closer to an establishment of religion than the generic restrictions imposed by Utah.** No alcohol sold on Sunday is one of the few (and maybe the only) remaining “blue law.” And that is a whole other topic. > [@](#): > > The entire country is a “dry” area as far as certain other intoxicants go, what’s so special about alcohol? The Federal Gvt. has enacted legislation for different classes of drugs, certain drugs belonging to one class or another. Alcohol is not listed in any of the classes. And that is another whole other topic. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-utahs-anti-liquor-laws/145884/29 "2003-01-01T23:51:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Billdo \* > **Section 2 of the 21st Amendment, quoted by MEBuckner above, specifically gives states the right to control the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages. Because of this, just about any state law regarding the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages CANNOT be Unconstitutional, because the Constitution specifically gives the states the right to pass such laws.** I hate to beat this federal/state issue to death, but a number of posters have cited the 21st Amendment and given it an overly broad construction. States _always_ had the power to define and punish crimes taking place within their borders–including the sale of alcohol. They had it _before_ Prohibition, they had it _during_ Prohibition, and they have it today. (Even _during_ Prohibition, states could have enacted penalties more stringent than the federal Volstead Act if they so chose.) They didn’t need the Twenty-First Amendment to grant, or to return, that power. They _did_ need Section 2 to gain undisputed control over the _importation_ of liquor across their boundaries. Otherwise, this would have been interstate commerce, subject to federal pre-emption. That is all that Section 2 does. Even without it, Utah’s goofy laws about sales in restaurants would be perfectly constitutional. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-utahs-anti-liquor-laws/145884.md?page=1)