top of page
  • The legislature needs to recognize that they shouldn’t be in the alcohol control business and vote to transition to the private three-tier system model. Or a model similar to Wyoming, where retail is private and direct shipping is allowed. 

  • The state could sell all the infrastructure they currently use to distributors and private retailers.

    • This, in turn, releases them from $319 million in liabilities.

    • The state can then issue and grant distributor alcohol licenses and retail liquor licenses.

    • The poorly treated employees working within the inadequate state-run alcohol system can find new jobs with private distributors willing to pay them higher wages and provide insurance and other necessities.

  • The LDS Church will be released from any involvement regarding alcohol. Thus, absolving them from future political gaffes that violate IRS rules recognizing religious tax exemption status.

  • Distributors then become responsible for wholesaling alcohol to restaurants, hotels, and independent retail accounts.

  • The hospitality industry and independent retail accept the responsibility of all alcohol sales and remit taxes to the state.

  • However, since the LDS church dominates the minds of their followers, they will violate the separation of Church and State by opposing any such move.

  • Because LDS members of the legislature love, sustain, and support their leaders and never contradict them, they will reject this notion by citing broad powers granted to the state after prohibition. Public health and safety issues will also be touted as cover for LDS Church interests. Therefore, privatization must be put to a vote and, if necessary, maybe even taken to court for our rights. Two recent court cases have proven that although states have the broad power to regulate alcohol, their systems aren’t always right.

    • In the case Heald v. Granholm, 544u.S. 460 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are prohibited from imposing direct-shipping laws that discriminate between in and out-of-state wineries. In this case, Justice Alito stated, the (Commerce) Clause prohibits state discrimination against “all out-of-state economic interests.”

    • In the case Tennessee Wine and Spirits Association v. Thomas, 588 U.S.___ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the state unfairly discriminated against out-of-state businesses. Once again, Justice Alito used the Commerce Clause, citing Tennessee’s law existed only for economic protectionism and, therefore, unconstitutional because it had little correlation to public health and safety. Coincidentally, this case involved two former Utahans that had relocated to Tennessee to accommodate their daughter's health issues.

    • The state sells products they only want to sell at prices they want to sell it at without competition, and they outlaw direct shipping of wine. Utah state liquor laws are isolationist, unfairly discriminate against outside economic interests, and violate imbibing Utahan's rights. The Commerce Clause prohibits violating interstate commerce by imposing tariffs – Utah’s extremely high taxes on alcohol are nothing more than levied taxes that burden its imbibing citizens. 

why privatize |                                                  the positive impact


bottom of page