As the state is staring down a $1 Billion deficit, some difficult decisions have to be made regarding how we are going to balance our budget while still providing for the needs of the citizens of the state of Utah.

To be sure, cuts are going to have to be made to make sure that the state is fiscally sound, however it is politically unwise for both Republicans and Democrats alike to chop off such a large amount of money from the states spending – we will have to find new sources of revenue to ensure that the state is able to pay its bills.

This is where state liquor laws come in.

State liquor licenses have officially, if you will pardon the pun, dried up in the state. You see, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is only allowed to offer a liquor license per 7,850 people according to state law. Now, when the state was smaller and more Mormon, this was a somewhat reasonable number – balancing the beliefs of the predominate religion with those who choose to drink. Today, however, the states population has changed, and the demand for drinks has officially topped out; supply has outstripped demand.

The state of Utah currently has an estimated 2,736,424 people, equating to 348 liquor licenses. If state law were changed, even slightly to, say, one license per 7,250 people, 377 total (or 29) new licenses would become available over night – or to put it another way, one new liquor license per county. Now, it was touted that the famous Port O’ Call brought in $1.2 million yearly in tax dollars to the state, county, and city. But not every bar is a Port O’ Call – let us suppose that each bar will bring in, on average $50,000 in liquor taxes including licensing fees. Suddenly we have an additional $1,450,000 in our coffers.

Now it is fair to point out that this would only cover some 2 percent of our state deficit, but it is a start. Furthermore, it is one of the better types of taxes to impose – a usage tax – if you don’t drink, you don’t pay the tax, and if you do…well thanks for the extra buck. Mind you, we have not even talked about “raising taxes,” just releasing more licenses so that more alcohol can be sold in the first place to a public that is clearly demanding more access. A penny per gallon increase in beer and hard liquor could further increase funds to the state.

I would also be remiss if I did not point out that this policy would, logically, increase the number of alcohol related legal and medical related incidents in our state. I would argue, however, that there is not a one-to-one relationship to alcohol access and abuse. People prone to alcoholism are probably not going to start drinking simply because a new bar opened up down the street – these people will, most likely, already be abusing alcohol regardless of state rules and mandates. Furthermore the person just starting to drink is not likely to over-indulge at a bar – either they are underage and at a friends house, or they are legal and more aware of the consequences of their actions.

Finally, I would like mention the fact that the free market capitalism is attacked under the current system. The state monopoly on licenses not only prevent free enterprise, but they also stifle economic growth in a very real way…Of course I am sure the Republicans on the hill will consider that if and when they discuss this topic.