"Even Utah" seems to imply that Utah would be expected to have a stronger stance against the sale or consumption of alcohol. A cursory glance at the laws of both places, at least based on Wikipedia summaries, strongly suggests otherwise.
> In 2010, at least 18 people (mostly foreign nationals) were sentenced to receive between 40 and 100 lashes for offences involving "illicit sexual relations" or alcohol consumption.[125] In 2011, at least 21 people (mostly foreign nationals) were sentenced to between 30 and 100 lashes for the same reasons,[126] and in 2012, six expatriates were sentenced to either 40 or 100 lashes.
> Alcohol consumption is partially legal in Qatar; some five-star luxury hotels are allowed to sell alcohol to their non-Muslim customers.[135][136] Muslims are not allowed to consume alcohol, and those caught consuming it are liable to flogging or deportation. Non-Muslim expatriates can obtain a permit to purchase alcohol for personal consumption.
Utah:
> A person must be 21 years old or older to buy or consume alcohol.[2] The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services (UDABS) has regulated the sale of alcoholic beverages since 1935, two years after the end of Prohibition.[3] Utah is one of seventeen control states, meaning the state has a monopoly over the wholesaling and/or retailing of some or all categories of alcoholic beverages.[4] Current Utah law sets a limit of 4.0 percent alcohol by weight (5% ABV) in beer sold at grocery and convenience stores and at establishments operating under a "beer only" type license, such as taverns, beer bars and some restaurants.[5] Beer over 4.0 percent by weight (5% ABV) is available in State Liquor Stores and Package Agencies and at clubs and restaurants licensed to sell liquor.
The Utah laws you quote are from after the 2002 Olympic Winter Games.
I was there a few years before that, you could buy 3.2% beer in a supermarket but for anything stronger needed to go to a State Liquor Store. The only State Liquor Stores that I saw were built like WWII Normandy bunkers, just to make it clear that you were doing something really bad by going there. From memory, you needed to get "membership" of any bar to drink there.
In Pennsylvania you can only purchase beer and wine from a grocery store due to legal loopholes -- you're purchasing it from a restaurant physically located inside of the grocery store.
We also, in recent years, permitted alcohol sales on Sunday. Also, anything stronger than beer or wine is purchased from a "State Store". We never, to me knowledge, had the "zion curtains" in restaurants. https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/01/the-zion-curtains-of-u...
The joke in Utah is that you always invite two Mormons to go fishing with you, because if there is only one they will drink all of your beer.
> In Pennsylvania you can only purchase beer and wine from a grocery store due to legal loopholes -- you're purchasing it from a restaurant physically located inside of the grocery store.
Not exactly. When I lived in Chambersburg (2014-2016), I purchased beer from the few beer stores around. In & Out Beverage is still there [0]. If I recall correctly, they were classified as a distributor that was able to sell cases to the public. If you wanted less than a case then you had to find a bar to buy it from.
Is the grocery store thing recent? None of them sold beer when I was in Chambersburg. Nor were the distributors allowed to sell less than a case (or at least they didn't stock smaller amounts). It's been a number of years though, so things certainly could have changed a bit. If I recall correctly, Sheetz was able to start selling beer at a few locations before I moved.
I doubt I'll be that way again but I'll make a note to check out Shangy's if I ever am.
Yeah, I never understood why I had to buy 24 bottles of something to figure out if I liked it or not. Now I can go to the grocery store and make my own six pack with six different things to try.
The down side of this is that there's a limit to how much alcohol you can purchase from a grocery store at once. If you want to purchase more than 16 (12 oz) bottles of beer you must do so in two transactions. This can't be two transactions in a row, so you have to physically carry your alcohol out of the store, leave it outside (or in your car), come back in, and buy the rest.
When we built a new college football stadium in Minnesota a special liquor license was requested to allow selling alcohol in the suits. A legislator objected and gathered enough support to add on to the license that if they sold alcohol anywhere in the stadium... they had to sell it everywhere.
The school stalled for a season, then sorta complied (hilariously tried hiding the beer sales in the back corners of the stadium), and finally relented and were one of the first upper division / larger schools to sell alcohol to everyone on game day. Visiting fans were shocked for for a couple years when they entered the stadium and folks were walking around with beer.
Worked out fine, no noticeable issues associated with it.
The NYT is reporting something that is happening. The main point of the article seems to be that this a change in policy at the last minute, something that tends to be criticized in most cultures.
This one isn't so much a cultural difference but Qatar not doing what they said they would. They agreed to allow the sponsors to what they've paid to do and now a sponsor who paid 85 million(?) is being told they're not allowed to do what they've paid to do.
This is Qatar not respecting the cultural differences they asked for come to their country. Drinking beer at the World Cup is a major part of the experience and the fans quite simply are getting screwed over.
It's hard to think that this won't go down in history as the worse world cup ever along with being the most corrupt one.
It is possible to overall embrace diversity while at the same time finding disgust or problems with certain aspects of a culture. As an extreme example one can be against discriminating against Muslims and simultaneously find disgust with the cultural practice of female genital mutilation by some Muslim societies.
I mean FGM is an extreme example. If it was just that, it wouldn’t come across as so disingenuous. But in practice it seems to reduce to dicing up a foreign culture and embracing only the parts that are consistent with your own. This is especially apparent with Islam, where some westerners claim to embrace it, but really only a Disney-fied version where e.g. hijab is a fashion statement rather than a symbol of submission. That attitude really stands out when confronted with Muslims who believe what Muslims believe, whether about intoxicants or gender roles or whatever else.
Of course, zooming out, most people are ethnocentric and think their culture is better than other people’s culture. Most Qataris would say that about New York City. The difference is they don’t pretend like it’s otherwise.
My personal stance is that one can embrace whatever religious views they want and I will support their right to do so. But when their practice of religion includes mandatory hijab, forced segregation of sexes, anti-homosexuality laws, etc. then I’m going to criticize them. This is not inconsistent or hypocritical. I have a set of core values and when people act in ways that violate them then I’m going to criticize them. We all have core beliefs and will judge others based on those beliefs.
I have sat through diversity seminars where I was told that my stance is “wrong”. In particular I was told that I have no right to criticize the cultural practice of female genital mutilation when embraced by other cultures. This is idiotic in my opinion. Embracing cultural diversity does not mean subjugating my moral views to the notion of “diversity”.
Do you claim to embrace diversity? If not then that’s not hypocritical. Most Muslims would disagree with your “core values” on say gender roles. They’re not hypocrites—they have their own core values and they think theirs are right and yours are wrong just as you think yours are right and theirs are wrong. Everyone can criticize everyone else because most people think their own culture is better than other people’s. And that’s fine!
If you do claim to embrace diversity, but your “core values” are such you can’t accept 1/4 of the world’s population on their own terms, that’s hypocritical. “Diversity” is what exists in the world. You don’t get to define what’s the acceptable bounds of cultural diversity in terms of your own core values. Maybe there’s a bit of leeway for things like FGM which are outliers. But the particular core values you listed are incompatible with the cultures of half the world’s population if not more.
I don’t claim people with a different set of values are hypocrites and I don’t believe I suggested otherwise. I do embrace diversity but within the confines of my core beliefs. So it bothers me not one bit that someone thinks eating pork is bad but it does bother me that women are forced to wear a hijab. I do get to define what is acceptable to me. You get to define what is acceptable to you. To me mandatory hijab is asinine and I don’t care if that view offends 1/4 of the world’s population.
No reasonable person can be for things that are antithetical to their core beliefs.
> I do embrace diversity but within the confines of my core beliefs.
Then you don't "embrace diversity." You're like the rest of us--you find your own culture preferable, and you'll tolerate certain things from other cultures but not other things.
The hypocrisy comes from claiming to embrace "diversity" in and of itself, while insisting that the bounds of acceptable diversity is based on your beliefs.
> No reasonable person can be for things that are antithetical to their core beliefs.
You don't have to be for or against. "It's none of my business" is also an option.
It is not “crusading” to point out things that I view as morally repugnant. Nor is it as odds with being in favor of diversity. Diversity does not mean accepting things that are morally repugnant. Things like female genital mutilation, marrying 9 year olds, and in my case mandatory hijab. You too have your own views on things you view as morally repugnant and those views are not necessarily in contradiction to being for diversity. Obviously on the hierarchy of acceptability one does not reasonably put diversity as a greater cause than opposition to the things we find morally repugnant. That you can’t see this is a failing on your part.
I feel like this world cup is going to lead to chaos in an unpredictable way. Taking international fans and putting them under strict no alcohol policy, and other weird authoritarian measures like no kissing in public is going to fail spectacularly. Not a matter of whether I think people should respect other cultures, it's a matter of knowing some people won't.
They will probably instruct their local police to turn a blind eye. But if they don't, I bet this is going to lead to diplomatic crisis one way or the other.
I think there'll be a few diplomatic incidents for sure - people will get busted sneaking alcohol and drugs in, many will be arrested for breaking various local laws. But I don't imagine it'll be too chaotic, I think it'll just be a damp squib of a World Cup overall.
A recent Guardian report accused Qatar of physically abusing gay Qataris and recruiting them as agents to track down gay attendees of the WC[0]. These people had zero problem killing thousands to build the stadiums, do not underestimate their capacity for cruelty.
When you go to someone’s home you follow their rules. And being thrown in jail for a spell would probably do some of these European soccer fans some good.
But if someone offers to host an event in their home, they need to understand the requirements and expectations of that event, and if they do not agree to them, then they should not host it.
Having said that it's not unreasonable to have a alcohol free World Cup. The problem is the 48h notice is unreasonable. If I have planned a trip with a view to sit and enjoy watching a match with a beer, and now I am not able to, that's the problem.
TBF I don't think you can sit an enjoy the game with a beer in most stadiums in the UK... You can have one before, at half time, and at the end. But not while you watch.
You model this situation as a host-guest relation when it's more like a business-client relation especially when they agreed beforehand to comply and meet the conditions and rules set out by the international governing/organizing body of the sport/competition only to renege on them some hours prior to the official launch and kickoff of the tournament.
Also, I have to call out the authoritarian and gloating tone in your comment at the misfortune of other regular folks for the mere crime of loving and enjoying football/soccer.
It's like someone bribed the organiser of a house party to choose their house, promising they'd be cool even though noone really liked them. Then 5 minutes before the party, when everyone was already on their way, the host decided, "actually I'm banning your alcohol, and your music and your dancing. My house my rules".
It's too late to change the host, but it doesn't mean you have to accept the whole shit show and not call them out
Can you imagine the international and diplomatic chaos that would ensue from world cup fans getting to jail in Qatar over things that are morally acceptable in their country of origin? I think FIFA would be blamed for the decision to host the world cup in Qatar too, the country of origin would be in a pickle too, and some media will definitely fan the flames (pun intended). Depending on the timing it can even lead to protests during the world cup itself.
I think the entire thing is explosive, and the recent response of Qatar to ban alcoholic sales (whether it's acceptable or not I don't care) shows that they have no idea they are walking on thin ice, and that's a bad sign. Whatever Qatar or the fans should've done might matter for you to pick a side, but I personally think those responsible are whoever brought the fire and oil together, neither the fire nor oils fault for exploding when they met. I think Qatar is also pretty shortsighted for not realizing the damage they are going to do to themselves might be much more than the advantage.
> Can you imagine the international and diplomatic chaos that would ensue from world cup fans getting to jail in Qatar over things that are morally acceptable in their country of origin?
Yes, unfortunately this is a serious problem with us in the West. We feel hugely entitled to behave as we like anywhere in the world.
Case in point Grinder taking cannabis products into Russia. Shocking behaviour by most of the world's standards. But apparently didn't even cross her mind Russia has its own rules.
I'd say I'm a heavy drinker. But even I can see that forgoing alcohol in a foreign country is as obvious as me stopping smoking weed when I get home from Amsterdam.
> I'd say I'm a heavy drinker. But even I can see that forgoing alcohol in a foreign country is as obvious as me stopping smoking weed when I get home from Amsterdam.
Not really the same as Qatar pulled the rug on the alcohol ban 2 days before the event starts...
Don't think there's a good analogy for that, even if you had planned a trip to Amsterdam years in advance for some big event and they completely banned weed 2 days before said event wouldn't be the same, the expectations around alcohol and weed are quite different for the intended audience of said event.
On the one hand, football fans do have a pretty terrible record of behavior.
On the other, nobody deserves this kind of blatant bait-and-switch after they've paid for their nonrefundable tickets. And bad behavior by one person does not justify bad behavior by another - or to other innocent members of the same group.
Being outraged on a bait-and-switch of expectations around what is the ritual of watching a football match changes their expected experience.
I'm no fan of football but I can understand that for most this is part of the ritual, having that changed without prior notice just 2 days away from the event does upset some people. I don't think taking the literal "you paid to watch football matches" really helps you to understand the outrage, there's a dependency on alcohol, yes, there was also an expectation that was broken.
and other weird authoritarian measures like no kissing in public is going to fail spectacularly.
At least ostensibly, big worldwide events like this (Olympics, World's Fair, etc.) are about cultural exchange. There's no room for exchange under authoritarianism.
This is unfortunate because the relatively short duration of the event will make it impossible to concoct proper substitutes in time for the finals.
To make matters worse, if nothing changed in this regard since the 90s, fresh produce are sterilized via gamma radiation, so they simply don't ferment.
All in all, many hoops to jump through for prospective moonshiners.
I suspect a black market forming there soon enough though - there's likely one in place already.
Hate to give them extra publicity, but it feels fitting that a certain UK brewerywith an animal in their name were virtue signalling with a billboard campaign about how terrible Qatar hosting the event is while being one of a small number of suppliers of beer to the Qatar government for hospitality.
A reasonable proportion of their marketing and hype is not based on fact. An BBC documentary ("Disclosure") examines some of their claims and finds them baseless marketing "spin", presenting "anti-corporatism" as a brand rather than a reality. But people want to believe...
>Hate to give them extra publicity, but it feels fitting that a certain UK brewerywith an animal in their name
I appreciate your comment, but I'd appreciate it a lot more if you didn't pussyfoot with this juvenile he who shall not be named crap and just said the name. It shows respect for the reader by saving them time, not having to go detective mode searching for this "certain UK brewery with an animal in their name".
I'm not sure the rationale I gave is juvenile by any measure I'm aware of. It might not be to your liking and you're entitled to that opinion, but there's no need to be uncharitable.
Amazing move for social, health, and safety reasons if true. A country does not need to yield these aspects of their culture for an international event. Actually it would help a lot for sports culture to encourage healthier forms of having fun.
If we are going to entertain the idea of a World Cup then we need to recognize that in this world there are many cultures with different norms. In some of those, there are strong norms against drinking alcohol, and in those countries football and alcohol is not an obvious combination like it is in Europe.
When the US hosts the World Cup does anyone expect that they are going to be willing to suspend laws that other countries find objectionable, for the duration of the World Cup? Of course not, the US doesn’t give a damn what other countries think about it’s (sometimes peculiar) morality. Neither should Qatar.
This decision reversal should have been announced before Budweiser paid FIFA £63m for sponsorship. And ideally more than a couple of days before the event actually starts.
The issue is they have done this at the very last minute, when alcohol sponsorship deals were already in place and many people have already bought tickets, hotels, etc. with clear messaging from the Qatari government and FIFA that alcohol would be sold at games. It's absolutely fine to ban alcohol, but they should have done it from the very start. They didn't because they knew they would struggle to fill seats. They have very clearly been dishonest.
They are further angering people as the ban doesn't extend to VIP's, who will be able to consume as much alcohol as they want from their VIP boxes and seats.
Nah not really. If you're going to host the World Cup you know that you have to cater for the visiting fans, the majority of whom are from countries where alcohol is no big deal. Qatar knew this, agreed to make some concessions to allow the sale of beer ... and then reversed. To be honest it's a clever move to do this at last minute because it's not like FIFA are going to halt it.
I don't personally care what they do, I'll be watching in a Czech pub, drinking beer that's orders of magnitude better than Budweiser (likely Polička or Pilsner Urquell) and cheaper too ($12 @ World Cup vs ~$2.10-2.50) :)
Ha, yeah I don't mind Budvar but there aren't too many pubs in my part of the country that sell it on tap (there's one ~10 mins walk from me but I'd have to walk past about 4 better pubs to get there). And by now "Budweiser" pretty universally refers to the American beer. I should stress that I actually don't mind those US style "lite beers" - there's a time and a place for them. But that is not in Czech Republic in winter :)
I think, generally, the concern is that if the Qatari rulers are rolling back on this commitment (which is relatively minor) they will roll back on other much more serious promises that they made about personal security of visiting fans.
I think hosting the world cup in Qatar is questionable.
Next to the known issues that arose in the past years, even ex-ante Qatar is not a country with a meaningful cultural connection to Football as a sport. Of course hosting the world cup there is a farce from that standpoint. Football world cups should be hosted in countries where it's a cultural fixture and popular sport.
HOWEVER, if you - as FIFA - decide to host the world cup in Qatar regardless, then you should absolutely conform to Qatar's local customs and laws.
Qatar is a country where public displays of alcohol consumption, especially as practiced in European stadiums, are morally and legally not okay. It is up to FIFA, the sponsors and the guests to conform to that - as guests in said country.
FIFA is free to hold the world cup in a different country.
I think it will be positive in encouraging loosening of the oppressive regime there.
It's also unfortunately one of the more viable options in the middle east where football is THE sport of the people.*
If no booze is served all that means is Muslims may be more comfortable attending.
Who cares about alcohol anyways.
* where else? Saudi? That'd be even worse. Turkey is ideal, but really cant afford it as inflation hits 85+%. Israel would be good but unfortunately most Arabs would struggle to travel there nor is it safe. Dubai/UAE might work, but ultimately have same issues.
You're right that Turkey would've been ideal were it not for the recent financial troubles, though I wonder if a big event like the World Cup could have eliminated or at least delayed this crisis. If you look a bit further afield than just the Middle East, Egypt or Morocco (or some dual bid) may have been good options too.
I think you're right to discount Israel, to be honest not just because of safety and access issues but because it's a relatively small country that can't reasonably support stadia of the size and quality required to host the World Cup. They've three ~30k seaters which is ok but the rest are absolutely tiny - to be honest even the Greater Glasgow area likely has a better selection and there's not a hope in hell of even a Scotland bid (outside there's one >60k, three around 20-22k and a dozen more 10-19k). These smaller nations would do much better to submit joint bid - most countries can afford at least a couple of white elephant stadia if they don't already have a few bigger teams that could occupy them - but with Israel, I can't think who they'd host with.
Completely missing the point. Qatar promised FIFA that selling beer would be allowed in the stadiums and collected a lot of sponsorship money from a beer company for the rights to sell that beer. Then 48 hours before the event kicks off, and when it is far too late for anybody to change any plans, they renege on that promise. They obviously waited to the very last minute to announce this change of heart so that people couldn't react to it or change any plans.
FIFA is free to hold the world cup in a different country.
I disagree. FIFA is free to stop hosting the world cup. It can't be that hard to move to another country - other countries have stadiums and regulations that suit whatever whims FIFA has at the moment.
This is just the free market that HN readers love at work - perhaps there should have been some criticism of Qatar before this world cup? I haven't seen any before now.
Australia, Japan, Qatar, South Korea, United States. Out of those, Qatar paid by far the largest bribes, so that's where it's being held. Any one of the other four would have done a perfectly adequate job.
I've always wanted to go to a world cup and this might be my chance.
Cause I'm not seeing this will be a popular event.
For what it's worth I have absolutely no problem with Qatar saying no stadium alcohol.
There'll be booze at the festival, on hotels.
Alcohol is possibly the worst aspect of football. Worse than the silly diving.
Qatar is the most viable (money meets opportunity, meets safety) option and will give the middle east access to the world cup which would not really be possible.
Awarding the World Cup hosting to an ultra-conservative and self-righteous country like Qatar that truly believes in their own sense of moral superiority and cultural supremacy was a big big mistake in the first place.
I knew it early on that they would bait and switch but wait till the last minute before they go with the plan of imposing their religious dogmatic policies on victims, i.e. fans and visitors from all over the world.
If FIFA was so intent on making history by awarding the WC hosting for the first time ever to an Arab or Muslim-majority country, they could have awarded it to the UAE instead, and they would have delivered a fantastic job honoring the traditions of past tournaments, and ensuring smooth and secure operations as well as a festive atmosphere for all involved, but they instead went with that fundamentalist and fanatical country of Qatar, and then they have the audacity to act all surprised when this crap happens.
> If FIFA was so intent on making history by awarding the WC hosting for the first time ever to an Arab or Muslim-majority country, they could have awarded it to the UAE instead, and they would have delivered a fantastic job honoring the traditions of past tournaments, and ensuring smooth and secure operations as well as a festive atmosphere for all involved, but they instead went with that fundamental and fanatical country of Qatar, and then they have the audacity to act surprised when this crap happens.
This is a great example of what corruption looks like and why it's so devastating to markets. FIFA officials took millions in bribes to sway this and the Russian WC without any regard for the outcome because they all got paid upfront. There was nothing altruistic about the decision to give it to Qatar.
A major beer sponsor is now going to have to lawyer up and fans who have planned for this trip for years will not be able to experience it the way they want to.
I don't think any amount of lawyers are going to help here. InBev just has to pay the price to get beer sales opened up again. And they'll have to do it multiple times during the tournament, likely for other cooked up reasons. Honestly, their best bet is likely to just pull out all together.
I think the alcohol ban is great, now foreign soccer fans (from certain countries we all are aware of) have no excuse to act uncivilized, start fights, and wreck the place.
Lets get things straight, nobody awarded them anything. They outright bought it via bribes, and evidence for it is everywhere. From indirect deals, to outright leaks.
People should boycott fifa if they want to see a change. Otherwise things will not change.
Can someone explain to me how a independent third party like FIFA can be put on trial for corruption? I know that bribing officials and requesting bribes is illegal but if a government employee comes to you and offers you a trip to their country and takes you dining and wining that is perfectly fine.
I ask because I am not sure what the solution is to "Cleaning up FIFA" they are a massive entity that is not really beholden to anyone because they are private and are just in the business of taking money from people to have players play more football.
I'm very curious because most of the issues that sports face in the US is more about labor disputes / discrimination / cleaning up player's messes / hiding medical results that may showcase the sport in bad light which are awful in their own right but fall short of the massive amounts of money FIFA executives receive from countries trying to sportswash.
Like many people the Russia / Qatar WC have been nothing short of eye-opening in terms of just how little FIFA cares about anything except raking in massive piles of cash that they use for some vanity projects here and there but mostly just to pay their executives.
Doesn't seem like a big deal as there's still alcohol available in other places.
I think it's dispiriting that this is the issue that appears more important to fans over the circumstances of the bid win (bribery) or the human rights issues with the host country. Should the fans care? Well even at a shallow surface level yeah: I'm not a football fan but even I recognise that America or Australia, also in the bidding, being hosts would have been awesome by comparison.
108 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 175 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Utah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar#Law
Qatar:
> In 2010, at least 18 people (mostly foreign nationals) were sentenced to receive between 40 and 100 lashes for offences involving "illicit sexual relations" or alcohol consumption.[125] In 2011, at least 21 people (mostly foreign nationals) were sentenced to between 30 and 100 lashes for the same reasons,[126] and in 2012, six expatriates were sentenced to either 40 or 100 lashes.
> Alcohol consumption is partially legal in Qatar; some five-star luxury hotels are allowed to sell alcohol to their non-Muslim customers.[135][136] Muslims are not allowed to consume alcohol, and those caught consuming it are liable to flogging or deportation. Non-Muslim expatriates can obtain a permit to purchase alcohol for personal consumption.
Utah:
> A person must be 21 years old or older to buy or consume alcohol.[2] The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services (UDABS) has regulated the sale of alcoholic beverages since 1935, two years after the end of Prohibition.[3] Utah is one of seventeen control states, meaning the state has a monopoly over the wholesaling and/or retailing of some or all categories of alcoholic beverages.[4] Current Utah law sets a limit of 4.0 percent alcohol by weight (5% ABV) in beer sold at grocery and convenience stores and at establishments operating under a "beer only" type license, such as taverns, beer bars and some restaurants.[5] Beer over 4.0 percent by weight (5% ABV) is available in State Liquor Stores and Package Agencies and at clubs and restaurants licensed to sell liquor.
I was there a few years before that, you could buy 3.2% beer in a supermarket but for anything stronger needed to go to a State Liquor Store. The only State Liquor Stores that I saw were built like WWII Normandy bunkers, just to make it clear that you were doing something really bad by going there. From memory, you needed to get "membership" of any bar to drink there.
We also, in recent years, permitted alcohol sales on Sunday. Also, anything stronger than beer or wine is purchased from a "State Store". We never, to me knowledge, had the "zion curtains" in restaurants. https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/01/the-zion-curtains-of-u...
The joke in Utah is that you always invite two Mormons to go fishing with you, because if there is only one they will drink all of your beer.
Not exactly. When I lived in Chambersburg (2014-2016), I purchased beer from the few beer stores around. In & Out Beverage is still there [0]. If I recall correctly, they were classified as a distributor that was able to sell cases to the public. If you wanted less than a case then you had to find a bar to buy it from.
[0] https://g.page/inandoutbeverage
That is, the only reason why you can purchase beer in grocery stores here is due to a legal loophole.
As of today beer distributors sell quantities smaller than a case.
Shangy's is great if you are ever out this way again!
I doubt I'll be that way again but I'll make a note to check out Shangy's if I ever am.
1. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck...
The down side of this is that there's a limit to how much alcohol you can purchase from a grocery store at once. If you want to purchase more than 16 (12 oz) bottles of beer you must do so in two transactions. This can't be two transactions in a row, so you have to physically carry your alcohol out of the store, leave it outside (or in your car), come back in, and buy the rest.
Not that it makes it any better.
When we built a new college football stadium in Minnesota a special liquor license was requested to allow selling alcohol in the suits. A legislator objected and gathered enough support to add on to the license that if they sold alcohol anywhere in the stadium... they had to sell it everywhere.
The school stalled for a season, then sorta complied (hilariously tried hiding the beer sales in the back corners of the stadium), and finally relented and were one of the first upper division / larger schools to sell alcohol to everyone on game day. Visiting fans were shocked for for a couple years when they entered the stadium and folks were walking around with beer.
Worked out fine, no noticeable issues associated with it.
This is Qatar not respecting the cultural differences they asked for come to their country. Drinking beer at the World Cup is a major part of the experience and the fans quite simply are getting screwed over.
It's hard to think that this won't go down in history as the worse world cup ever along with being the most corrupt one.
Of course, zooming out, most people are ethnocentric and think their culture is better than other people’s culture. Most Qataris would say that about New York City. The difference is they don’t pretend like it’s otherwise.
I have sat through diversity seminars where I was told that my stance is “wrong”. In particular I was told that I have no right to criticize the cultural practice of female genital mutilation when embraced by other cultures. This is idiotic in my opinion. Embracing cultural diversity does not mean subjugating my moral views to the notion of “diversity”.
If you do claim to embrace diversity, but your “core values” are such you can’t accept 1/4 of the world’s population on their own terms, that’s hypocritical. “Diversity” is what exists in the world. You don’t get to define what’s the acceptable bounds of cultural diversity in terms of your own core values. Maybe there’s a bit of leeway for things like FGM which are outliers. But the particular core values you listed are incompatible with the cultures of half the world’s population if not more.
No reasonable person can be for things that are antithetical to their core beliefs.
Then you don't "embrace diversity." You're like the rest of us--you find your own culture preferable, and you'll tolerate certain things from other cultures but not other things.
The hypocrisy comes from claiming to embrace "diversity" in and of itself, while insisting that the bounds of acceptable diversity is based on your beliefs.
> No reasonable person can be for things that are antithetical to their core beliefs.
You don't have to be for or against. "It's none of my business" is also an option.
They will probably instruct their local police to turn a blind eye. But if they don't, I bet this is going to lead to diplomatic crisis one way or the other.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/nov/15/gay-qataris...
Having said that it's not unreasonable to have a alcohol free World Cup. The problem is the 48h notice is unreasonable. If I have planned a trip with a view to sit and enjoy watching a match with a beer, and now I am not able to, that's the problem.
Brazil also doesn't sell beer in stadiums and they had to temporarily change rules while the WC was in town
Also, I have to call out the authoritarian and gloating tone in your comment at the misfortune of other regular folks for the mere crime of loving and enjoying football/soccer.
It's too late to change the host, but it doesn't mean you have to accept the whole shit show and not call them out
I think the entire thing is explosive, and the recent response of Qatar to ban alcoholic sales (whether it's acceptable or not I don't care) shows that they have no idea they are walking on thin ice, and that's a bad sign. Whatever Qatar or the fans should've done might matter for you to pick a side, but I personally think those responsible are whoever brought the fire and oil together, neither the fire nor oils fault for exploding when they met. I think Qatar is also pretty shortsighted for not realizing the damage they are going to do to themselves might be much more than the advantage.
Yes, unfortunately this is a serious problem with us in the West. We feel hugely entitled to behave as we like anywhere in the world.
Case in point Grinder taking cannabis products into Russia. Shocking behaviour by most of the world's standards. But apparently didn't even cross her mind Russia has its own rules.
I'd say I'm a heavy drinker. But even I can see that forgoing alcohol in a foreign country is as obvious as me stopping smoking weed when I get home from Amsterdam.
Not really the same as Qatar pulled the rug on the alcohol ban 2 days before the event starts...
Don't think there's a good analogy for that, even if you had planned a trip to Amsterdam years in advance for some big event and they completely banned weed 2 days before said event wouldn't be the same, the expectations around alcohol and weed are quite different for the intended audience of said event.
Personally I just don't see recreational drugs (that includes alcohol) a big deal.
But remember it's not completely banned you can drink at the festival and the hotels. You just can't buy alcohol in the stadium. Bud 0% is available.
No big deal in my book.
On the other, nobody deserves this kind of blatant bait-and-switch after they've paid for their nonrefundable tickets. And bad behavior by one person does not justify bad behavior by another - or to other innocent members of the same group.
Being outraged that they’re not allowed to drink beer during a football match in Qatar is more an indication of their alcohol dependency.
I'm no fan of football but I can understand that for most this is part of the ritual, having that changed without prior notice just 2 days away from the event does upset some people. I don't think taking the literal "you paid to watch football matches" really helps you to understand the outrage, there's a dependency on alcohol, yes, there was also an expectation that was broken.
At least ostensibly, big worldwide events like this (Olympics, World's Fair, etc.) are about cultural exchange. There's no room for exchange under authoritarianism.
To make matters worse, if nothing changed in this regard since the 90s, fresh produce are sterilized via gamma radiation, so they simply don't ferment.
All in all, many hoops to jump through for prospective moonshiners.
I suspect a black market forming there soon enough though - there's likely one in place already.
I appreciate your comment, but I'd appreciate it a lot more if you didn't pussyfoot with this juvenile he who shall not be named crap and just said the name. It shows respect for the reader by saving them time, not having to go detective mode searching for this "certain UK brewery with an animal in their name".
When the US hosts the World Cup does anyone expect that they are going to be willing to suspend laws that other countries find objectionable, for the duration of the World Cup? Of course not, the US doesn’t give a damn what other countries think about it’s (sometimes peculiar) morality. Neither should Qatar.
They are further angering people as the ban doesn't extend to VIP's, who will be able to consume as much alcohol as they want from their VIP boxes and seats.
I don't personally care what they do, I'll be watching in a Czech pub, drinking beer that's orders of magnitude better than Budweiser (likely Polička or Pilsner Urquell) and cheaper too ($12 @ World Cup vs ~$2.10-2.50) :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_Budvar_Brewery
And they're bad at football, maybe there's a connection.
In any case, no one should be going to, or watching, this world cup - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/nov/14/stadiums-of...
HOWEVER, if you - as FIFA - decide to host the world cup in Qatar regardless, then you should absolutely conform to Qatar's local customs and laws.
Qatar is a country where public displays of alcohol consumption, especially as practiced in European stadiums, are morally and legally not okay. It is up to FIFA, the sponsors and the guests to conform to that - as guests in said country.
FIFA is free to hold the world cup in a different country.
I think it will be positive in encouraging loosening of the oppressive regime there.
It's also unfortunately one of the more viable options in the middle east where football is THE sport of the people.*
If no booze is served all that means is Muslims may be more comfortable attending.
Who cares about alcohol anyways.
* where else? Saudi? That'd be even worse. Turkey is ideal, but really cant afford it as inflation hits 85+%. Israel would be good but unfortunately most Arabs would struggle to travel there nor is it safe. Dubai/UAE might work, but ultimately have same issues.
I think you're right to discount Israel, to be honest not just because of safety and access issues but because it's a relatively small country that can't reasonably support stadia of the size and quality required to host the World Cup. They've three ~30k seaters which is ok but the rest are absolutely tiny - to be honest even the Greater Glasgow area likely has a better selection and there's not a hope in hell of even a Scotland bid (outside there's one >60k, three around 20-22k and a dozen more 10-19k). These smaller nations would do much better to submit joint bid - most countries can afford at least a couple of white elephant stadia if they don't already have a few bigger teams that could occupy them - but with Israel, I can't think who they'd host with.
FIFA is free to hold the world cup in a different country.
Not 48 hours before kick-off they're not.
This is just the free market that HN readers love at work - perhaps there should have been some criticism of Qatar before this world cup? I haven't seen any before now.
Australia, Japan, Qatar, South Korea, United States. Out of those, Qatar paid by far the largest bribes, so that's where it's being held. Any one of the other four would have done a perfectly adequate job.
There have been over six thousand migrant worker deaths in Qatar since the bid: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/r...
Cause I'm not seeing this will be a popular event.
For what it's worth I have absolutely no problem with Qatar saying no stadium alcohol.
There'll be booze at the festival, on hotels.
Alcohol is possibly the worst aspect of football. Worse than the silly diving.
Qatar is the most viable (money meets opportunity, meets safety) option and will give the middle east access to the world cup which would not really be possible.
You realise it's starting in 48 hours? Better hurry up and decide.
Depending on fallout I might be able to pop in with cheap tickets. :)
I knew it early on that they would bait and switch but wait till the last minute before they go with the plan of imposing their religious dogmatic policies on victims, i.e. fans and visitors from all over the world.
If FIFA was so intent on making history by awarding the WC hosting for the first time ever to an Arab or Muslim-majority country, they could have awarded it to the UAE instead, and they would have delivered a fantastic job honoring the traditions of past tournaments, and ensuring smooth and secure operations as well as a festive atmosphere for all involved, but they instead went with that fundamentalist and fanatical country of Qatar, and then they have the audacity to act all surprised when this crap happens.
But UAE didn't bid?
They did host this club world cup.
This is a great example of what corruption looks like and why it's so devastating to markets. FIFA officials took millions in bribes to sway this and the Russian WC without any regard for the outcome because they all got paid upfront. There was nothing altruistic about the decision to give it to Qatar.
A major beer sponsor is now going to have to lawyer up and fans who have planned for this trip for years will not be able to experience it the way they want to.
People should boycott fifa if they want to see a change. Otherwise things will not change.
That's all I need to hear, corruption to the end.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63674631
I ask because I am not sure what the solution is to "Cleaning up FIFA" they are a massive entity that is not really beholden to anyone because they are private and are just in the business of taking money from people to have players play more football.
I'm very curious because most of the issues that sports face in the US is more about labor disputes / discrimination / cleaning up player's messes / hiding medical results that may showcase the sport in bad light which are awful in their own right but fall short of the massive amounts of money FIFA executives receive from countries trying to sportswash.
Like many people the Russia / Qatar WC have been nothing short of eye-opening in terms of just how little FIFA cares about anything except raking in massive piles of cash that they use for some vanity projects here and there but mostly just to pay their executives.
I think it's dispiriting that this is the issue that appears more important to fans over the circumstances of the bid win (bribery) or the human rights issues with the host country. Should the fans care? Well even at a shallow surface level yeah: I'm not a football fan but even I recognise that America or Australia, also in the bidding, being hosts would have been awesome by comparison.