When Utah approved the 21st Amendment on Dec. 8, 1933, Americans from coast to coast had their radios tuned to the state's Repeal Convention as it took its historic deciding vote. Since that night, the nation's attention has not swayed from how Utah handles alcohol laws, albeit for different reasons.

Despite obscure or restrictive laws in practically every state, Utah laws attract far more attention. While some of that attention can be attributed to visitors confused by the state's laws and to heightened interest in the state because of the Olympics, Utah is not the only strict state with high tourist revenue, nor the first Olympic host with confusing liquor laws.

But one thing makes Utah's approach to alcohol control stand out — the motivation behind it.

"Utah is still the only state where the primary purpose is control," said Earl Dorius, Utah Alcohol Beverage Commission spokesman. "The other control states are about revenue."

So what, exactly, are Utah's liquor laws? Do they work, and if they do, why do they perpetually draw complaints from residents and visitors? What does Utah do differently from other states, especially those that surround the state and compete with Utah for tourist dollars?

The driving force

"Utah is a special place," says Dorothy Dalquist, spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Revenue. "You have your own way of dealing with whatever issues there are."

Colorado takes a narrower focus, Dalquist says. That state directs its enforcement efforts on keeping drinks away from minors or habitual drunkards, whereas Utah makes it much more difficult to simply find a drink.

What sets Utah apart? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

While many liquor laws have some religious basis — for example, the heavy Baptist presence is often cited as the reason for dry counties in the Deep South — they cannot be as easily pinned on one dominating cultural presence as the Utah laws can be attributed to the LDS presence.

"The philosophy of the state, as it relates to liquor, is driven by the Mormon Church," Dorius said.

The most telling example of that is the private-club law, he said, which the LDS Church presented after a liquor-by-the-drink referendum failed in 1969. Realizing that non-Mormons needed some way to get mixed drinks, the church pushed the idea of nonprofit private clubs.

Ideally, the private clubs would not make any money on alcohol sales. Because clubs cannot charge more for alcohol than it costs them, the state would remain the only beneficiary of alcohol revenue.