A recent article made me ask a lot of questions about the liquor laws in the state (Liquor laws loosened, but still restrictive," June 13). Why should Utah liquor laws not be labeled "not only quirky but inhibiting?" Isn't the purpose of the laws to inhibit alcohol consumption?
Why does the business of a sushi restaurant in Salt Lake City "suffer" because the patrons are not comfortable with Utah liquor laws? Why doesn't the restaurant move to Reno or Las Vegas if the income is dependent upon liquor sales rather than sushi sales? Why do lawmakers assume the state benefits financially more from tourists, "world travelers" who will visit Utah briefly, than from permanent residents living in Utah paying property taxes?
Helen S. Carbine
- Letter: Moral decline 87
- In our opinion: Utah should change law... 81
- Ralph Hancock: Society cannot... 65
- Letter: Climate denial 62
- Brian S. Brown: In defending marriage,... 55
- In our opinion: Some universities... 45
- Politico Magazine: If Mitt Romney runs... 44
- Robert Bennett: Obama should not move... 40