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
- Jay Evensen: Is Provo really an impoverished...
- In our opinion: Avoid blurring the line...
- Everything you need to know about the...
- Letter: Protected lands
- My view: Holistic approach to wild horses...
- Richard Davis: Legislators— Model the...
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult...
- Letter: Utah's birthright
- Robert Bennett: Contrary to Krugman,... 60
- Letter: Learn the Constitution 52
- In our opinion: Explaining editorial... 44
- Letter: Utah's birthright 44
- In our opinion: Avoid blurring the line... 42
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult... 39
- Michael Gerson: Rand Paul's bogus outreach 34
- John Florez: Corporate or public... 31