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
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah...
- 10 things you never knew about the FBI
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook for...
- My view: Balancing personal conviction and...
- Robert Bennett: Hamas and its financial...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Re-enactment...
- Letter: Policy disagreement
- Can Hollywood keep the faith in faith-based...
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 105
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have... 72
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious... 61
- Dan Liljenquist: Religious liberty and... 50
- In our opinion: History will remember... 46
- Letter: Breeding hate 44
- Letter: Policy disagreement 42
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 41