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
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the family put...
- Jay Evensen: Should Utah raise its gas tax?...
- My view: Chaffetz named ‘politician of...
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws of war
- Letter: Wood burning an easy target
- Letter: Bring the prison here
- Kathleen Parker: Placing blame for massive...
- Charles Krauthammer: Democrats use... 78
- In our opinion: Police training should... 44
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 42
- In our opinion: Wood burning ban... 37
- Robert Bennett: More political... 36
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- Paul Mero: Reasonable solution to... 30
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 25