Reader comments
Liquor panel may lose its enforcement powers

uncannygunman | 1:36 a.m. Jan. 30, 2008

Sounds like progress to me.

On a related topic that is mentioned in the article, I don't think non-drinkers should be excluded from the liquor board. Four out of five though? That just makes no sense. It seems like the ideal mix might be one non-drinker, three "social" drinkers, and one heavy drinker. Any liquor board that does not have at least one member who has asked him or herself the question "what do I do with my car if I take a cab home" is simply not representative of the population.

Anonymous | 7:06 a.m. Jan. 30, 2008

We need a true conservative response to this whole thing. Privatise it. All of it.
Government is actually pretty good at delivering health care to all. It has no business selling retail commodities to the public.

bcs | 8:09 a.m. Jan. 30, 2008

Let's see the booze cops are the alcohol commission OR the booze cops are Mark Shutleff's people, who has as a client all state groups,i.e. the alcohol commission.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
another layer of government with their hand in the cookie jar? No wonder a bottle of wine in any other western state costs 50% less.

Comments continue below

Bartles n James | 8:19 a.m. Jan. 30, 2008

It will just make it easier for the state to make it a major felony to possess a 3.2% wine cooler.

willie | 8:53 a.m. Jan. 30, 2008

this actually sounds progressive. The teetotalers in the DABC don't look at this as a product, they look at it as a tax income. They also look at it as something sinners do that should be punished by making drinkers jump through a lot of unnecessary hoops. Diminishing their power and putting the power into the hands of someone that would look at it as a business is good. Privatizing liquor sales would be better, but in Utah, liquor law changes are a glacial process.

out of the blue | 9:38 a.m. Jan. 30, 2008

This sounds like a good idea! A legislator has impressed. People will be up in arms because this deals with alcohol, but anytime you can eliminate a cushy governor-appointed job... I say go for it!

powderski | 9:49 a.m. Jan. 30, 2008

Very seldom do I agree with Oda...However, this sounds progressive to me for the reasons stated by out of the blue and willie.

Wrong approach | 10:28 a.m. Jan. 30, 2008

Issuing liquor licenses should be left up to the cities and counties. The Commission purview should be limited to special event licensing. Enforcement underage drinking laws should be delegated to local police departments and the court system, with oversight by the Commission. IF a local government fails in enforcement responsibility, then the Commission can assume that role until thereï¿½s objective evidence that the enforcement issues have been resolved.

Liquor stores should be zoned and licensed locally. If a town wants a bar or liquor store on every corner, that should for the city to decideï¿½just like strip-clubs and adult oriented businesses. . . cities should have to deal with whatever problems they generate for themselves --without either intervention or assistance from the legislature. A one size fits all approach from SLC is part of the nanny-state government that the legislature regularly professes to hateï¿½and continues to promulgate.

Bob Myerson | 11:29 a.m. Jan. 30, 2008

The LDS Church is behind this move. They actually believe that the DABC has been lax in enforcement, and they want the AG's office to more vigoursly pursue violations of state law. This would negatively impact private clubs and bars, and actually increase the number of violations. Do not be fooled by the snow-job excuse being put forth that the DABC is controlled by non-drinkers. Sam Granato and Gordon Strahn are both drinkers. The media seldom gets things right because they just parrot back what people say, rather than investigate. If you talk to DABC members off the record, you will understand that his is to increase prosecutions, not soften them.

Anonymous | 11:53 a.m. Jan. 30, 2008

After 25 years having to endure the Mickey Mouse liquor laws of "The Saints," being able to go into a grocery store anytime any day to get whatever you want is like dying and going to heaven here in the mountains of The Eastern Sierras.
Thank God for liberal-minded human beings.

Foster Brooks | 12:00 p.m. Jan. 30, 2008

Get government out of private business altogether - let the free market decide!

Why should bureaucratic paper shufflers decide what products I can buy and consume when they can't even fix potholes?

A Positive Step | 12:08 p.m. Jan. 30, 2008

Utah alcohol laws are bizarre by any standard. They're one of the prime reasons that Utah did not experience a real estate boom following the world-is-welcome-here Olympics. An 86% mark-up (sin tax) is ridiculous and punitive. Abolish the state stores, let private retailers sell beer, wine and booze as they see fit and watch actual revenues to the state from such sales rise. As for community control, do you really want local bishops to make such decisions? You wouldn't be able to get a drink anywhere but SLC and Park City. The hospitality council is right on target with a universal "club" card. But let's abolish the silly "private club" requirement and let our driver licenses be our proof of eligibility to consume. Underage drinking and other offenses are a law enforcement problem, not a DABC one.

Anonymous | 1:34 p.m. Jan. 30, 2008

Utahs better-than-thou liquor laws achieve two things:
Sets the group apart (what else is new?)
Generates revenue for the state
Clever of them, isn't it?

Hatuletoh | 1:35 p.m. Jan. 30, 2008

The DABC are capricious and arbitrary. Perhaps they are merely a reflection of the laws they are tasked to administer. All the same, I'm always for putting government bureaucrats out of work. First the DABC, then UTA; one day the IRS. Sky's the limit, citizens. Let us be rid of these parasites.

Kita Kazoo | 2:21 p.m. Jan. 30, 2008

Utah isn't the only state with bazaar liquor laws. For instance; there are completely dry counties in Texas and you have to go to a bar to get a drink in Pennsylvania. In Michigan you can get liquor at the grocery store except on Sundays and religious holidays... So go figure.

There's always going to be one group or another trying to force their brand morality on others despite how it will violate the constitutional rights of others. Utah is no different.

Anonymous | 3:40 p.m. Jan. 30, 2008

Like everything else in Utah, it's the business aspect that is paramount. Even getting into The Temple depends upon giving the required amount of money. This is certainly not a bad thing, just makes you wonder how the fat cats running the show are making out, doesn't it?

Bizarre | 6:08 p.m. Jan. 30, 2008

I'll tell you what is bizarre: it is bizarre that a state which touts such high moral standards would even think of being involved in the seamy liquor trade. Tax it, yes. Sell it, no. As a commenter said above, the government should not be involved in selling any product. One of government's purposes is to regulate and control certain substances and certain aspects of our lives (like it or not). It is not to be the purveyor of that substance.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.