Deseret News | Reader comments: Governor backs changes to club laws

Reader comments
Governor backs changes to club laws

Raspy | 6:30 a.m. May 23, 2008

It's about time.
Welcome to the 1950s.

Common sense...finally | 7:24 a.m. May 23, 2008

If you don't want to drink...don't..but please don't try to force your beleifs on me by hindering my access..

uncannygunman | 7:41 a.m. May 23, 2008

Hey Guv, do it for us Utahns, not for the tourists!

Seriously, the clear implication of your comments is that, if it weren't for tourism concerns, ordinary Utahns could rot in private club hell forever.

Thanks for looking out for me, Guv.

Comments continue below

OiS | 7:47 a.m. May 23, 2008

"It's about time" is right. I'm a non-drinking LDS but even I can recognize when a law (that doesn't affect me) is just plain silly and non (or counter) productive.

I doubt this ever gets past the legislature, though.

More Alchohol? | 8:20 a.m. May 23, 2008

So Utah, we seem to be a bit confused about this. We have a governor who is proud of increasing the amount of alcohol in mixed drinks? We're also going to let him be proud of increasing availability of alcohol? The beauty of our system of government is that it is federal, separated between large national government and small state government. This allows people with common ideals and background to have laws to govern them that may seem out of step with mainstream America. Let's not overstep our bounds and cater again to the small vocal minority, even if that minority is a confused governor.

Hooray! | 9:00 a.m. May 23, 2008

This will be one of the best things to happen to Utah since the Manifesto in 1890 and Statehood in 1896!

Time for a change | 9:45 a.m. May 23, 2008

Good. I personally do not drink; my faith is strong enough that I don't have any worry about temptation. However, I personally know of two companies who didn't move a large piece of their business to Utah, partially because of the perception that you can't get a drink and have a "normal" social life. After spending a good deal of time travelling for business, I can't begin to tell you how much business actually gets done (contracts signed, deals agreed, handshake contracts) over a few people having drinks in a nice bar. To ask a visiting businessman to buy access to a nice bar AND have to "register" with personal information is a major turnoff- especially in this day and age of identity theft. It's a law that has personally cost me a deal in my business. It's a ridiculous law and is far past due for a change.

Keith | 9:54 a.m. May 23, 2008

I support this move. It's overdue.

In response to "More Alchohol [sic]": Do you know how many people in Utah drink? It's not as small a minority as you probably think.

But more importantly, ask yourself what good does the private club system do? It doesn't prevent anyone from drinking; rather it just provides pointless red tape that frustrates people and DOES inhibit tourism through the reputation that it feeds. It's an outdated attempt to prevent "bars" but still allow "private clubs" to serve liquor. When the law was made, the accomodation was intended for private clubs that existed for reasons other than to drink alcohol. However, now, to work with this law, clubs form simply for this purpose. Got that? The law didn't prevent bars, it just made them charge memberships. It failed. So repeal it.

That's the problem with the more unique liquor regulations in this state: they are largely ineffectual and silly. Anyone who drinks knows this, and those who don't are rarely qualified to judge.

And a default stance of "we (LDS) don't like drinking, so we don't care whether the laws make sense for those who do" is petty moral tyranny.

Anon | 10:18 a.m. May 23, 2008

The issue is not liberal or conservative drinking regulations, it has more to do with traditional or quirky drinking regulations. As states go, Utah has fairly middle of the road laws and statutes, the issue is really the handful of laws that one doesn't find anywhere else that are fairly counterintuitive and silly. Get rid of those and the state could make some real progress to losing its perception as being backwards or unfriendly. As someone who does drink, I find the majority of the laws here well thought out and in good balance. The private club statute, some of the specific regulations regarding drinking in restaurants and some of the liquor store operating practices feed the negative stereotype and really accomplish very little in terms of curbing underage drinking or over consumption. A few minor changes could go much further than I think people realize.

Robert | 10:59 a.m. May 23, 2008

I oppose the changes for a number of reasons. First, the governor's comments imply that Utah's tourist attractions offer little to visitors unless we also offer those visitors something to drink. That's not true. Second, he says nothing about the problems his changes will bring, including increased rates of DUI on the roads and highways. When the quantity of alcohol per drink is increased and that drink is more convenient to come by, innocent motorists on the state's roads and highways will pay the price. Third, the governor's comments about the "burdens" of private clubs are merely anecdotal. Has he or anyone else actually studied whether the state's liquor laws actually hinder tourism? And, if so, what are the results in dollar amounts? Fourth, laws relating to "private clubs" first came about because those who sell liquor wanted to serve it away from public establishments, such as at the Alta Club in Salt Lake City. So the state granted that request, which seemed only logical and fair at the time. Now the same group wants to eliminate the difference between "public" and "private" altogether. It never ends; seemingly, the more exceptions the state makes, the more exceptions it must make.

Anonymous | 11:01 a.m. May 23, 2008

There was a time when it was thought to be a good idea to set people apart in certain behavioral ways.

Going against the established ways is always a good way to accomplish this.

Today things are different. In a room of 100 people you are bound to have 100 different temperaments and personalities.

Now what?

Quit Persecuting the Minority | 11:19 a.m. May 23, 2008

This is not about making more alcohol available. This is about discontinuing the practice of persecuting people who do drink alcohol. The private club laws don't make people drink less, it is just a way to hassle them. The result is that is makes people angry and creates a lot of bad will towards members of the majority religion that created these private club laws to hassle the minority. The private club laws serve no purpose other than to hassle drinkers. Besides being the wrong thing to do, it is bad for tourism.

michael | 11:33 a.m. May 23, 2008

Positive or negative, removing the designation will have zero effect on drinking and driving. The safety argument that was made by "Robert" above is a farce. It is simply a friendlier and more normal way to do business.
For those that say it will provide greater access to a vice I say two things 1) if by greater access you mean it helps dispell a negitive image and more people come to visit us, I say great. 2)If I am of drinking age and want to have a few, keep your nose and bureaucracy out of it.

Anonymous | 12:46 p.m. May 23, 2008

A change in club laws in Utah?

What's next?

Allowing women to vote?

comment | 12:57 p.m. May 23, 2008

In a Amish community in Indiana the residents do not have electricity in their homes but there is electricity service in the community to service the outside world who come in as turists such as hotels,resturants,etc. They take serving their non amish friends serious and need the turist dollar to servive.The mormons in Utah should do the same with the drinking laws.It will not make drinkers out of faithfull mormons but It will serve the non LDS community.On the down side I see more bars opening in Utah if the laws are changed. Strict zoning laws needs to be in force to prevent bars and clubs too close to churches,schools.Probably are already.

T_H_R_O | 1:04 p.m. May 23, 2008

What made this more politically expedient now than in 2005 when you took office, guvnuh?

Better late than never. Though now we not only have to eliminate these silly encumbrances, we have to let the whole world know that we've 'loosened up' in a still very practical, restrained Mormon-approved way.

Pathetic | 1:09 p.m. May 23, 2008

What a pathetic issue to get behind. It's not going to affect tourism. But it will affect how stupid people act on club night. And if it's the "best thing to happen" in UT, you need to take a hard look at your life, dude.

Uhmm | 1:32 p.m. May 23, 2008

If you need your client to have a few drinks to get them to agree to your business proposal, you may need to rethink your proposal.

If you need alcohol to encourage tourism, maybe your tourism isn't as great as it could be.

If you want to be competitive, then be competitive. You shouldn't have to lull others with alcohol in order to make them think they are having a good time.

But that may be just my out of whack thinking.

Johny Fairplay | 1:34 p.m. May 23, 2008

What night of the week is club night? Sounds like fun.

Leave if you dont like it | 1:43 p.m. May 23, 2008

There are 49 other states in the Union people...if you don't like Utah or the liquor laws, leave....that is what I did.

David S | 1:59 p.m. May 23, 2008

Would this be a move toward Zion or Babylon?

the way it should be | 2:07 p.m. May 23, 2008

Where I live, people are ALLOWED to purchase beer, wine, and liquor in grocery stores (yes, if front of children who may be shopping with their parents).
You can also make these purchases 24 hours a day and on Sundays.
Here they don't believe in their government taking their constitutional rights away from anyone just because some don't care to drink alcohol.
That's the way America should be.

responsible drinker | 2:11 p.m. May 23, 2008

the increased DUI argument doesn't make sense-- if someone is irresponsible enough to drink and drive, they can do it after getting drunk at a bar they have a membership to. doing away with silly membership laws won't necessarily increase DUIs in and of itself! weak argument there...

2nd, i'm tired of the "if you don't like it, leave" argument. guess what, i have a job here, i own a house, i pay taxes-- i have a right to have a voice in the place where i live. period.

Anonymous | 2:25 p.m. May 23, 2008

The way I see it, Jesus Christ didn't change all that water into fine wine at the wedding feast just so the guests would NOT have a good time.

This "no-drinky the demon rum" nonsense is just another ploy to set people apart from the rest.
And a childish ploy at that.

Change it | 2:57 p.m. May 23, 2008

Don't the conservatives always want the free market to thrive. Well, how can you have a free market when you put limits on a business that gives them a disadvantage?

Steve | 3:12 p.m. May 23, 2008

This change is inevitable and can't come a moment too soon. As the state's tourism industry continues to grow, I expect the most byzantine of the state liquor laws to fall away. I think this is especially true as Salt Lake becomes a more international, and therefore less insular, city (I say "international" because non-stop flights to Paris begin this summer and non-stop flights to Asia may not be far behind). The club laws on the books are draconian and really serve no purpose that anyone can articulate. Next: let us buy real beer and wine at the grocery store. The state can continue to hold a monopoly on hard liquor for all I care.

Anonymous | 3:12 p.m. May 23, 2008

Conservatives love big government and big government meddling in all facets of our lives.

Being obsessed with power - This is cool to them.

Jon B. Holbrook | 3:53 p.m. May 23, 2008

I do not believe that the liquor laws should be liberalize. Instead, the liquor laws should be tightened up. The line between social drinking and alcoholism is very thin to non-exsitant. Outside of Utah, the problem of the consumption of alcohol would be considered both a public safety and a moral issue. In Utah, it is considered a problem of the dominant religion forcing their will on everybody else. Should a solid principle that benefits society be rejected because it is somebody's religious tenet? I believe not. Mormons have just as much right to have a say as anybody else. They should not allow themselves to be intimidated. Utah is known for its unique climate which people expect when visiting the Beehive State. A lot of people believe this to be a plus, including non-Mormons. Yes, I welcome people to our great state, but enjoy it cold-stone sober. Governor Huntsman needs to keep this in mind. We should not worship the Almighty Dollar at the expense of the safety of society and its families.

Anonymous | 3:56 p.m. May 23, 2008

jon- you're not going to bring back prohibition, face it...
and yes, there is a HUGE line between social drinking and alcoholism. i drink, but i can't even tell when was the last time i had one... am i an alcoholic?

please stop being ridiculous.

Agent Scarn | 4:28 p.m. May 23, 2008

Wow, some of you people are more backwards than I remember. I left the state of utah about 5 years ago and recently returned to the beehive state. Quite honestly, the common mentality here shown in a lot of the repsonses has made my wife and I wonder if it was a mistake moving back to Utah. Why do you feel the need to force your beliefs on everyone else? This is the reason people outside of the state of Utah will NEVER elect a mormon as president even though in my opinion HE was the best candidate. They're afraid he'll practice from the local church house rather than from the white house just as previous utah governors have done.

Madden | 5:46 p.m. May 23, 2008

Conservatives unite! I (as a conservative) agree with the Governor here. We need less interference, not more. Principles apply to all legal facets, you don't ignore them just because religion makes a different claim in its own creeds. Liquor laws are not on the same level as some of the other moral questions where I think there are legitimate reasons to see churches push their influence. Quit making the restaurants jump through silly hoops.
-whyvotejason

Anonymous | 7:35 p.m. May 23, 2008

I love how i keep getting my comments removed when i talk about the church. The truth is they should stay out of law making or they should pay taxes.The rest of america hates utah because of that reason and if they want people to be more excepting they will stop trying to push thier ways down everyones throat . Thats why mitt got the axe and its real funny that mormons cant understand why people outside of utah hate them looks like they had to find out again and it's sad because the mormons in slc are some of the most understanding religous people i have ever met

Anonymous | 9:24 p.m. July 8, 2008

Drinking is a personal choice which in AMERICA "The Land Of The FREE" We are allowed to make our own choices. Your State is really screwed up.Anyway, I heard that there is going to be a expose' with 20/20 exposing your sick laws including no Dancing after 2am or whatever you guys do.
The People who run that state are worst than Fidel Castro

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.