Reader comments
Governor backs changes to club laws
33 comments | Read story
Get today's headlines via email
Good morning edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In News
Across Site
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- Woman charged in Rasmussen death...
- Photos: Salt Lake Main Library...
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Amendments to gutted sex education...
- Requests to alter online news...
- Salt Lake City celebrates 2002...
- 'Wicked' tickets on sale May 11
- Sweethearts in real life also share...
- Despite data, Lyme disease sufferers...
In News
Across Site
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- View live stream of services for...
- Focus returns to Powell children today
- Battling misconceptions: Faced with...
- Father-in-law dragged deeper into...
- Romney's 'Horrible Tuesday' signals...
- Josh Powell had 'incestuous' images...
- LDS bishop ordered to stand trial for...
- Committee will explore new '22...
In News
Across Site
- Prop. 8 declared unconstitutional
181 - LDS Church, others respond to Prop 8
87 - Families at odds over Powell's actions
54 - LDS bishop ordered to stand trial
41 - Gay rights and religious liberty
41 - Utah House blocks Sandstrom bill
39 - Powell call:'I'm afraid for their lives'
33 - Photos: Year of the Dragon
26 - Bill would cut auto safety checks
24 - Should SLC bid again for Olympics?
23







Welcome to the 1950s.
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.
I doubt this ever gets past the legislature, though.
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 It's an outdated attempt to prevent "bars" but still allow "private clubs" to serve liquor.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.
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?
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.
What's next?
Allowing women to vote?
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.
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.