Reader comments
First proposal to eliminate private club requirements surfaces

Chris Plummer | 3:24 p.m. June 25, 2008

Way to go Gov. Huntsman. At least on fellow knows whats up.

fine | 3:24 p.m. June 25, 2008

lets get this done people. i guess this is a fair trade off. but i dont know why there has to be a 'trade off' to get rid of BAD LAW.

last days? | 4:25 p.m. June 25, 2008

Oh no!
A change in liquor laws in Utah?
These are truly the last days!

Comments continue below

Chris Plummer | 4:31 p.m. June 25, 2008

LOL... how long are the last days going to last... another 150 years?

Dee | 4:42 p.m. June 25, 2008

It is about time that Utah lawmakers separated church from state. Kudos to Gov. Huntsman for independant thinking.

Anonymous | 4:53 p.m. June 25, 2008

You people need to get a life as for Mr. Huntsman in November he won't get my vote. Have you send the two sides of Jon Huntsman Jr. well I have and I don't like either of them. The guy was born not with a silver spoon in his mouth but it was gold. The guy knows nothing about how it is to live from day to day because poor daddy has always given him and his family what they need and wanted. The guy goes around the world to adapt a child when we have so many right here in Utah who coulduse the help and a good family.
Won't the cover charge cost more the the membership because you would have to pay it each time you go?

Drunks, Drunks Everywhere! | 7:08 p.m. June 25, 2008

Change the liquor law! But also change the DUI and public intoxication laws!

DUI:
1st offense: 1 mo. jail time & 500 hrs com. service
2nd offense: 6 mo. jail time & 1000 hrs com. service
3rd offense: 2 yrs jail time & 5000 hrs com. service

Let's truly separate the "social drinkers" who think they are not hurting anyone, from those that are getting in their cars after the partying.

DUI punishment is a joke! Get some help or rot in jail!

Require "Scanning" - that's it! | 7:57 p.m. June 25, 2008

They should just legislate a requirement that all drinking establishments SCAN any scannable ID (most are now) and keep a record of their patrons... and then they'd actually have a record of who was in the bar that day... not just who is a member of the bar.

SCAN IDs! That's it... no other "membership" should be required.

Why would someone need to be charged more to be a "non membership" bar? That seems silly. Just get rid of that private club thing (expect for bar that want it) - and charge everyone the same fees for being a drinking establishment - bar, tavern, private club should all pay the same.

Higher standard!?! | 8:07 p.m. June 25, 2008

""I think what we do is hold these new clubs to a higher standard and we can use that extra money for compliance and education, if we find there's a need," Mantes said."

What "higher standard"? Would that be? A higher standard than what? You mean charge them more money... geez man, that makes no sense...

Most of the "private clubs" should just be bars. Period. If you're 21 you can come in. What in the world is wrong about that?

How does being "a member" prevent underage drinking, drinking and driving, etc. It doesn't... that is why no one gets it.

Listen, EVERYONE would be happy to join a "private club" if there was some good result of doing so... if something was better because of it... but it is simply not the case. Nothing is "better" because of the private club law.

Utah's liquor laws are not too restrictive - they're just too cumbersome... and now "yet another" type of license... geez...

uncannygunman | 8:53 p.m. June 25, 2008

"[S]ome sort of "trade-off" must be offered to ease the concerns of some lawmakers and groups opposed to drinking such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving."

In other words, one step forward and two steps back.
At least the article accurately notes that MADD is now against drinking in general, not just drunken driving!

If you want a trade off that works for everybody, ban smoking in the new "bars" and let private club owners decide the question for themselves.

uncannygunman | 9:40 p.m. June 25, 2008

and to Require "Scanning"--you seem sincere, but worst. idea. ever. The idea is to reduce intrusiveness and hassle, not increase it!

Dave | 11:48 p.m. June 25, 2008

@require scanning 757pm:

Exactly what do you propose to accomplish by making a bar scan an ID of everyone who comes in?

If someone can come up with a good fake ID (say, a friend or relative who looks somewhat like the minor), that won't stop them.

And once they have scanned ID's, what then? Do we turn all these records over to the government? To car insurance companies so their rates can be raised? To their religious leaders, so they know who to excommunicate?

I should be able to go into a bar and drink responsibly, either by knowing my limit and winding down my drinking early, or by having a designated driver. As an adult, it's perfectly legal to do so, presuming I won't be DUI when i leave. Therefore, there's no need to treat me like a criminal just because I do enjoy a drink.

Government can butt out of my life. Enforce the existing DUI laws and put some real bite in the penalties before you start making life harder for law-abiding citizens.

@ uncannygunman and Dave | 4:49 p.m. June 26, 2008

It's not intrusive to have someone check your ID by scanning it... and it's far, far less cumbersome than "joining a club". It certainly would reduce the hassle of that mess. Scan me!

I think the private club law way too "cumbersome" - like was mentioned above - that's the perfect word for it.

What is accomplished? You can say to those groups that believe "private clubs" reduce underage drinking and drinking and driving because there is "a record" of members (makes no sense), "Fine. What if you could have a record of everyone that came to a bar on a given day without having the private club law? And there is no chance of "I didn't read the date right" by the door person, because the scanner does not go "green" when an underage license is scanned." Such scanners are used in some Utah bars now.

Perfect. Oh, and I go to bars. It's not like I'm saying this because I don't. I go to bars and don't care if everyone knows I go to bars... SCAN THE FREAK OUT OF ME... just don't make me join another "club" and renew my membership year, after year, after year!

@ uncannygunman | 4:53 p.m. June 26, 2008

By law, all "new" drinking establishments in Utah are required to be non-smoking.

And all "existing" drinking establishments are required to be non-smoking in 2009.

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.