Reader comments
Utah's 'private clubs' on way out?

The DABC is a completely redundant program. Why don't these "conservatives" put their money where their mouth is and scrap this needless government program. I thought personal responsibility was a major value held by these people?

...those with Balmforth's position to explain how not requiring a "membership" is going to change anything in terms of the control of alcohol.

This position is used over and over again, yet not one person has explained how the membership provides more control...most likely because it doesn't.

Uh-oh!

Could Utah be headed for the 21st Century?

Oh, my goodness, gracious heck!

Does anyone really care whether the LDS church weighs in on this or not? It is really none of their business anyway.

It is well-known and clear the LDS members aren't supposed to consume alcohol. The LDS authorities have counseled their members on the issue--and that is all that needs to be done by them.

I think that saying the reason for the alcohol laws is to decrease the "crime" of drinking and driving is obsurd. You can just go ahead and say that you don't want alcohol to be easily available to people in Utah because of the LDS dominant religion. Which I think is ridiculous. Just because a religion that doesn't allow people to drink is the majority of the state doesn't mean that you should limit people that aren't of that faith.

The Church? The Church shouldn't be involved at all in this decision of Government. Taking away the private membership laws isn't going to affect people who don't go out to clubs anyway. It's not going to increase drinking and driving or just drinking. People are going to try and find a way to drink regardless of the silly laws that our State imposes upon them. Living in Park City I have heard more than one negative comment from visitors regarding this law. Changing the law isn't going to increase drinkers it's just going to make us look less like idiots to outsiders. For those of you who don't know this ... people always get around this stupid law anyway. So get rid of it.

Why does everything have to be approved by the LDS Church? Most non-Mormons resent the LDS Church telling us what we can and cannot do.

Kathryn Balmforth you are the embarrassment. Oh, and can you define exactly what "First Principles" means?

It is far better to appear holier than thou,
than to ever, ever touch a drop of the demon rum.

My only concern is have they done their homework about the possible impact on increasing drunk driving? Utah is lowest in the nation and I want it to stay that way, for the sake of my family.

Although the Church shouldn't, and won't, be directly involved, don't forget that 70% of Utahns are Church members. That makes it a politically sensitive issue.

Don't assume that the state will loosen the liquor laws without considering what could happen at the polls in November if they do.

It's unfortunate that there are so many who agitate to turn Utah into a clone of the rest of the United States. It is as if they can't stand something that is different...and better. Instead of moving into the 21st century of runaway consumerism and me-too depravity, we could try to forge a superior alternative. However, I have confidence that religious bigotry will continue unabated, alcohol (our favorite drug) will flow in ever greater quantities, and we will increasingly adopt a lifestyle that is totally devoid of meaning.

Type-II diabetes and heart disease are much greater health concerns and drains on state resources than tippling. Try regulating high fructose corn syrup and uncontrolled fast food sprawl and you'll be a lot closer to the "First Principle" (creepy term) of a healthy community.

Actually the number of LDS in Utah is closer to 50% and that figure continues to drop.
If it did not, there would NEVER be any change in their goofy, sanctimonious liquor laws.

Pay attention... the LDS faith does not dominate 70% of Utah, it is closer to 50%. Are we back in 1500's here? Catholic, Protestant, LDS- Drunk driving happens whether a bar is private or not. We can not allow a religion to speak for a country/ state that separates church and state. Clubs can still be regulated without having it be a "Private club for members". I don't hear anyone complaining of the tax benefits alcohol brings to Utah. Get rid of it, see what it does to your pocket book. You complain about alcohol and drunk driving rather than helping and teaching your kids, friends and family to be responsible.

I don't understand why the same argument isn't used in regards to "alcohol control" as it is used in regards to "gun control." Specifically, the argument made that guns don't kill people, people using them irresponsibly might. By the same token, alcohol doesn't kill people, people using it irresponsibly might. Just like with a gun, or a car, or a cell phone, or a knife, or an etc, etc. it's the irresponsible use that's the problem, not the item itself.

I tried to post earlier, nit sure if it went through.

you correctly "utah the same"? That by forcing a standard on people is making something "different..and better"? As a member of the LDS Church for 45 years...I have been tought my entire life that this was the plan of Lucifer. Force people to follow God's Plan and Force them to be happy. The only religious bigotry that is happening is by members of my own religion trying to shove our values upon everyone. My family does just fine avoiding the temptations of the world because my wife and I are actively involved with our children. I don't turn them loose expecting laws, teachers, and neighbors to monitor my kids. I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. This is not a law we need to have.

Balmforth is just trying to figure out which "two steps back" we'll have to put up with in order to enjoy one step forward.

If we're going to take three steps, why can't they all be forward?

Reading these comments before I read the article, I thought the LDS church had begun fighting this. However, as I read the article, all that was said was one line that the LDS church hasn't said anything. I'm not sure why the writer of the article put that line in. The Catholic church hasn't said anything either, but they don't mention that. Personally, as an LDS person, I don't care too much about liquer laws as long as I don't see an increase in drunk driving deaths because of looser laws. I don't drink, so how it's regulated doesn't matter. I'd also like to see discussions on the laws without blaming the LDS church for everything. LDS member have probably fought for tougher liquer laws, but that something you'll run into anywhere there is a population of similar minded people. You can weigh in for the opposite side anytime you want by voting and contacting your representatives.

What wrong with the LDS church deciding alcohol policy for Utah?

Or Catholics deciding if we can have birth control?

Or Jehovas Witness weighing in on the availabiliy of blood transfusions?

Or Baptists telling us if we can have Junior High or High School dances?

Or Jews telling us if stores or recreation areas can be open on Saturday?

Or for Moslems to say if women can venture out alone without a male relative or without wearing a head and face covering.

*****

Perhaps religions should keep their peciluar laws to themselves and not try to enforce them on everyone.