Deseret News | Utah's 'private clubs' on way out?

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

143 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

dezdigi | 10:58 a.m. July 30, 2008

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?

I'd like... | 11:03 a.m. July 30, 2008

...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.

Anonymous | 11:06 a.m. July 30, 2008

Uh-oh!

Could Utah be headed for the 21st Century?

Oh, my goodness, gracious heck!

Comments continue below

Josh | 11:05 a.m. July 30, 2008

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.

KT | 11:13 a.m. July 30, 2008

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.

Park City Patron | 11:17 a.m. July 30, 2008

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.

ANNON | 11:20 a.m. July 30, 2008

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.

Johny Fairplay | 11:59 a.m. July 30, 2008

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

Anonymous | 12:17 p.m. July 30, 2008

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

Jud | 12:40 p.m. July 30, 2008

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.

Gary S. | 12:50 p.m. July 30, 2008

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.

Utah the same | 12:53 p.m. July 30, 2008

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.

French paradox | 1:14 p.m. July 30, 2008

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.

more like 50-50 | 1:26 p.m. July 30, 2008

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.

Silly readers, tricks are 4 kids | 1:45 p.m. July 30, 2008

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.

Anonymous | 1:46 p.m. July 30, 2008

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.

Am I understanding | 1:46 p.m. July 30, 2008

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.

Anonymous | 1:57 p.m. July 30, 2008

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?

Anonymous | 1:55 p.m. July 30, 2008

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.

Imagine | 2:05 p.m. July 30, 2008

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.

liberal by nature | 2:22 p.m. July 30, 2008

When are the goofy neocons gonna realize that people are liberal by nature.

It's only after some major power-stripping trauma that some neocons experience in their lives(and can't seem to get beyond) that they end up turning to bizarre outside sources that are even angrier than they are (ie., Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, et al)

People are much more responsible in their drinking habits than the poor neocons could ever fathom.

States that are not dry, have no more problems with drinkers than states that are dry.

Re: Anonymous | 2:51 p.m. July 30, 2008

Yes, Utah is headed for the 21st century with an increase in DWI (Utah currently has the lowest percentage of DWI). Every community or state can pass laws for the public safety. i.e. when bars close, drinking ages, open bottle laws, allowable alcohol blood levels, etc. When MADD argues for safety it is not based on religious preference. I hope that you are never harmed by a drunk driver, but if you are, just say it is one of the benefits of living in the 21st century.

Anonymous | 3:18 p.m. July 30, 2008

The choice to consume or not has to be given to the individual, and keep the church out of it. It is not appropriate to categorise behaviour as either criminal or government encouraged. Insofar as possible, we should be given freedom, and stop letting others step all over it.

Chris | 3:21 p.m. July 30, 2008

It's not about controlling alcohol consumption in Utah for this women it's about expressing her religious moral veiws about it. Balmforth is not there to be fair or make unbiased judgment, she is there to create a road block and protect her faith. Hiding behind other dry states and thier decisions is chicken, just say it " I'm giving you the drinkers of Utah a gift " I'm going to vote No on the subject every time, but I'm going to talk politically like I'm considering Yes.

Anonymous | 3:35 p.m. July 30, 2008

Utah is not 50 non mormon.

maybe salt kale city is.

But by an large utah is strong mormon, a fgure that is closer to 70%

And since when is it the part 21st century to have:

incresed drunk driving,

incresed crimes,

increased social and societal ills related to alcohol,

increased health ills that are alcohol related?

re Liberal by nature | 3:41 p.m. July 30, 2008

Actually, the "dry" states have by far the higher alcohol-related problems. Look at the South.

VOR | 3:48 p.m. July 30, 2008

yes there are many "dry regions" around the country, but not in places where tourism thrives! Sure, there are dry "counties" in the backwaters of the bable-belt. So what? You want tourism, your economy is based partly on tourist visiting your state, then you'd better quit acting like some old tea-tottling bitty who's constantly trying to tell everyone else how to act, and let go of your archaic medieval ways!

Sean | 4:33 p.m. July 30, 2008

Amen Brother who wrote "Silly readers, tricks are 4 kids". It's easy to be so naive instead of educated. It all goes back to education about drinking and driving, etc. The main point is: Separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.

Non-Drinkers | 4:35 p.m. July 30, 2008

So if they lift the private club requirement, are you non-drinkers going to start consuming alcohol? No, I think not.
Don't forget, bar operators can still be held liable if they serve alcohol to someone inebriated who then goes and gets in an accident.
Sheesh!

Why not? | 4:39 p.m. July 30, 2008

I don't understand these idiotic comments stating that the Church has no right to speak out on this issue. Really? No first ammendment right? The Church can't speak out for its members? Has MADD spoken on this subject? Are they allowed to? Personally, I think it is a stupid law just as the laws that are being repealed lately of buying alcohol on the sabbath. I work with many who drink, some quite heavily, and they just bought Sunday's beer on Saturday. They have other ways of getting around the laws regarding have club memberships. But to say the Church has no right to state its opinion is as unAmerican as the laws are you are trying to have repealed. Quit being hypocrites. I have a right to state my beliefs as much as you do. My Church has a right to state its beliefs as much as you do.

Dray | 4:53 p.m. July 30, 2008

These laws won't effect drunk driving at all, its just one less hoop to jump through. People don't avoid going out because of these laws, the law is just one that doesn't make any sense. These laws don't have anything to do with religion, that's what is dumb, there needs to be separation of church and state in Utah. I enjoy drinking and am always responsible when I do drink. I wish that the government would be more open minded with these types of issues, Mormons don't drink and they do have the right to worry about drinking I driving, I worry about it too, but this law has nothing to do with that. More research and effort to understand would make them look better on these issues, instead of assuming they know everything. We have Mormons and Non Mormons in this state, there needs to be more understanding on both parts of issues.

skimom | 5:01 p.m. July 30, 2008

Actually, this decision won't change the habits and behaviors of the locals, but it is a huge step for DABC to modernize policies.

Mostly it will affect out-of-state tourists who won't have to decipher the quirky laws.

Next, can we have mini-bottles back? Actually, those little doses reduced alcohol consumption. If I wanted one Gin and Tonic, I just bought one mini. One drink. Now I have to buy a pint----and since it's there---why stop at one?

Just a wondering | 5:06 p.m. July 30, 2008

Do you really think that making them 'Private Clubs' and making patrons pay for a membership will stop drinking or the amount of alcohol consumption? Don't think so!!! Drinkers will drink, they will drink as much if it's a private club with membership requirements or not. The bottom line is it just cost more for the patrons in the end plus the headache of getting a membership or finding a way around it (like we all do anyway). Just kill the law! Not good for Utah's tourism. If you don't drink don't worry about it. Worry about educating the right way to drink...

defenses? | 5:51 p.m. July 30, 2008

Here are some of the defenses I hear for our quirky alcohol laws:
1) other states have quirky laws too. Some of them are even worse! So?? If other states have bad laws, that makes our bad laws good? Not only that, but those worse laws usually come from backwater, hickville, scene from deliverance parts of the country that we should NOT be emulating.
2) people can get around the laws! That right there tells you how pointless they are. What kind of defense is this? "We should keep the law because its easy to get around it." wha??
3) and my favorite: this is going to increase drunk driving! HOW? If private club laws keep ONE person from drinking, its most likely the tourist who WALKED to the bar from his hotel. People who drive to the bars are people who live here, and as we all know, people who live here know how to get around the membership rule. Tourists, no so much. So why do we want to target the walking and taxi-taking tourists on behalf of drunk driving?

le sigh | 6:44 p.m. July 30, 2008

Balmforth drives me nuts. We need to get this narrow minded woman off of the DABC. Having alcohol available does not "disenfranchise non-drinkers" or raise crime rates.

Ray C. | 6:56 p.m. July 30, 2008

Do you people have any idea how difficult these stupid laws make it for a person like me to get a nice classic Dirty Martini: 6Part(s)Gin, 1Part(s)Extra Dry Vermouth, 1Part(s)Olive Juice, GarnishGreen Olive (Shaken, not stirred)?

Or an Oprah Winfrey Pomegranate Martini:
1 1/2 cups pomegranate juice
2 ounces Absolute Citron vodka or white tequila
1 ounce Cointreau liquor
Cup of ice
Splash of sparkling water (optional)
Squeeze of lemon (optional)

???

I LOVE my martinis, and you bunch of idiots are always standing between me and my happiness!

I can't wait 'till the laws loosen up!

Anonymous | 7:11 p.m. July 30, 2008

"Taking away the private membership laws isn't going to affect people who don't go out to clubs anyway" This statement is so wrong and untruthful. I have had two family members on different occasions hit by a drunk driver. Alcohol control is for all of society and not just to accomdate the convience of those wanting to drink. I have studied other areas Utahs system is easier and less restrictive than many. Yes you can go to California and buy booze on any corner. Put the emphasis on education rather than whining about the inconvience of hitting the bars.

moderation | 7:59 p.m. July 30, 2008

Why the uproar wanting to eliminate private clubs when its the locals complaining and not the tourists? Working with tourists every day by the dozens, almost never have I had any of them complain about the private club laws, but rather they compliment our state on friendly people, clean streets and beautiful scenery. Those who choose to move here do so in part because of the low crime and positive environment to raise a family. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water! Eliminate the positive environment and what do you get? Crime, violence, drugs, drunkenness, ... !

Some Facts | 9:55 p.m. July 30, 2008

1- The most current Census says Utah is 58% LDS--that's counting non-active members, which account for between 10-20% of that figure.

2- As a local musician, I've been in many of the states bars/clubs and have yet to pay a "private club" membership. It's silly and has no bearing on anyone who goes to any club other than the higher-class establishments where tourists frequent, who do actually enforce the law.

3- Utah is the only state with "private club" laws, which does make us look silly. Every time Sundance comes around, you hear everyone joke about it on every program on TV.

4- Utah is has one of the highest rate of deaths from LEGAL PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

5- Utah leads the nation in METH LABS most years.

6- Utah has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the US.

7- Utah spends less per student on education than almost every other state.

So much for a "positive" environment...

re Why not? | 4:39 p.m. | 10:36 p.m. July 30, 2008

Certainly the church or any organization has a right to speak out on anything they want. That's not the point.

The point is as a society do we want one religion pushing their restrictions on everyone else? If you do then fine, If you go to a catholic state or community, do you want them telling you that you can't use birth control except abstence? If you move to a Observent Jewish community, do you want them to tell you that you can't use the recreational facilities on Saturday?

Even if the majority of the people vote that way, is this what you want?

I know I don't, therefore by the rule of the golden rule, (remember Jesus discussed this?) I would not try to impose my religious restrictions on others.

Remember the Golden rule? | 10:49 p.m. July 30, 2008

If drinking laws should be tightened based upon public safety or health, fine. Let it be done on that basis. Let the discussion be based upon those principals and then decided upon.

Do we really want religions to push their restrictions on all people?

If we do, then whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Other religions have things much more restrictive than hard to get alcohol. [See previous post in this form about the different religious restrictions] I don't think many LDS or anyone for that matter would want to have those restrictions imposed upon them.

Remember what Jesus taught about the golden rule? Do unto others as you would want to be treated yourself.

If there is a discussion to be had on anything, alcohol included, let it be decided based upon its merits based on facts, not on an edict from "on high". Just because the majority are willing to pass a law that affects those not like them, doesn't make it right.

re Anonymous | 3:35 p.m. | 10:58 p.m. July 30, 2008

No the 21st century is not to have increased alcohol related problems. But if we are to continue to restrict alcohol, let us do it on the basis of public safety and health, not religion.

If the LDS church wants to weigh in on public health then fine, their input is welcome.

However if they do this and alcohol is the only thing focused upon and things such as corn surip are ignored, which causes over weight, (more so than sugar) then their input will be suspect.

Can you understand this?

If you lived in a community and were a religious minority, would you want the church of the majority of the people to speak the people to vote and thereby the majority religion of which you were not a part to impose their restrictions upon you? The following things come to mind.

Womens rights - Moslems
Blood transfusions - Jehovas Witness
Birth Control - Catholics

Is my reasoning sound in your mind?

richard | 12:15 a.m. July 31, 2008

Churches have always, will always and should be involved in stating their views on public policy. Liberals applaud when the Catholic Church officially opposes capital punishment. Conservatives approve when they oppose abortion. Have you all forgotten that the civil rights movement was led by Christian ministers speaking out of their faith that Martin Luther KIng was Rev. King. Do you think that the churches should have kept silent. Have any of you lived in the south where there were and are dry counties where you cannot by anything stronger that beer due to the influence of evangelical churches

Comical from afar | 1:28 a.m. July 31, 2008

I find it almost hilarious that posters on these boards will alternate between supporting and loathing the church depending on whether it supports or opposes their beliefs. When the church speaks out against gay marriage, it's ok because the church has its freedom too. When the church speaks out in support of illegal aliens, suddenly everybody is angry about the church involving itself in politics. When the church demonstrates an interest in these antiquated liquor laws, people defend it as the church's right. I suppose if the church spoke out against the war in Iraq, we'd have a bunch of people complaining again that the church is involving itself in politics. I hope it is not - though suspect it is - the same people going back and forth on when the church has a right to speak and basing their views on their own opinions of the issue.

tourism | 2:03 a.m. July 31, 2008

last winter utah almost hit the 5 billion dollar mark due to our amazing snow and the night life that attracts people to park city as a destination resort. by getting rid of these dumb laws it just makes utah look that much more attractive. why would getting rid of membership requirements make dui crimes jump, people are going to drink and drive are going to do so regardless of the membership laws. if you want to crack down on dui crimes then create stiffer penalties. oh and last time a checked munich germany the beer drinking capitol of the world does not have membership laws and it is one of the safest cities in the world, why? because they have very tough laws against dui crimes and other alcohol related crimes, oh and it is a very catholic(religious) city as well.

E | 3:13 a.m. July 31, 2008

I long for the day when the land is covered in rivers and lakes of booze; When the buildings are constructed of frozen booze with every other building offering free booze; When all food and drink is outlawed except for booze.

Sean missed Civics 101 | 5:13 a.m. July 31, 2008

Sean, I defy you to find the term "separation of church and state" in any of this nation's founding documents, i.e. the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. You wrote that "separation of church and state" is a political and legal doctrine, but like all too many doctrines out there, this one is a doctrine created by man's imagination rather than one founded in our actual Constitution. "separation of church and state" is a phrase taken out of context from one letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, when an educated person reads Jefferson's entire letter, one finds that he was actually writing in defense of protecting churches of all types from interference and control from the government, not vice versa. You should really try reading historical documents before declaring something to be a political doctrine. It is true that anti-religious groups have seized upon this out of context phrase from Jefferson and used flawed courts to codify their distorted view of church and state into many of our laws, but flawed presentation does not a true doctrine make. Churches have the same right to influence politics as you do. Get yourself treated for "separation Anxiety"

CP | 5:50 a.m. July 31, 2008

Liquor should be controlled. Alredy to many people are irresponsible in their drinking and they kill to many people of the roads already, cause they are stupid enough to get behind the wheel. If the governor thinks "it's good for tourism" to increase the amount of liquor he's not thinking at all. I think the LDS Chuch has every right to defend it's stand on this. Cause if the governor doesn't care about the safety of this state's people or the people who come here to visit -- well at least the Church does and so does MADD. I always felt the government cared only about how much money they can rake in not about the safety of people. And I'm not looking at this on a religious view. I've seen to many people hurt because of too much alcohol consumption. IT has to remain strict.

Anonymous | 5:59 a.m. July 31, 2008

If you want to rile a non Mormon just mess with their alcohol. It is interesting that they defend their "drug" consumption like it is an essential to life. I live in Texas and here it is no different. I challenged some of my friends to go ONE WEEK with out any alcohol at all and they thought I was insane. I just find it interesting to see how important Alcohol is to these people. Are they Alcoholics, far from how we would normally describe one, but they can't live with out it. I didn't' drink before I became a MORMON, I thought it was stupid. Now I don't' drink because the church I joined doesn't. It was no change for me.

But to come to Utah and whine that you can't get your daily drug infusion is really amusing for me to watch. If you have to have a drink to enjoy the scenery or to have a better skiing experience then you might have a bigger problem than you thought. Now I'll bet I ruffled a few feathers with this post. But I find that even more amusing.

Ken | 6:06 a.m. July 31, 2008

I highly doubt the "private club" laws have very little to do with the low number of DWIs in Utah. Perhaps Utah is lowest in the nation for DWIs because nearly half the state doesn't drink. I would guess that Utah is ranked #1 in non-alcohol drinkers.

For all 'the church have the right to speak out" supporters, I doubt few people have a problem with churches speaking out about social issues. The problem occurs when they are directly involved with deciding policy.

If what this writer says is true that the church is involved with the decision then I have a big problem with it.

The law is pretty dumb in my opinion. It does nothing good but make it more difficult/costly to get a drink. Drinking alcohol is a person choice. A choice that governments or churches should not make. If the state wants to make a law then make drunk driving laws tougher. This still won't stop some knuckleheads from driving drunk but perhaps it will get more of them off the road.

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

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.