Reader comments
Senate opposes easing Utah liquor laws

Page:
1
2
Next >

Dezdigi | 8:27 p.m. Dec. 29, 2008

Way to go Republicans! Keep government out of people's lives!

GTO | 8:44 p.m. Dec. 29, 2008

People who consume alcohol often interfere with other people on the highways and into our wallets paying for social consequences of alcohol! This is a good law and will save lives and families. If beer is your favorite pastime, get a better one!

Dave | 8:53 p.m. Dec. 29, 2008

I feel that the Utah politicians need to get their heads out of the dark ages. I am sick and tired of government interference into the lives of the citizens and only thinking of how much money the state can make from controlling liquor. First it was prohibition, Then Cigarettes, Now poor liquor laws. What's next? A ban on sugar and starches because they cause diabetes. I think this world needs to get back to basics and start worrying about people. For example: Why do we have so many people that can't get medical help when they are in need of surgery and do not have medical insurance? Why do we have hungry children? I could go on but I feel you get my point.This does turn away tourist!!!

Comments continue below

Confused? | 9:12 p.m. Dec. 29, 2008

From the article:

The incoming Senate leader said people patronizing private clubs have to be identified. "We need to do everything we can to keep people from driving impaired," Waddoups said. "Private club memberships have been a help in identifying those people."

I don't understand how a private club membership helps to identify people who drive impaired?

uncannygunman | 10:46 p.m. Dec. 29, 2008

I'm speechless. That doesn't happen very often.

vivian | 10:56 p.m. Dec. 29, 2008

I am glad to see the senate in Utah is taking a look at something beyond making the almighty dollar. The ripple effect of drinking is so far beyond changing the laws and the costs of all the damage it causes people. thanks Senate for going beyond the dollar signs that so influence our governor.

john gilmore | 1:53 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

lame. grow up. Let people make their choices and deal with the consequences. Our embarassing and theocratic laws really take away from the loveliness of our state. The LDS church publicly acknowledges a desire to work toward laws that allow for personal choice...come on, take your cues senate.

To Dave | 8:53 | 3:19 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Let's see how committed you really are to getting the gov't out of people's lives.

Let's all support a system that takes gov't out of the loop. We permit bars to serve whoever they want, whenever they want.

But we also strengthen Utah's weak-kneed dram shop laws so that the bars, their owners, and all members of the "hospitality industry", are held fully and strictly responsible for the carnage they wreak on unsuspecting innocents when they permit, even encourage, overindulgence in their establishments.

That seems extremely fair. Any time a drunk driver hurts someone, we include the industry that profits so handsomely from enabling him in the personal injury lawsuits.

Gov't is out of our lives. People are made whole. Everyone's happy!

OK?

Dave?

Utah legislature?

deseret devotee | 5:28 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Wilford Woodruff had some interesting words about the future of people who help put alcohol into other people's hands. It is sad this little Huntsman apparently isn't familiar with them. A future in the Republican party and bowing down to addiction promoting special interests isn't what he's here on earth to do.

Hans in California | 5:39 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Thank God we don't have these ridiculous liquor laws in California. Years ago I worked for the Liquor Control Commission in Utah and was utterly baffled by the archaic liquor laws there. You think the state legislators would have learned something from the 2002 Olympics and the effect these weird laws had on tourists that came from all over the world to Utah.

Craig | 6:23 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

I was hit with my wife by a drunk driver. My mother was rear ended on the interstate by a drunk. People do not come to Utah because of cheap easy liquor on every corner. It is available. The governor should be looking for ways to make Utah safer and more restrictive. We do not need to "normalize" like Vegas. Employees need to help educate rather than cry and moan about the process. Servers and owners have contributed to the problem rather than accepting the reason behind it. Governor Huntsman obviously has not been touched in a negative way by someone abusing alcohol. I am concerned he wants to cater to this special interest group that advocates loose liberal alcohol laws.

numbers??? | 6:45 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

I'm enticed to the comment section of this article by seeing on the front page summary there are 10, then I click on the article and it says there are 15, then I finally arrive at the comments and there are 6. Wonderful.

Anonymous | 6:47 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Which do you think causes more harm...alcohol or cigarettes? I can easily get cigarettes nonetheless. This is a thinly veiled kowtow to the church, is all it is. All the senators had to do was say 'won't somebody puhleeze think of the children'? Hypocrites.

to vivian | 6:48 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

The whole membership thing is actually one more way to add cost to drinking in Utah and penalize those that drink. Your view that the Senate is looking beyond making the almighty dollar is squarely the reverse.

People who will overconsume will do it regardless of restrictive laws same as those intent on harm will find a way to get weapons regardless of gun restriction laws. Penalizing self-regulating people because of those who cause the problems only penalizes the upstanding citizen. It never solves the problem.

dave | 7:41 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Private clube, socialized liquor stores and metered drinks.... Not one person can prove these have saved one life or kept anyone from drinking. They should be eliminated (and will when we are the majority in about 15 years).

These laws are written and supported by simple-minded, ignorant and mean little men. Waddops, Buttars and that ilk are what is wrong with Utah. T

many tourists don't drive | 7:45 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Some tourists to Utah fly in and stay in hotels/motels and are not driving drunk. The drunk drivers are Utah residents. Taking away the tourist registration for private clubs would make identifying UTAH residents driving drunk easier because more attention could be placed on people drinking not registering to drink.

Rick | 7:45 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

It appears the concern of the senate is drunk driving. What they are saying is that liberalizing the liquor laws won't help reduce drunk driving. It is curious that the governor would want to try to increase tourism at the expense of people killed by drunk drivers.

Anonymous | 7:48 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

If someone wants a drink they will have it. No amount of funny laws will change that.

Heads in the Sand | 8:05 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Waddoups and the other Senators that say Utah's liquor laws aren't a problem for tourists obviously have never actually spoken to any Utah visitors. The many friends and other visitors that I have spoken to think the club "membership" process is a joke -and the majority of them don't DRINK! They like to go to clubs, play pool, order food, etc. To them, filling out paperwork and paying a fee just to enter a club is ridiculous. I have heard many say that they won't be visiting Utah again any time soon - and they tell all of their friends about their negative experience -thus discouraging other visitor that would spend money in the state.

Liberal | 8:07 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

. . . dram shop laws are the answer!

They incentivize responsibility, rather than irresponsibility. And they make ill-gotten hospitality industry profits available to persons injured by that industry.

Utah legislature -- where are you?

Jonny | 8:15 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

"...unless we find something that protects our children..." is the same stupid thing politicians always say and voters buy it. What a load of crap. Private Clubs don't prevent drunk driving, they don't reduce drunk driving, they don't prevent or reduce underage drinking. Just another excuse. Utah wants the revenue generated by their bizarre liquor laws.

ron holdaway | 8:17 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

I do not drink and am an active member of the LDS church. I see little connection between "private clubs" and drunk drivers. My experience as an Army judge advocate who dealt often with the consequences of the 10% or so of drinkers who were problem drinkers was that those who bought their packaged liquor at "class VI" stores and consumed their alcohol "off premises" were a much bigger problems than those who consumed it "by the drink" in Clubs where the Army at least since the 1980,s emphasized moderation not abstention. The relatively small percent of those actually physically addicted to alcohol will abuse it and will do so regardless of the restrictions placed on it. Prohibition proved that. If the politicians wish to make it as hard as possible for even social drinkers to imbibe that's fine. It doesn't affect me as I don't drink. They should have no illusions however that they are actually cutting down on alcohol consumption and its consequences by those who are addicted.

Artz | 8:24 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

This is a matter of Economic Development. We have all of the laws we need to control cunsumption without the membership tag. When Senators like Waddoup express his views he is saying he is going to stifle the convention business for Utah by giving the decission makers a reason not to come to Utah to spend their millions. Send them somewhere else so the economy of Utah stays stagnant and our kids will not have jobs.
As a Mormon and having been raised in California,I can tell you that this law needs to go away. Doing so will not have any effect on consumption and will allow Utah to compete for convention business. Focus on building a new convention hotel to assist in bringing those conventions to Utah where the dollars will benefit our economy.

Darin | 9:09 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

The current private club membership rule is absurd beyond description. Waddoups and fellow senators need to fess up: This silly law helps no one. 1) How is the club membership information used? Is it a membership in the true sense of the word, or just a list of people who intend to drink? 2) Are the membership fees given to the State of Utah (for any good use), or is it kept by the club? 3)What about the hundreds of times I've been signed into a club as guest of member - what good has that done anyone?

Come on, Waddoups et al. Give thinking people a break.

Ross | 9:09 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Well at least make the admission to Private Clubs one general pass that allows for admission to all Private Clubs for the temporary two week period. As an employee of the Hospitality Industry for may years I have noted that people do not come here to drink and there are plenty of other things to do, but those who drink socially as a part of their visit will not come. This is just not individual tourists, but entire confernces and conventions that bypass SLC due to our stange laws. The State Senate and others who block these changes will never know the business that we do not get becasue of the laws. Add to that the possible boycott of tourism and conventions due to the backlash of Pro. 8 and our entire Tourism industry will suffer.

Scary | 9:28 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Is Waddups talking about an underground secret police when he says that private club members are tracked? How are they tracked? Are state records kept on every occasion one enters a bar? Who are these records available to?

Now, with that, haven't you ever noticed how bars in most of Utah (save SLC) don't have windows and have secret entrances in the rear? Guess who those people are going in the back way?

General Holdaway | 9:48 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

. . . thanks for your insight. You eloquently make my point -- the only approach that has any chance of stemming the carnage is liberalized dram shop laws.

We've got to incentivize responsibilty on the part of people rational enough to adjust their actions. We can't merely rely on moral suasion to prevent bad behavior by the offender, since, as you point out, he often has only limited control over his actions.

If the profits of the entire hospitality industry, not just the bars, but also the brewers, distillers, and distributors, are placed at risk by irresponsible behavior, I'm confident that behavior will decrease in frequency.

That's what will save lives.

Jus Wunderin | 9:58 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

So the article quotes:

"We need to do everything we can to keep people from driving impaired," Waddoups said. "Private club memberships have been a help in identifying those people."

Did the reporter follow up with Waddoups to determine just how the State is using those lists? Is there some sort of a "Known Private Club Member" list that every cop is using to look for drunk drivers? Sounds pretty Big Brother to me.

Wes | 10:09 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Let's be honest. The reason the state senate is opposed to changing liquor laws is because they're ordered by church hierarchy not to do so. LDS leaders, enconsed safely in their offices and elected by nobody, really control all LDS members of the legislature. To say this state isn't a theocracy is blatant disregard for the truth. If you support the church's position, fine. But let's not pretend that members of the legislature don't have someone pulling their strings, and it's not the electorate.

courthousesnitch | 10:23 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Typical Republicans. Can't see the tree through the forest. Can someone please tell me how having to buy a membership at a bar prevents anyone from drinking? This is the dumbest thing I have ever even heard of in the realm of alcohol law.

No More Ice Cream... | 10:23 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

...for the Mormons, it causes too much obesity, hypertension, diabetes, clogged arteries, and the like. Who pays for all of that? WE DO! (through either our insurance companies or through our taxes). Ice cream consumed on Monday evenings by YW/YM groups and at ward socials are slowly KILLING US and wiping out families. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! We need to identify those who eat ice cream so that we can know who is hurting our society!

Sound practice | 10:26 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

To limit access to alcohol. It goes beyond health issues. Those who claim cigarettes and sugary foods are equally harmful are clueless --- having either one does not lead to a drunken driver. A new report by the Wyoming Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs os Police finds that alcohol was involved in more than 70% of arrests in Wyoming in the past year. Crook County had the highest rate of alcohol-related arrests at 93%. And yes, alcohol is not hard to come by here in Wyoming. Utah had the lowest incidence of drunken driving, according to the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health; it was the only state where fewer than 10 percent of adult motorists reported driving under the influence. Wouldn't Utah love to be able to boast all the bars and all the alcohol-related arrests and drunk drivers we have here in Wy? Loosen those liquor laws, Utah!

Yeah, Wes | 10:35 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

. . . let's do be honest.

You've seen every bit of guidance given out by the Church in the pages of this newspaper. It's exactly the same guidance I've seen. Same source.

I happen to agree with it. So do most legislators and voters in Utah. You apparently disagree.

So, make your case. Convince me. Burden's on you.

Have you got a point to make about how much better my life will be with no restrictions on alcohol consumption?

Rampant hypocrisy | 10:39 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

The Utah Legislature is constantly talking about how we need less government intrusion in people's lives, but apparently that only applies when we're talking about things that favor their agenda (gun control, pollution, etc). When it comes to things like drinking or womens' rights, they jump at the chance to tell us what to do. Make up your mind, people: Hands on or hands off? They want to have their cake and eat it too, and then say they shouldn't have to tell us which lobbyist gave them the cake.

TexasEx90 | 10:44 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Waddoups said. "Frankly, I find that we have a lot of irresponsible drinkers in this state."

Frankly Senator I find that we have a lot irresponsible republican senators in this state.

Is there a possibility of creating impossibly confusing regulations that would protect Utah society from demon state senators??

I mean really, is being hit by a drunk driver any worse than being subjected to the irrational rants of a moronic state senator?? I believe studies would demonstrate that both are equally clueless and dangerous. Time to regulate.

To TexasEx90 | 10:44 | 11:06 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Yes, being hit by a drunk driver is infinitely worse than having a political discussion.

You have my word on it.

Lets Regulate Mormons | 11:29 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Mormons are afraid of alcohol becuase they do not understand it, and all fear is based on a lack of understanding. Yet, Mormons are fatter than the average American from eating too much food, which is the main Mormon vice. And Mormons have too many children, thus causing Utah's schools to be substandard. In my view, obesity and a lack of an educated populace is much more dangerous to society than doing away with private club memberships. And intolerance is the great sin of all, and I define intolerance as a failure to understand that other people can hold different beliefs, and its not your job to impose your beliefs on others. If Mormonism was so great, why are there only 7 million in the world? Seems to me that the Tyranny of the Majority here in Utah serves to undermine the reputation of the Church across the rest of the world, where Mormons are viewed as a cult.

To Lets Regulate | 11:40 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Yeah, dude. You go with that.

That'll get 'em on your side!

Norman | 11:40 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Funny, when I purchase spirits at the liquor store, I do not appear on a list of alcohol consumers. Sunday, at a sports bar, no ID was taken as we drank a round watching NFL. At the local beer bar, no tracking can be or is made.
Perhaps this line of thinking should be continued. I call up the liquor store, and they deliver the wine and beer I would have to drive to purchase. Folks who want to have dinner at the Chili's, with all of their liquor, or go to a bar for drinks can call a DABC phone line and be shuttled to and from. Only then will alcohol-related driving accidents be eliminated, right?
Perhaps then cell-phone use while driving (impairment) will be made illegal, further increasing the safety of the roads. Next, lifted trucks and SUVs with bumpers pointing squarely at the heads of drivers in sedans will be outlawed.

Dave's Mom in California | 11:51 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

I would postulate that having to buy a Club Membership never caused any irresponsible person to drink less and drive sober.

JTM | 11:56 a.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Everyone, read my comment slowly.
Club memberships have no effect on drunk driving.

Let me repeat:

club....memberships..have.. noooooo... effect... on drunk driving

re: regulatge mormons | 12:09 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Mormons do understand alcohol (along with other educated citizens). If you don't drink, crimes, suicides, homicides, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, car accidents, car fatalities, embarassing holiday moments, and job vacancies all go DOWN. This is just the beginning of the list.

Please don't pull the Mormon card before you get educated. Drinking is a social issue way before it's a religious one.

So, Dave's Mom, JTM | 12:11 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008

What do you suggest we do to cut down on DUI?

Hello?

Anyone there?

Responsible Drinker | 12:13 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008

This is ridiculous! Many of the comments I'm reading treat the alcohol issue as if only the two extremes exist--either raging irresponsible drunk or stone-cold sober non-drinker. For me personally, alcohol exists as a glass of wine with dinner (recommended by my doctor) or a drink socially with friends. Most of my associates are this way as well. We don't drink and drive. We don't beat our spouses/children. We don't spend our mornings nursing a hangover. Etc, etc, etc. I treat alcohol with the same sense of responsibility I try to incorporate in all areas of my life. A sense of responsibility, I might add, that has nothing to do with the legislature attempting to morally police my life. I do think alcohol laws are important, but let's use some common sense in that respect. Let's emphasize personal responsibility for one's actions and punish accordingly. Incidentally, I did lose someone to a drunk driving accident. However, I don't blame anyone but the drunk. Not alcohol itself, not the bar that served him. I blame the person who chose to drive after drinking. Period.

Randall | 12:21 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Eat,Drink and Be Merry!(Take a Taxi)
For Tomorrow You May Be In Utah.

Haven't ya'll gone over this before...again & again...?
Ski Tahoe!!

re: regulatge mormons (sic) | 12:25 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008

To re: regulatge mormons (sic):

I suppose you belief all alcohol should be banned. Of course, only your beliefs matter. Until the LDS church learns tolerance for the beliefs of others, it will always be held in the lowest esteem by the rest of the world. If you want to help the Church, keep your beliefs to yourself, and let them apply to your own life. Please do not try to impose them on me, unless of course, you want us to continue to think of the church as intolerant.

Changing Demographics | 12:30 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Oh what fun we will have when in the near future, Mormons are a minority in the state, and the rest of us can require that ice cream, jello and corn flake funeral potatoes be consumed only in private clubs.

utah rose | 12:33 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008

I'm against anyone drinking who drives. Period. But keeping the private clubs like they are is insane!

First of all, many people drink at parties or even in their own home. I would like to see some statistics of the drunken drivers who did injure or kill people to see if they were in these private clubs.

Secondly, government, get out of our lives, particularly Utahs! And yes, this will give second thoughts to tourists visiting here. And same mantra "if you don't like it don't come here".

Also, I see these legislatures ignoring the medicinal attributes of wine--to them all alcohol is bad.

Well, Brigham must have been a sinner as he drank his share when the Mormons settled here. Maybe he should have opened a private club too.

PS | 2:30 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008

Waddops needs to go sit at the door of any Private Club, say, Port O call, and see what the response from tourist really regarding Utah's private club laws. Pull your head out of the sand and realize. what the world is really like... You people act like we live in a snowglobe with no outside influences.

Anonymous | 3:30 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008

At the outset, I'm NOT a drinker, but for years have enjoyed dining at a number of eateries that have now because of licensing concerns, morphed into private clubs. When out of state friends join me they are often surprised and offended, and if a person of color(Asian, Black ect.)happens to be with our group, they more than others often take it as an affront. Seems certain legislators are talking different directions than the Governor or Alcohol Board. Reality rather than myth suggests that in urban areas, private clubs and their memberships should be done away with. I'd like to personally join legislators in eateries, have them pay the extra fees and then get their own sense as to "what danger" actually exists if private clubs were disbanded. Are brew pubs, where no memberships are required, a hazard to the public? Crazy paradox, making sense of nonsense. Promoting guns (is that safe)and then (apparently)shielding the public from alcohol and intoxication, at eateries when no real "increase" to public safety actually exists.(Drunk driving is an A-1 hazard, but will the # of drunk drivers change, or stay the same?)
Public referrendum on cue?

Page:
1
2
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.