Deseret News | Reader comments: Banning minors from restaurant bar areas offered as compromise

Reader comments
Banning minors from restaurant bar areas offered as compromise

Utah Bill | 7:21 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009

Finally, some reasonable real-world discussion in this area.

Even though I'm no fan of alcohol - I do think our people have the right to decide for themselves what they want in this area. Also, I think parents need to decide what they are willing to expose their children to.

If parents don't want their children to be near a bar area or see drinking - simply don't go to places that have these things.

dave | 7:28 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009

Fixing problems that do not exist. What horrible stewardship of our money. Waddoups needs to shut up and let the governer have his way! He is a menace and offensive to liberty and the American way of life.

Instereo | 8:14 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009

I think the Governor hit the nail on the head, more American, less Middle Eastern. The fact is there are many good people who drink, who don't get drunk and beat their wives, and who actually live longer (based on scientific facts now).

I've actually seen in my life the consequences of alchoholism and I've noticed that there are very similar results in families where religion is so stickly practiced that children can't think on their own. Kids are going to grow up in spite of what parents do and they'll make up their own minds. Paranoia doesn't server anyones best interests.

Comments continue below

Huntsman is right | 8:18 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009

I'm a non-drinker, but I think our Senate leadership is out of touch (again).

in a sorry State | 9:08 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009

"...Waddoups may be willing to listen....he was interested in seeing if there was a way to do away with what he called "needless hoops to jump through" for customers.

Senator, the only "needless hoop" someone should have to jump through to have an alcoholic drink is a valid ID proving they are 21 years old. End of story.

Jan | 9:17 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009

Here's an idea parents, try sitting down with your children and explaining the reality and teach them how to deal with it. How about you as the parent explaining to your own child that although alcohol is available to the world, as a family you chose not to. Maybe explaining to them why you don't, whether it's obedience to your religion or just a personal choice.

Hiding the realities of life does not give your child the internal value system that will support them throughout their life in making many more decisions. There's nothing more intriging to a teenager than the very thing their parent has banned from their site. Far better, it seems, to be sitting in a restaurant and having a grown-up discussion with your kids about your family rules. Seems like a rowdy patron that's had a few too many just might be a great visual teaching moment (teaching being the operative word).

hmmm | 9:24 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009

And the state's war on Chili's continues apace...

OH NO! | 10:14 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009

My kids might see alcohol. Maybe I should blind them to the diversity of others and freedom of choice. Maybe the government should mandate what they should wear and what time they should go to bed. I know that--as a parent--I am unable to adequately prepare my children for the world!

hmmm | 10:29 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009

Jan- I've never seen rowdy patrons at the type of restaurant being discussed other than at televised sporting events, and then the yelling is usually about the sports.
Also,seeing people not being rowdy and drinking responsibly is a good teaching moment- it teaches that binge drinking is not normal, should your child reach adulthood and decide that they do not share your beliefs and do want to drink. It shows having a moderate amount of drinks with a meal rather than drinking for the purpose of intoxication.

uncannygunman | 11:10 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009

Ahh, here come the two steps back! My initial impressions:

Banning minors from restaurant bar areas seems kind of silly to me, but I guess I don't care too much one way or another. Makes more sense to me to say no minors without a parent or guardian, just like at the liquor stores.

As to "replac[ing] application forms with swiping driver's licenses or other identification": What application forms, if the club system is abolished? Replacing paper applications with electronic ones may modernize the club system, but the intrusive system is still there. If what is being suggested is the swiping of a DL for all bar entrants, it sounds like a civil-liberties nightmare that would be substantially worse than the current system.

Increasing liability for serving drunk drivers may sound good, but as a practical matter I'm not sure how it would work. It's already illegal to serve an intoxicated person, how is the bartender supposed to know if some is going to be driving?

CeeCee | 1:35 p.m. Jan. 9, 2009

what's next after banning the kids from the bar area? What about the parents that don't want their kids to see people drinking with their dinner? Will there be a law mandating a "Drinking and non-Drinking" section at restaurants. This is stupid. Waddoups is on a kick against any one who drinks because his wife (or someone in his family) was injured by a drunk driver. I wish everyone who didn't drink wouldn't characterize those of us who do drink as all drunks, we're not. The MAJORITY of us are responsible!!

Anonymous | 2:01 p.m. Jan. 9, 2009

When are the LDS Republicans of this state going to figure it out...The more you take away the more problems you cause in the alcohol issue...We LDS people that chose to have a drink are very upstanding responsible people..just dont agree that drinking is a sin............You are ruining the state because the church runs the legislature...NOT GOOD Cant you see it gives Utah a real bad reputation ...There are laws to abide by that everyone should be doing...Do Not Drink and Drive for example is stupdity..keeping kids from watching alchohol be poured is laughable.........You work for the people not the church.............

Johny Fairplay | 2:48 p.m. Jan. 9, 2009

Would Waddoups be anti-gun if his wife had been shot instead of hit by an idiot drunk driver?

BH | 3:49 p.m. Jan. 9, 2009

Huntsman is really on to something here. What a great plan.

By passing enforceable laws with strong penalties, to keep minors out of bar areas, we can satisfy the concerns about minors drinking. By so doing, we no longer need the private club arrangement.

We protect our minors and allow those who choose to drink a more reasonable system, one that doesn't seem to suggest that control freaks are in charge here in Utah.

Gov. Huntsman, you have the suppor of this conservative. Work on it. And don't yield.

P.S. A quick note to those who think eliminating private club requirements will lead to more drunk driving are kidding themselves. I have coworkers from out of state who, when they visit the state tend to overcompensate for Utah's liqour laws. Reasonable access would eliminate this.

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.