Deseret News | Most Salt Lakers want to loosen liquor laws; so do 2 candidates

Reader comments
Most Salt Lakers want to loosen liquor laws; so do 2 candidates

130 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Justin | 1:39 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

The private-club law needs to go. It does nothing but hassle the residents of, and visitors to, this state. It doesn't stop anybody from getting a drink who wants to get one, but it offends tourists who have to fill out paperwork and pay for a temporary membership to an establishment they may never visit again in their lives. It treats them like suspected criminals. That sort of inhospitable attitude is the cause almost all of the negative press toward this state and its citizens. Why does Utah insist on being different?

Conejo | 2:33 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I wonder if the family of the woman who was just killed by the drunk driver feels alcohol is too difficult to get in Utah.

Love SLC | 6:23 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I moved here two years ago and love the fact it's not like other big cities I've lived in. There is still enough crime but alchohol abuse is high and only adds to crime, spousal abuse, child abuse, drunk driving deaths, teen-age addictions etc.... Do we really want that for our town? Keep alchohol out!

Comments continue below

Me | 6:26 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I'm sorry Conejo, but the drunk driver would have relatively little difficulty getting booze, no matter what the laws might be. If members of the LDS church wish not to drink, I respect that completely. But if they expect to extend that to me, they've got another think coming. The vast majority of people that drink do so in moderation. They're adults and don't need a set of nanny laws. There are problem drinkers of course, but the years of Prohibition proved that you can't legislate better behavior.

Personally, I think it should be much, much harder to buy Jello. Now THERE's a problem.

Art | 6:26 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I don't get it. Why would Utah have to be like all the other states? Yes, being different can be tough but it is worth it. I live in a country (in Europe)where liquor is causing multiple problems. I don't have the statistics, but I am sure more people get killed here by drunken drivers than in Utah. You cannot allow drinking without suffering the consequences. It is easy for individuals to say we want more freedom in this and that. But the society (you and me, eventually) get to carry the burden of bad choices in higher taxes and added safety issues. Utah is still a relatively safe place. You should keep it like that.

lost in DC | 6:41 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I'm glad the state legislature sets liquor laws, not the mayoral candidates. If they could ensure that all the irresponsible drunkards they facilitate would operate their vehicles only within Salt Lake City limits, if all the violent drunks would only beat the wives and children that are physically within Salt Lake City limits, if they could restrict all the other alcohol caused damage to within city limits, then let them set their booze laws. I thought the days of ï¿½more alcohol will solve all the cityï¿½s problemsï¿½ were ending with Rockyï¿½s decision not to inflict us with 4 more years of his mismanagement.

Carlos | 6:54 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Listen, Utah was better 20 years ago. People move to Utah from California and every other place, because it is a better place to live. If someone doesnt like it. Can move down to las Vegas. Utah has to be what it was built to be. A safer place. Don't come and try to destroy it anymore.

J T Browning | 6:55 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

It would seem to me that if those residents of Salt Lake City who wish to imbibe in drinking alcohol want to make it easier to buy the stuff, they might rather consider moving down the road a bit to Los Vegas, whereat they may more easily indulge in all the other things which detract from the dignity of being a child of God. More simply put, knowing that Salt Lake City is the world headquarters for the LDS Church and its Word of Wisdom, people who wish to drink should live elsewhere.

Dennis | 7:01 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

What??!! You have to discuss a bill with the church! What happened the the separation of church and state? The church needs to stay out of it. I am LDS (I do not consume alcohol), but not a Utah Mormon, so I guess I'm a bit more liberal about such things. Have been here about 10 years now and have noticed that "most" Utah mormons are self righteous and very judgemental. I say have our liquor laws on par with other states.

Sam Hofer | 7:00 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Due respect to any family suffering a loss as a result of drunk driving, but the argument is not there.

We've the most liberal concealed weapons laws in the nation. Worse yet, cigarettes are readily available here; smoking related deaths kill several people in Utah every day. We've already made peace with the idea that adult citizens of our society are supposed to be able to make choices which may have significant effect on themselves and others. It's hypocritical to think we can't bring some of our laws concerning alcohol into the realm that reflects this.

Reality | 7:07 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

The rule changes proposed by Becker and Buhler would decrease the number of drunk drivers on the road, not increase them. The logic is simple: if no more than two private clubs are allowed on one lenghty Salt Lake City block, patrons must drive to get to other clubs. If the rule were to be removed, those who choose to drink could simply walk from bar to bar, without endangering anyone.

Alfredo | 7:31 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

We are not from SLC or USA, but in the last 12 years every time (almost 10 trips) when me and my family have traveled to this city we have seen a negative change in the city; more places that sell alcohol, more addicted, more racketeers, more assaults, I believe that changing the laws will end up destroying the reasons for those that many non-LDS decided to move to SLC.

Art | 7:33 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I totally agree with Carlos! Keep Utah different! No one is forced to move there. Plenty of space in other states for people who cannot live without booze. The simple fact is that people do bad things to other people and if they drink they just do worse things and more often. And even good people under the influence of alcohol do bad things they would never do when they are sober.

R.M. | 7:36 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Then where do they go after each bar they walk to? Driving home. Hmmmm!

Sean | 7:42 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Most European countries have lower instances of drunk driving than the US not more. This is true despite the fact that liquor laws are more liberal there. The reason is because they have more walkable cities (they drive less) and they have harsher drunk driving laws. The answer isn't in restricting access to liquor. (People will always get liquor in other ways.) The "club" restrictions in Utah are a joke that only serve to create bad will against an otherwise pleasant state and people. It's time eliminate these silly and worthless restrictions.

Unbelievable | 7:44 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

What happened to seperation of church and state? Isn't exercising your agency something the LDS church teaches? According to LDS teachings, there was another person who wanted to impose laws on God's children and compel them to comply....

Garth | 7:46 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

All we ever read about is how the liquor laws should be loosened. Fine, I will go along with looser laws as long as there is increased enforcement of existing laws and some new ones. For instance, every first time DUI offense should require the guilty party to install a device on their car so that the car is automatically unable to start if the offender has had too much to drink. Also, I find it interesting that Salt Lakers are in favor of loosening liquor laws when many recent alcohol related traffic deaths have occurred in the City. The Williams family (four victims) was nearly wiped out last February by a drunk teenage driver who obtained the alcohol illegally through an adult. The City has not pursued or prosecuted the adult(s) involved in this crime that led to the deaths of four people. Why not? It only took investigators three weeks to track down the adults who supplied the guns to the teenager who gunned down people at Trolley Square. Why are the adult(s) who supplied alcohol to a teenager who killed four people getting a pass? Where are Buhler and Becker on this issue?

Brenden | 7:46 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

"We need to be hospitable to those who drink responsibly"

Responsible drinking is an oxymoron. There is simply too much damage done at so many levels.

Use alcohol consumption to create a vibrant downtown? What, you can't eat, dance and have a street scene and atmosphere without booze? I am sick of it. Never mind the museums, orchestras, opera, ballet, theater companies, sports venues, historical sites, universities, art galleries, libraries, outdoor recreation opportunities, planetariums, zoos, etc. There is evidently no culture in Utah, and nothing worth doing unless you can get properly soused in the process.

People come to Utah because it is different, because of the high values that contribute to a good family atmosphere. There is no point or value in undermining those with the worst catalyst for trouble in the history of the world, and making us just like every other cosmopolitan center of the world. We don't need a watering hole on every corner. As has been pointed out, even with the laws as they are, getting your drinks isn't difficult. Loosen the laws, and all the extra profits can be spent of fixing the added social problems easy alcohol brings. Won't that be nice.

DUI's | 7:52 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

What they need to do is harden the law against drunk drivers. It seems alot of first offense DUI's result in a fine and a slap on the wrist. There should be jail time, even if its just for a few days. Most people drink responsibly so if they want to change the alchohol laws thats fine by me but make the penalty for people who drive drunk alot harsher.

tsm | 8:13 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Federal, state and local laws shouldn't all be the same...they are developed by the people living in specific geographical regions...based on the norms and values of that group. Elected officials should reflect the will of the people.

It only stands to reason a place with a higher LDS population would have more stringent liquor laws, just as it makes sense a rural agricultural area would have more lenient laws on semi-truck parking within city limits than a metropolitan area.

As a reporter for an Oregon newspaper, I regularly attend city council meetings in five different municipalities. Those sitting in the council chambers should cast their votes based on the people they represent...so they SHOULD be getting input from citizens.

It's interesting to see how few attend meetings...all of which have specific time on the agenda for comments from the audience. When there's a "hot topic" people will flood a meeting to give input about something and then leave...not caring about the rest of the city business.

A balance | 8:32 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I agree with the fact that if the laws on liquor become easier, then the laws on drunk driving should become harder. No more of this 0-5 years IF you KILL someone. Life in prison, or death, your choice.

Kirk | 8:36 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

To Dennis and Unbelievable:

Separation of church and state is not being violated. I think you misunderstood the article. Buhler does not HAVE to talk to the church about a bill, he CHOOSES to talk to the church about the bill to see if the leaders will oppose it or not, something that the church is entitled to do under the constitution. As the article states, the reason Buhler does this is to see if it will get support from LDS legislatures, which are a majority, because how they vote is definitely influenced by the church's position. Again, these legislators are not forced to vote that way (they're not going to be disciplined by the church), but do so because of their beliefs, something that is acknowledged by those who vote them into office. This isn't an anomaly. All across the country, state and city legislatures are influenced by groups and organizations that reflect

WHAT?? | 8:43 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

What ever happened to the separation of Church and State. Everyone in Utah needs to get over the fact that people are moving in from out of the state and we aren't LDS! We like to have a drink every once and a while and shouldn't have to be stopped because of stupid laws.. and people wonder why people make fun of this state.

My favorite line | 8:44 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

"I don't drink much myself," Becker said. Much huh? Interesting.

CH | 8:47 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Get the church out of it.. As was said above, if you don't want to drink, I respect that but why make it hardship for everyone else? These club membership rules are ridiculous. I'm not asking SLC to become Las Vegas but can't it be like most other cities in the US??

Crack down on drunk driving by all means!

Willie | 9:00 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Hmmm, Mormons and Republicans (what is the diff?) are against drinking and alcohol. That comes as a real surprise. And, LDS members discussing a change in the law with men behind the green curtain? That too is a surprise. As I've said for the 15 years I've lived here, MORMONS WILL DRIVE YOU TO DRINK, THEN WON'T LET YOU!!! If they are so against alcohol why do they let us pay for lunches for their bouncing baby prodigy through alcohol tax? Isn't that hypocritical?

DSO | 9:06 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Growing up in the church you are tought that we all have our "free agency" to do as we please. Then the Church slowly takes away your ability to have that free agency in the choices that you make. Regulating how liquor is sold and consumed is just another example of this. Very frustrating and hypocritical to say the least and it just perpetuates the negative viewpoints those outside of our state and the Mormon religion have towards us (LDS members).

sae35 | 9:08 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

If you want to drink, go live somewhere else! Move to Las Vegas they'd love to have you!

Anonymous | 9:09 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Changing the laws to allow people to go to clubs with out membership will not change the number of people drinking. It will just save them some money and make them less annoyed. People who want to drink will still go to the bar whether or not they need a membership. These laws just make it so bars are more profitable by charging people to get in. Do you really think God cares who drinks. With all the problems in the world I think he would care a little more about other things but thats just me.

This SLC | 9:10 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

People complain about the way Utah is all the time. Why are you here if you don't like the way it is? We are not like every big city in the US and that is why we are SLC. To tell you the truth there are a lot of non-mormons that choose not to drink, and I am one of them. The thing is people that are coming from other places have to abide by our laws. When you go visit another country on vacation do you obey their laws? Well we all know the answer to that and if you don't like Utah or SLC for the way it is find another place to live. If you love Utah for the way it is I welcome you to this wonderful state, I love Utah!!!!

Bob H | 9:15 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

If getting a permit makes it harder for someone (especially tourists) then I'm for it! Anything that discourages drinking is a good thing. Make them miserable so that type of a person won't want to stay here and we can live a safer life because of it. If you don't like the Utah laws then move somewhere else that sponsors your type of living. Not a hard decision to make and the Utah laws should make it more miserable and less desirable for those who drive and drink alcoholic beverages and drive and use drugs.

SLC Resident | 9:16 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Did any of you read the article--A MAJORITY of SLC residents are in favor of making the liquor restrictions more reasonable. SLC is different, has a far more diverse population and as a diverse Capital City, Tourist Center and Convention Destination, has a different role than the rest of the state. Park City being another notable exception. It's absurd liquor laws (which keep no one from drinking by the way) and religious domination of non-members in the state that led Park City to essentially secede from the state, proclaiming itself "The Independent Republic of Park City" in it's marketing ads. As I would assume most of the responses are from outside SLC, ask yourself, does a Majority count? Or just when it coincides with your own beliefs?

NH | 9:22 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

CH-
Is that our goal-to become like most other cities in the US? That would make a very interesting country.

Nate | 9:29 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Personally, I don't mind the liquor laws, but that could because I am LDS. However, if they do change change the liquor laws, than they better also change the DUI laws, and enforce them. To many people to get a "slap on the wrist"after getting pulled over. Make them serve at least a week in jail. That will get them thinking about drinking and driving.

PoliSci Major | 9:30 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Hey there fellow Salt Lakers, I love reading comments, normally I sit back and just enjoy the petty words of non-coherent rhetoric lashing back and forth, but today I want to comment.

Here is a lesson on your Constitution, since several of you have decided to comment on it, citing that for your point.

The first amendment does not say "Separation of Church and State" this was a catch phrase adopted in the 70's to be used to help push the progressive movement of eliminating school prayer, and other anti-Christian movements.

The 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" this direct translation is that there shall be NO STATE SPONSORED RELIGION -- get it right if youï¿½re going to quote it.

As far as political leaders discussing things with the LDS church, have you ever heard, and again I am using political terms here, of lobby groups, caucuses and other community interest groups? In Politics it is always customary to meet with the large community leaders since they represent the large majority of the community. Stop your rockey-cry foul on everything tactics

jdb | 9:31 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Do any of you have any friends that aren't Mormon? Why?

I am suprised at the relative lack of interaction / socialization among the commenters here with non-LDS people. Have you become so exclusive and judgemenal in your morality that you can not tolerate a nice meal with a friend or neighbor if they happen to enjoy a glass of wine with theirs? Wouldn't this go a long way to help us understand one another?

Roscoe | 9:30 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

to "My favorite line" and "Brenden" - you are dreaming. People having a glass or two of wine with dinner aren't going to suddenly go on a rampage. You seem to assume that any consumption at all is going to inevitably result in mayhem. So what if Becker drinks a little bit - what people that don't ever drink never have any problems?

I support cracking down on drunk driving as well.

Austin C | 9:31 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Ya know there are a whole lot of states that have easily accessible alcohol. Go there where you can see a lot more crime and all of the other baggage that comes with stupid drunks. Sure there are the responsible people who would just like to sit down and drink on their night off. But is it seriously that hard anyway to get your drink? We dont need to make it more accessible for people to do that. If they want it they get it. And to the people who say ''no wonder people are making fun of the state and its people'' if that is your mffff to justify making alcohol easier to get... get real.

np | 9:40 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

People move here because they like the lifestyle and the clean cities. Then they do everything they can to make it just like the place from which they moved. Interesting.

Fredd | 9:42 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

First, if the LDS church opposes something therefore the LDS legislators follow the church regardless of their own beliefs, I'll never vote for a Mormon for President.
Second, if the LDS legislators/council people can vote their beliefs without regard to how that impacts others not of their beliefs then segregation would still be legal. I know that's quite a stretch, but the analogy is true. As a drinker who lived in Utah I can attest it is easy to get a drink if you want one, but its incredibly irritating to take a visitor out for a social drink and it does reflect poorly on the state. I never joined a private club because I'm not a bar hopper. But sometimes its a nice social environment.

Arlin Fehr | 9:43 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

One rule Becker described as "antiquated and bizarre" deals with having only one drink in front of you at a time. "I hear about this (rule) all the time: People say why can't they order and get a second glass of wine before they finish the first while they are eating dinner. Now you have to drain the last drop before you can get another glass."

Umm... Why is this a problem? On a general rule I usually wait until I've emptied my drink of any kind before going for another one. I'm just not seeing why this is a issue, I mean is it absolutely nessicary to have a glass of wine full before you every second of your meal? Is it to much to wait a minute for the waiter to come around again? Odd law yes, weirder issuse.

I realize this is totaly not a big deal, I'm just making an observation.

Anonymous | 9:45 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

TO Conejo: You wrote: "I wonder if the family of the woman who was just killed by the drunk driver feels alcohol is too difficult to get in Utah."

How dare you characterize EVERYONE who drinks as being a drunk driver!!! The majority of people who partake of a drink are responsible people. There are some who drink in excess and who do stupid things, like drive drunk. But to imply that everyone who drinks would do this is wrong.

blake | 9:49 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Why is everyone being so dramatic? Not everyone who drinks decides to beat their wife or drive drunk. You can be a responsible, good person and still drink. It's not about if it is morally right or wrong to drink...the fact is that it is LEGAL. Taxes on alcohol pay for a huge chunk of all education in this state, no one complains about that. Loosen the laws...no one will drink more...no one will drink less...we may just shed our reputation of being a backward state that hides our polygamy.

Moessers | 9:50 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

A few weeks ago a friend visiting from out of town was with me in a convenience store in Utah County. The three people in front of us in line were all buying cases of beer. My friend said, "Wow. Utah County's not what it used to be." I smiled and said "I know!" I look forward to more change in Utah, the influx of nevermos from elsewhere along with exmos is helping to loosen the LDS church's strangle hold on this state.

CeeCee | 9:52 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Ok folks. Let's keep this a "quaint, unique" little town. BUT, don't complain when we are made fun of from the rest of the country or the world. Don't complain when we are seen as a "world class" city.

Discouraging drinking isn't going to STOP drinking. doesn't anybody remember Prohibition -- ok, doesn't anybody read about the prohibition era? They outlawed drinking and all it did was INCREASE crime because of the bootlegging and the illegal bars/clubs.

Just because a person has a drink or two does NOT make them a bad person. Most of you who are complaining about us drinkers have probably been next to me at the theater, or the ball game or somewhere else and you wouldn't have a clue that I'd had a drink or two.

Nate | 9:59 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

The argument that there are fewer DUI's in Europe is not valid. Having lived in Europe for years and visited many times I know that the majority of people in Europe do not own cars. They have a far superior public transportation system as well as numerour cabs. The reason that there are fewer DUI's are due to that fact not the less stringent drinking laws.

Stevan | 9:59 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

RE: JT Browning
"knowing that Salt Lake City is the world headquarters of the LDS church and the word of wisdom, pepole who drink should live somewhere else" Nice, really thoughtful.
As of today, Salt Lake City is still part of the United States of America,not some theocratic nation - state of Zion, under the rule of the General Authorities. Until the legislature passes a prohibition law - alcohol is still available for consumption. 'Arguments' like yours are really helping bridge the divide between Mormons and Gentiles. Very profound, insightful, JT.

Concerned | 10:07 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

The Liberals of this country doesnt know whats best for them To prove this just make a comparison between the blue States and the Red states.Where Murders and suicides are about 7 to 1 higher in the blue states where the Liquor Laws ARE FAR LESS RESTRICTIVE THE MORE LIBERAL YOU GET YOU SEE CRIME GET SO BAD THE POLICE CANT KEEP IT UNDER CONTROLL WE DONT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN HERE IN OUR STATE.So its time for the State to take charge in a City that's getting out of control

JQ | 10:14 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I'm from Salt Lake but live in San Diego now. And wow. Separation between church and state. Does that ring a bell?

This kind of issue is the exact issue I always try to defend about Utah to people that consider it a "cult state" from the outside. This kind of "We need permission from church to change legislature" pretty much proves that misconception accurate.

Frank | 10:25 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

If the liquor laws are annoying people then speak with your local representatives. If the majority of people in Utah want to loosen the laws then it can happen. But the law wouldnt and shouldnt be changed to accomodate a minority of opinionated people.
As for me I moved to Utah 3 years ago to live somewhere different. I love it here, but in my first year I had to put up with being sideswiped(while on my bike) by a drunk driver leaving a bar a little too quickly.

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.