Reader comments
Senate opposes easing Utah liquor laws
71 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
Piper dave | 4:17 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
Private clubs made up only 5.33% of the states alcohol sales last year, reports
the DABC. That puts liquor stores on the hook for almost all the liquor sold in
Utah. You dont need a membership to buy that alcohol. That liquor is consumed
unsupervized. Why are the private clubs always blamed for societies woes? If
you drink at a bar, you have a sobor person serving you, monitoring your intake
and restricting your intake if necessary. We are licenced, trained and insured.
Yet we are always the scapegoat.
No surprises here! | 4:20 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
I'm not surprised the Senate President and his caucus have, once again,
chosen to use a band-aid for treating a virus.
Does it strike anyone what President Waddoups says here? He first claims we "need" memberships to help fight drunken driving. He then tells how much more "educated" he is on the subject after his wife was rear-ended by a drunken driver who HAD NOT BEEN TO A PRIVATE CLUB!
To be sure, there certainly is a need for preventing drunken driving and punishing those who drive while intoxicated. However, President Waddoups fails to illustrate how the preservation of private club memberships does either in a material or significant manner! Is there no protocol for law enforcement in hit-and-run situations? If the intoxicated driver is present, is there really a need for a membership to ascertain their identity or where they imbibed?
Can both the interests of safety and tourism not be met?
What a silly justification for an asinine law! What an encroachment on the rights of private entities and citizens! How ironic this comes from a predominantly REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE caucus!
Does it strike anyone what President Waddoups says here? He first claims we "need" memberships to help fight drunken driving. He then tells how much more "educated" he is on the subject after his wife was rear-ended by a drunken driver who HAD NOT BEEN TO A PRIVATE CLUB!
To be sure, there certainly is a need for preventing drunken driving and punishing those who drive while intoxicated. However, President Waddoups fails to illustrate how the preservation of private club memberships does either in a material or significant manner! Is there no protocol for law enforcement in hit-and-run situations? If the intoxicated driver is present, is there really a need for a membership to ascertain their identity or where they imbibed?
Can both the interests of safety and tourism not be met?
What a silly justification for an asinine law! What an encroachment on the rights of private entities and citizens! How ironic this comes from a predominantly REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE caucus!
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 4:19 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
"I've become much more educated," Waddoups said. "Frankly, I
find that we have a lot of irresponsible drinkers in this state."
I know many of the local religion who drink and don't want their parents to find out (even though they're 20-30 years old). The problem is people assume their kids won't ever drink, and don't educate them on using it responsibly. Same thing happens with sex here; someone tries it once then you get young people with STDs and unwanted pregnancies because they were too dumb to consider these things (the former even more common than the latter).
The whole idea of "let's not educate our children about such "sinful" acts because they'll never get into that anyway" has proven flawed time and time again. Abstinence-only sex/drinking ed. is a failure.
I know many of the local religion who drink and don't want their parents to find out (even though they're 20-30 years old). The problem is people assume their kids won't ever drink, and don't educate them on using it responsibly. Same thing happens with sex here; someone tries it once then you get young people with STDs and unwanted pregnancies because they were too dumb to consider these things (the former even more common than the latter).
The whole idea of "let's not educate our children about such "sinful" acts because they'll never get into that anyway" has proven flawed time and time again. Abstinence-only sex/drinking ed. is a failure.
JTM | 4:38 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
>>What do you suggest we do to cut down on DUI?
Hello?
Anyone there? <<
Putting your condescending, snide "anyone there" insult aside..
-Increase transit options so people need not drive to bars.
-Increase education on drunk driving effects
-Trying to annoy and frustrate drinkers, and/or eliminate alcohol altogether because it makes us uncomfortable, under the guise of "curbing drunk driving".. well that's not going to do anything productive
Hello?
Anyone there? <<
Putting your condescending, snide "anyone there" insult aside..
-Increase transit options so people need not drive to bars.
-Increase education on drunk driving effects
-Trying to annoy and frustrate drinkers, and/or eliminate alcohol altogether because it makes us uncomfortable, under the guise of "curbing drunk driving".. well that's not going to do anything productive
Drinker | 4:38 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
I was totally going to drink and drive last weekend, but then I had to pay $6
and put my name on a list. This caused me to drink responsibly instead.
wait what?
wait what?
scarlet | 4:43 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
Let me put Mike Whazzups comments in context from an outsider's
perspective:
"If people just want to drink, we don't want them to come here"
translation: We only want families like us, preferably mormon, to visit Utah. We're not comfortable with "other" types. Besides, if other people visit, they may end up liking it enough to move here, and we'll lose control of our gestapo.
"we need to track the people who are drinking and driving"
translation: we need to track drinkers. Maybe we can bring back scarlet letters, to identify the heathens from the saints.
"If people just want to drink, we don't want them to come here"
translation: We only want families like us, preferably mormon, to visit Utah. We're not comfortable with "other" types. Besides, if other people visit, they may end up liking it enough to move here, and we'll lose control of our gestapo.
"we need to track the people who are drinking and driving"
translation: we need to track drinkers. Maybe we can bring back scarlet letters, to identify the heathens from the saints.
Enlighten me... please... | 5:46 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
Will someone.. anyone.. in the legislature be responsible enough to show us
statistics directly linking private club memberships with drunk driving
fatalities or other irresponsible drinking behavior? For instance, what
percentage of DUI fatalities last year were caused by individuals not only
leaving a private club, but also a member (and not a guest) of that club. With
that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if on many of the busy nights in a
club the actual membership holders may actually be out-numbered by their
guests.
Also, has there EVER in the history of private clubs been a time when a club membership on file has been used to track down and stop irresponsible drinking behavior? Just because you're a member on file does not mean the staff knows who you are anymore than non-membership 'beer bars'. In either type of establishment they would only know who you are by you being a regular, chatting it up with the bartender, or by outrageous/drunk behavior. I truly fail to see a link where memebership to a private club has any affect for stemming irresponsible drinking behavior.
So please Mr. Waddoups, enlighten me.
Also, has there EVER in the history of private clubs been a time when a club membership on file has been used to track down and stop irresponsible drinking behavior? Just because you're a member on file does not mean the staff knows who you are anymore than non-membership 'beer bars'. In either type of establishment they would only know who you are by you being a regular, chatting it up with the bartender, or by outrageous/drunk behavior. I truly fail to see a link where memebership to a private club has any affect for stemming irresponsible drinking behavior.
So please Mr. Waddoups, enlighten me.
Really? | 7:19 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
I am a drinker. I also go to private clubs, and have found a way around the
membership fee (sort of). I just load up my gut with shot after shot, then I
drive to the club. By the time I get there, I am so wasted, it is easy for me
to pretend that the membership fee is paying for the drinks I had before I left.
Problem solved. Of course when I go to the private club as a guest member, I
use the money I would have spent on the membership to purchase drinks at the
bar, thus eliminating the need to "stock up" before I leave. I know,
I know...Pretty clever.
To JTM | 7:19 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
The one-two punch, huh? Mass transit and education?
Both tried elsewhere.
Both discredited.
And both burdens fall on us who don't drink.
What do you have against a free market incentivization of responsible drinking?
FREE THE BARS AND CLUBS! Let THEM come up with the best ways to serve and promote booze, ways that encourage their overindulgent patrons to stay out of cars.
Let the entrepeneurial juices flow! Us teetotallers will stay out of your business entirely.
All we ask is to be fairly and completely compensated when the system breaks down.
Seems like a win-win to me.
Legislature? Where are you?
Pull your hands out of the pockets of the hospitality industry long enough to do something truly useful. Reform dram shop laws to include negligence and misconduct by brewers, distillers, and distributors.
STOP THE CARNAGE!
Both tried elsewhere.
Both discredited.
And both burdens fall on us who don't drink.
What do you have against a free market incentivization of responsible drinking?
FREE THE BARS AND CLUBS! Let THEM come up with the best ways to serve and promote booze, ways that encourage their overindulgent patrons to stay out of cars.
Let the entrepeneurial juices flow! Us teetotallers will stay out of your business entirely.
All we ask is to be fairly and completely compensated when the system breaks down.
Seems like a win-win to me.
Legislature? Where are you?
Pull your hands out of the pockets of the hospitality industry long enough to do something truly useful. Reform dram shop laws to include negligence and misconduct by brewers, distillers, and distributors.
STOP THE CARNAGE!
Anonymous | 9:18 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
"What do you suggest we do to cut down on DUI?
Hello?
Anyone there?"
Hello? I'm here, and have a great idea...run public transportation after the last call...trax peculiarly stops running shortly before the bars let out, and people need to get home.
And as for memberships, Waddoups is logically lost, in no way do memberships prevent drunk driving, that is ridiculous. And also, in no way do memberships help track problem drinkers...the majority of times I enter a bar, I do not fill out any paperwork, because someone else has paid the membership for me. Unsubstantiated claims such as Waddoup's used to construct or uphold public policy should not be tolerated. I want PROOF of his claims before I accept them.
Hello?
Anyone there?"
Hello? I'm here, and have a great idea...run public transportation after the last call...trax peculiarly stops running shortly before the bars let out, and people need to get home.
And as for memberships, Waddoups is logically lost, in no way do memberships prevent drunk driving, that is ridiculous. And also, in no way do memberships help track problem drinkers...the majority of times I enter a bar, I do not fill out any paperwork, because someone else has paid the membership for me. Unsubstantiated claims such as Waddoup's used to construct or uphold public policy should not be tolerated. I want PROOF of his claims before I accept them.
Responsible Drunk?? | 9:39 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
Condolences to the person who lost someone to a drunk and only blames the drunk,
not the establishment or product. Alcohol by its very nature renders a person
unable to use their best judgment so how can a drunk be "responsible"?
Roscoe | 11:28 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008
I'd like to know how Waddoups thinks eliminating the private club
membership is going to lead to underage drinking and more drunk drivers on the
road? This is ridiculous. What is the benefit of the private club membership in
the first place? Revenue? Creating a database of drinkers? What good is it?
Missing the Point | 7:26 a.m. Dec. 31, 2008
All you drinkers are missing the point -- the law is what it is. If you want it
changed, the burden is on YOU to show us how our lives will be better if you get
your way.
I've seen nothing but snotty, smarmy comments from people who don't impress me much with their committment to responsibility.
So, tell me. How will my life be better if I support what you want?
I've seen nothing but snotty, smarmy comments from people who don't impress me much with their committment to responsibility.
So, tell me. How will my life be better if I support what you want?
Steven | 9:01 a.m. Dec. 31, 2008
Senator Waddoups comments show just how uninformed our state legislators are
when it comes to alcohol and especially alcohol abuse. Eliminating the private
club status will in no way increase the number of drunk drivers on our roads or
even "protect our children" any more than they already are.
There's already measures in place at bars and clubs that do that (age
restrictions for one). Last year our "enlightened" legislature took
wine coolers off the shelves of grocery stores telling us they were the cause of
teenage drinking. Again, if they only talked to teenagers that drink they would
learn they don't drink the wimpy stuff, they go for the hard liquor to get
drunk fast, and the hard stuff's only available in state liquor stores.
Changing the club status is the right thing to do. It will only make it more
convenient for adults, especially tourist coming into the state. When broken
down, the arguments against change don't look at reality so they make no
sense. But, again, our overseers of all things good and righteous know
what's best for all of us Plebeians.
Steven | 1:41 p.m. Dec. 31, 2008
You're still missing the point. How will my life be better if I support
what you want?
Steven Misses the Point | 3:52 p.m. Dec. 31, 2008
Steven & Missing the Point miss the point!
The point is exactly what it says in the article. Go back and read it again.
For the purposes of aiding tourism, the Governor wants to normalize the liquor laws. This includes no longer requiring memberships at private clubs. Senator Waddoups claims the purpose of this law is to be able to track those who operate a vehicle while intoxicated.
There is no evidence this current practice of selling memberships does anything which materially/substantially aids in REDUCING or PREVENTING drunken driving.
The point is that both interests can be satisfied. Greater, more effective measures can be taken to address those who drink irresponsibly and drive recklessly.
This is not a "culture war" issue as people like you love to get off on. Think logically!
Your life will be better because the increased revenue from tourism and hospitality - both high tax rates - benefits the state. An ineffective, obtuse, ideological status quo does nothing.
Tell me how my life will be better if I support what you want, Steven? How will yours be worse if strict enforcement is maintained but memberships abolished?
The point is exactly what it says in the article. Go back and read it again.
For the purposes of aiding tourism, the Governor wants to normalize the liquor laws. This includes no longer requiring memberships at private clubs. Senator Waddoups claims the purpose of this law is to be able to track those who operate a vehicle while intoxicated.
There is no evidence this current practice of selling memberships does anything which materially/substantially aids in REDUCING or PREVENTING drunken driving.
The point is that both interests can be satisfied. Greater, more effective measures can be taken to address those who drink irresponsibly and drive recklessly.
This is not a "culture war" issue as people like you love to get off on. Think logically!
Your life will be better because the increased revenue from tourism and hospitality - both high tax rates - benefits the state. An ineffective, obtuse, ideological status quo does nothing.
Tell me how my life will be better if I support what you want, Steven? How will yours be worse if strict enforcement is maintained but memberships abolished?
Anonymous | 1:31 p.m. Jan. 3, 2009
Waddoups is an idiot. Huntsman knows what he is doing. The memberships thing is
one of many things that makes us a freak show! It is stupid and needs to be
abolished. Normalize the liquor laws already!
Anonymous | 1:39 p.m. Jan. 3, 2009
Dont' you all get it? The LDS Church, which controls Utah, has to have a
mechanism in place so they can police their members who may want to go out
drinking at bars. So they influenced this law that requires people who want to
drink to pay $6 and put their names on a list for a private membership. this way
there is a paper trail so they can always do a background check and find out
which of their members are breaking the word of wisdom. It is all part of the
LDS big brother cult!
making Steven's life better... | 5:38 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009
...exactly the whole problem with your argument. It's NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!!!
Or only about people who share your beliefs!!! Drunk driving is a horrlble
problem with great consequences, but as someone already stated, the whole
'private club' issue is not going to effect drunk driving one iota.
THE ALCOHOL ABUSER IS TO BLAME, NO ONE ELSE. Not the club, the liquor store,
7-11, etc. Do the math-The number of alcohol sold at State run liquor stores FAR
outweighs the amount sold at 'private clubs'. (more than 10 to 1. but
it's sold at the State owned liquor store hmmmm...) As soon as you realize
this concrete fact you will see your whole argument fall like the house of cards
it is built on. And FYI-I quit drinking about 4 years ago. And though I have
lived here for over a decade, I am a New Jersey native. And guess what? Every
time I hear a snide remark that translates to 'we don't like your kind
'round these parts', it makes me WANT TO STAY here. You can't
have your ice cream and jello salad and eat it too...
Anonymous | 8:48 a.m. Feb. 5, 2009
There is NO ONE to blame but the person doing the drinking. Scanning my ID so
the government can tell how many drinks I've had and where! This is still
The United States of America isn't it?
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
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.
- Obama: Plans will increase hiring 10:11 p.m.
- Battle goes to PG's Hamson 10:04 p.m.
- Murder case starts for juvenile 10:03 p.m.
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony 10:03 p.m.
- Higher school math requirements? 10:01 p.m.
- Santa to visit Gateway museum 9:58 p.m.
- Lawsuit: Salahis bounced $24K check 9:58 p.m.
- USU Season at a glance 9:55 p.m.
- Utahn aiding poor 9:55 p.m.
- Bennett seeks to stall N-waste bill 9:54 p.m.
- Mr. Football 2009: Tuni Kanuch
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony
- 5A high school football All-State
- Miller predicted Tiger's rough road
- Utah Jazz going green with unis
- 4A high school football: All-State
- Harpring's NBA career is over
- Nutty Putty Cave to be sealed today
- MVPs wrap up stellar prep careers
- Jazz: Miles, Kirilenko to play Friday
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
409 - Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?293
- BYU says Hall incident resolved247
- Letters: Liberal because LDS236
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game189
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry184
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Religion in politics is tiresome158
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage117
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore117
Trolley Square's annual Holiday Open House will feature visits with...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
And the rest of us are still trying to figure out why. The press also...
He was no doubt a great football player, but an even greater man. What a...
Hopefully Tuni Can help byu WIN a bowl game!
For simply one passing reference you post a photo of Brady. At least you...
Happy to see such a great ex-Aggie be honored. I am sorry I will not be at...
It is interesting to see University Prof's discussing the role Glenn Beck in...
Sorry, Dale, but those books are too long and use too many big words for most...
I LOVE BYU. it's my school. they thing is BYU is at least two years away from...
Beck only has time to bring up the points and provoke thought. You want...
26-23. That's all that counts.
Advertisements
Don�t expect a lot to change when the �Private Club Membership� law is repealed. The Membership fee is a source of revenue for every bar and night club in the state. If it goes away, it will be replaced with something else. When the law is changed, a cover charge will be implemented at every bar and night club.
Its like metered shots. Restaurants, bars, and night clubs secretly love it. It means that everyone gets exactly the same amount of alcohol and it is all accounted for. The bartender can�t give a little extra to his regulars for better tips. Its also a built-in excuse for watering down everything they serve. Which actually makes it more likely that someone will order two or three drinks instead of one or two.