Reader comments
Dining up, drinking down after law change

48 comments | Read story

falcon's beak | 11:50 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

One drink a week enhances your chance of cancer.

Anonymous | 12:11 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

People didn't need nanny government to save them from themselves.

to falcons beak | 12:21 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

you have any actual proof of that?

Comments continue below

Whaaa!??! | 12:21 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

You mean Utah drinkers aren't out of control? Are you sure?

Ben | 12:25 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Guess they forgot about me... going to all sorts of bars drinking and driving... boy i love this new law!!!

Ms.Intellect | 12:29 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

A glass of red wine 3-4 times a week reduces your chances of heart disease. Everything in moderation. Why can't people in Utah understand that. It's taught in the churches of the predominant religion.

Hmmm | 12:35 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Everyone wants to say that the changes didn't have any effect but perhaps we should look at this from the other perspective. It seems obvious that the previous restrictions weren't that big of a deal to begin with but everyone wanted to make it a big deal.

Spensei | 12:42 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

One glass of red wine a day decreases your chance of heart disease as well as the onset of dementia. Studies also show that one equivalent drink of any alcohol before an academic test will increase your score. Moderation in all things...including abstaining.

Sadly the removal of the membership requirement did nothing to remove the cost of entrance. Now rather then pay an annual fee of $15...you have to pay $5 every single Friday/Saturday as a "cover charge" (the new membership fee). Alcohol sales are down...but I promise that entrance fees are Up Up Up.

Gary | 12:45 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Truth about human behavior is that we want more of what we can't have or believe is scarce. Imagine if other ridiculous bans on personal freedoms were lifted or reduced, we probably wouldn't want as much of those either. The war on drugs and alcohol has always been one of these government crusades that cost lots of money, fund other governments' militias, and obscenely persecuted our own citizens for non-violent offences. LEGALIZE IT! I'm NORML!

benjams | 12:51 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

One drink a week enhances your risk of having fun too, don't be tempted.

John Charity Spring | 12:56 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

This article ignores the fact that the government should not be promoting drunkenness and sloth by allowing easier access to alcohol. The government should be taking steps to eliminate alcohol use and its negative effects, not taking steps to promote alcohol use.

BullDawg | 1:20 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

I think that everyone is missing the opportunity that is out there by letting stupid people drink, smoke, do their drugs, not wear seat belts or helmets for motorcycles or bicycles, etc. By not making these suggestions, rules and/or laws mandatory we let Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection eliminate the stupid, the weak of mind and such through their own actions and improve the DNA pool for everyone else. We eventually get these "misfits" out of our faces, streets, highways, neighborhoods, etc. Yes, in the process, there will be collateral damage that is caused by these idiots that touches the innocent, but they are doing it anyway. Let them live by their selfish definition of their "Free Agency" and through natural selection over time the rest of us will be rid of them. I know it does not sound quite "Christian", but many of these same individuals denounce their own religion and that of others.

Of COURSE sales aren't up! | 1:24 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

The prices in Utah are so overinflated that people buy out of state.
People got wise. The liquor tax goes to the school lunch program, and the mormons that have all the kids clogging the schools want everyone else to feed their kids.
So many like myself avail ourselves of much more reasonably priced booze elsewhere.

El-Oh-El-Ay Lola

To Falcon's beak | 1:25 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

That's we have several drinks a week, not just that problematic ONE.
Mike

Gary | 1:28 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

TO John Charity Spring:

Your comment happens to ignore people's right to choose what is good or bad for them (preferably only after they are educated to both benefits and risks.)

The government should most definitely no be taking steps to eliminate alcohol use as much as it should not be eliminating any of your own personal freedoms; such as freedom to attend what church you want, or how many children you should be allowed to have, or whether you should try sky diving . . . blah blah blah, it's endless.

Sir, it is very possible that you participate in a few activities that I really don't like or condone. Yet I recognize them as your freedoms. I'm certain that in the future, you wouldn't want some agency passing restrictions on you personal freedoms just because they don't "like" or "agree" with them.

The role of gov't | 1:29 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

What the government should not be doing is interfering with the personal lifestyle choices of its people. I don't need the government to also be my mom.

BK | 2:27 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

I dont go to the bars anymore because its expensive and I am feeling the effects of a sluggish economy. I also dont want Big Brother to scan my ID.

Robert | 2:32 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

This report undercuts a major argument alcohol promoters made for changing Utah's liquor laws.

The Heart | 2:36 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Hate and cold judgment of others is far more dangerous to your health than a glass, or two, of wine once in a while.

Fictional Factors For Flubs | 3:17 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Well, according to the latest Hines and Jenkins study case 4R-45, the human biogenes descrease when the egolomantic waves cross the pathological bridge
over to the brubaker receptors of the lower brain cavity. Thus resulting in a complete breakdown of being able to reason with a different point of view.

re: the heart | 3:49 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

"Hate and cold judgment of others is far more dangerous to your health than a glass, or two, of wine once in a while."

Apparently you qualify on both counts?

Zentelligent | 4:11 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Did you have to be a white protestant to join one of these clubs (when you had to join)?

TO John Charity Spring: | 4:41 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

The government should not be in the liquor business at all.

KD | 4:43 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

If someone violates my rights to drive on safe highways whether it be drunk, distracted or impaired, then I have a problem with them. These are the reasons laws are made, to protect the innocent. If people would just obey the laws, the world would be a safer place to live.

Anonymous | 4:57 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

The reason the consumption of alcohol only went up slightly is because the laws didn't change anything. Those who drink were already drinking before the law changed, and those who don't drink were already abstaining. Nobody changed their mind because the law changed.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 5:29 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

aaaaaaaaah poor baby, the amount of liquor sold by the state to Utah's equivalent of bars fell 9.2 percent, or nearly a quarter of a million dollars, now the good news, the sales of Zig Zag rolling papers hit a record high so to did the number of zip locked bags, plus basement grow lights and 2 1/2 gal flower pots. PLus the sales of soad pop flew through the roof to cure that cotten mouth. The sales of eye drops that "get the red out" is being bought by the case every second. So what's that telling ya Utah?. In know. Winter's here and we have to stay indoors for the next few months right?. That makes Utah a safer place to live.

the economy? | 5:52 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Do you think that these numbers might have something to do with the economy? Do you think a few months is enough time to make any claims about any of this?

Do you think that since alcohol sales are down that means that people don't care about the new law so we might as well go back to the previous policy?

Cup A' Joe | 7:14 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

RE: Brother Chuck Schroeder | 5:29 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009
aaaaaaaaah poor baby, the amount of liquor sold by the state to Utah's equivalent of bars fell 9.2 percent, or nearly a quarter of a million dollars, now the good news, the sales of Zig Zag rolling papers hit a record high so to did the number of zip-lock-bags, plus basement grow lights and 2 1/2 gal flower pots. PLus the sales of soda-pop flew through the roof to cure that cotten-mouth dry mouth. The sales of eye drops that "get the red out" is being bought by the case every second. So what's that telling ya Utah?. In know. Winter's here and we have to stay indoors for the next few months right?. That makes Utah a safer place to live.

Your right Brother Chuck. Plus, none of these number's have anything to do with the economy, it just means they are up to other's thing's to catch a buzz. Like smoking pot. Yeppers, your always right and hit the nail right on its head again. Good Job.

Anonymous | 9:33 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

The old law was stupid, and didn't do anything to prevent drinking. It did discourage people from going out to dine, and it was just plain stupid. We've still got some of those laws on the books, and they're just as effective as the private club thing. It turns out that adults we'll trust to the Nth degree with a gun are also pretty responsible about drinking, and we may be a bit obsessive about this in Utah. Until we figure this out, my delivery business from wyoming will continue to pay bills.

Law not reason. | 4:34 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

As everyone knows, patronage to restaurants and bars are down because of the economy that has caused the decline in sales. Then people in their homes have cut back on their spending and liquor is not a priority budget item.

It's more of an economic reason for the decline in sales, not changes in the law. Can't tell by this story if they are complaining about revenue losses or bragging about the decline in consumption.

Either way, look for higher taxes to offset the decline, the state budget can't stand it when a sin tax declines. The tax that is supposed to be for health reasons and used for roads at the sinners expense.

Hey Falcons Beak | 6:56 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

I have a drink every day. Every single day. Obviously I will die of cancer within minutes of typing this. But you know what, I have my agency, and there are worse things than death. Living in a society where you are told what to do, when to do, how to do, and why to do in every facet of your life is much worse than death. cheers.

RW | 7:02 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

It's interesting...I think the same people that are arguing that the government shouldn't be involved in selling alcohol are the same people that say the government should be involved in health care. I, for one, don't believe the government should be involved in either one.

Digbads | 8:06 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

The promotion and glorification of alcohol sickens me. It does no good for society.

Ned | 8:34 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

Yay RW!!

Barbara | 8:51 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

I have never known anyone whose senses, intelligence or looks were improved by drinking. However, I have known a lot of people who THOUGHT the above mentioned were increased after alcohol consumption. I can't speak to the actual issues of health, but I do believe that there are a lot of things from which we might abstain and times during which we might leave drinking alone. Fifty years ago in Ohio, my brother was killed in an accident that involved beer drinking fools. I have no sympathies for people who whine about liquor laws.

Anonymous | 9:08 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

Normalize the laws. If people want to drink, they will. I doubt anything would change. I thought Utahns didn't like government control. Guess I was wrong, it just depends on their issue.

To Barbara | 9:45 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

I am sorry for your loss. But Al Capone, et al. loved Prohibition because it failed and promoted more crime.

@ Digbads 8:06AM | 9:46 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

The repeated attempts to compromise the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness in the name of "morality" sickens me. It does no good for society and actually started a war 234 years ago.

...just sayin'

benjams | 9:49 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

Digbads: the tax revenue from alcohol in Utah goes to help feed the kids whose parents can't afford to feed them; its no good to society?

CJ3 | 10:07 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

It also didn't boost fatality rates, thankfully, as some asserted it would. Neither did the repeal of the ban on TV advertising for hard liquor.

Indeed, alcohol-related deaths are at historic lows, in relation to the numbers of drivers on the road, and the ever-steady percentage of those that drink.

This would seem to indicate that education, and peer pressure to drink responsibly are having a positive effect on our society.

goforit | 10:28 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

HEY BullDawg

I agree, espically when it comes to firearms. Please all of you gun toters exercise that right to the fullest. Statistically there will be less of those types if they have lots of guns around. Maybe we can discuss this over a nice cold one someday.

Best comment here is... | 10:48 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

Lola above at 1:24.
Says it ALL.

Jack

kv | 10:48 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

The government has no business sticking its nose into the private sector - NONE WHATSOEVER! People should ask themselves if the proper role of Utah Government is to profit from the trafficking of alcohol. So much for small government. Hypocrites!

thankful child of alcoholic | 10:53 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

Thankful that sales are down - hopefully numbers of children of alcoholics going down too.

To whom it may concern | 11:09 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

One thing that i see being over looked. Laws are for the lawful. When was the last time a criminal didnt do something simply because it was "illegal"? Nothing changed in alcohol consumption because those who are going to drink already did. Ever heard of a fake id? I dont think that anyone reading this would say that having someone drink and drive is a good thing. I say tax alcohol, and pay our police force to keep our families out of the hospital because of someone bad choice to drink and drive.

RE: Digbads | 11:23 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

It does no good for society, how can you possibly say that? your kids get free meals because I drink. If I quit drinking then there gonna have to tax mormon whiskey, (a.k.a diet coke).

And to all the rest of you its true I mean if you are going to spend $15 or $20 to get into a place, it actually makes you want to drink more. I mean you spent $20 on alcohol just to get in and you haven't even caught a buzz yet.

brewer | 1:35 p.m. Sept. 30, 2009

lets round up all the drinkers and put them in a camp. it would be better then taxing us to death.

Aker | 10:05 p.m. Sept. 30, 2009

I'm all for letting people make their own decisions as long as I'm not negatively affected by their actions. I don't care a bit if people drink, they can't make me. I also know many good people who enjoy a drink now and then and I'll never look down on them even though I don't drink. I do think drunk driving laws should be enforced and even tightened to ensure those who decide to drink don't hurt others.

As for the claims that drinking wine decreases heart disease or dementia I disagree. I took part in a conference three years ago held by a group of insurance executives, physicians and actuaries. We spoke about the studies supporting this thesis and several of the participants pointed out that the science didn't pass the smell test. The non-drinkers used in EVERY major study to that point had already been in the medical system. Those who were sickest were much more often the non-drinkers simply because they HAD to be. It is only reasonable to expect them to have more disease.

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.