Proposed liquor license increase would not negatively impact public safety

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    June 21, 2012 12:03 p.m.

    If over-consumption is an issue, then have alcohol providers breath test consumers before selling them another. If underage drinking is an issue, then have alcohol providers check ID before selling them alcohol. ID and breath test, before purchase.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    June 21, 2012 11:58 a.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic

    "The "Almighty Dollar" wins again.
    Never mind that many citizens including myself (avid drinker 0 DUI's) have been asking for a change, but when some national chain wishes upon our legislators (check in hand), hey it's good for Utah."

    Duh. Same thing happens with all sorts of things in the state and in the church. It's wrong, it's evil, it's this ... until it gets in the way of making the money and keeping the members ... then it changes.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 21, 2012 8:31 a.m.

    The "Almighty Dollar" wins again.
    Never mind that many citizens including myself (avid drinker 0 DUI's) have been asking for a change, but when some national chain wishes upon our legislators (check in hand), hey it's good for Utah.

    Total Hypocrisy again.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 20, 2012 9:05 p.m.

    We've got a State to the West of us that has all the liquor anybody could drink. They have all the dancing women that anybody would care to see. They have everything else that some people travel half-way around the world to experience.

    How's their economy?

    It's so far in the tank that nobody would lend you a wooden nickle to start a business there.

    Is that what we want? Hasn't Nevada shown us that liquor, girls, prostitution and gambling have nearly destroyed that State?

    Sure, some greedy businessmen are too lazy to spend the time to cook a good meal, so they want to mask their shoddy food with liquor and then charge more for lessor quality. What a deal!

    What we prize the most cannot be experienced when those who visit here are drinking. No wonder some people want to get the liquor flowing. When people spend time in the Temple and visiting Church sites, they're not going to be buying liquor.

    I simply cannot believe that the Governor and the Deseret News thinks so much of Nevada and so little of Utah that they try to emulate Nevada.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 20, 2012 7:23 p.m.

    I didn't know belly dancing and massages were evil. Hmmm... I guess I am doomed!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 20, 2012 5:42 p.m.

    Hey, I like mike's idea of belly dancing. And beer. Way to go, Mike!

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    June 20, 2012 5:22 p.m.

    When people drink there will be DUI's and where there are DUI's people of all ages innocents will die. More liquor available equals more drinking. Remind me not to vote for Mr. Valentine.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 20, 2012 4:26 p.m.

    If restaurants decided that "belly dancing" would bring in the crowds, which side would the Deseret News take? How about adding a few "massage" tables in some quiet back rooms to "sooth" the tired businessman after a hard day of eating and drinking? What would the Deseret News have to say about that?

    When does an "evil" cease to be an "evil"? Is it when a few dollars can be earned - at the expense of the public who has to clean up after the carnage of even more drunk drivers?

    "You can buy anything . . . " An apt phrase, if there ever was one and now we know which side the Deseret News is aligned with.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    June 20, 2012 3:50 p.m.

    There is more alcohol available now than ever before. Yet DUIs are down. This is telling. I dont' think dinner and a beer is what is causing a DUI. After 11pm is when you need to be checking the bar scene.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2012 3:25 p.m.

    toosmartforyou says "Follow the money".
    Yes, quite ironic that the legislature is called into special session to discuss two issues:
    - big revenue shortfall in education funding
    - potential revenue increase with liquor license and alcohol sales.

    Seems like a natural pair.

    Or Utah could follow the lead of other states and raise education money with a chance on five numbers and a powerball...

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    June 20, 2012 2:47 p.m.

    I once saw a tee shirt that read...Instant Jackass just add alcohol. I am still coming to grips to the fact that you can buy alcohol from a gas station when it is illegal to drink and drive under the influence. I wonder how safety is measured. How many alcohol excuses have been given for violence or DV. Sorry Honey it was the alcohol that made me do it. Yep just how do you measure safety. Just because no one is going to get hurt does not mean that it is safe. What about the kids that witness physical harm or emotional harm as a result of alcohol.

  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2012 2:05 p.m.

    As a moderate drinker who has many drinker family and friends (and not a single DUI or alcohol-related offense in the bunch) I can attest that people don't go to restaurants to get toasted. I'm not saying it does not happen (as others have noted) but I cannot recall seeing any out of control drunks at the restaurants I attend. It's just not an environment conducive to excessive drinking - and any drinker will tell you that.
    People at restaurants simply want a drink or two to add to the experience of their meal. And, lest we forget, servers don't serve drunks in Utah. They're trained to cut them off and recommend safe transportation home. That won't change. All servers know they can be sued under the Dram Shop laws and be held personally liable for the actions of a drunk they served.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    June 20, 2012 11:14 a.m.

    @ Moderate

    Good question, but one with an easy answer: Follow the money. That's what drives politics whether or not you're talking national, state, county or city. If anything conflicts with it, money wins...every time.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    It is interesting to watch state Republicans wrestle with the issue. It pits the image they project morally (drinking is a sin) against the image they project politically (we're pro-business). Will they choose the economic boost or the job killing liquor restrictions?

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    June 20, 2012 9:33 a.m.

    @ Midvaliean

    Yes, the reataurant is responsible for personal behavior if they let patrons get plastered and then drive. I have been a "designated driver" and I can tell you that some very professional men drank while eating dinner, only to turn into obnoxious, rude and crude persons that could hardly walk. And it was at a very classy restaurant when no one seemed to care that anyone would be driving the group home; they wanted the booze, they got it. And it was embarrassing to see grown men insult strangers, particularly women, who would never say such things when sober. I worked for a convenience store in Midvale that sold to minors that did some crime after drinking the stuff and the guy on duty when it happened lost his job. Just admit that there are some who will be a problem to society. Otherwise, why the increased fees for DUI enforcement?

    Some restaurants want this: I want cheaper gas prices, too; can I get my way with the legislature? More persons buy gas than drink alcohol!

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    June 20, 2012 8:05 a.m.

    Going out to dinner, how often do you see a slobbering drunk person ordering more and more from the restaurant? Well I've not ever seen that. Are restaurants that server booze/beer/wine responsible for DUIs? If so what percentage?

    I've noticed several new restaurants open that can't get a liquor license. If I want a beer with dinner then I'm not going to go there (already happened a few times).

    The fact is people safely enjoy drinks with dinner and have been since drinks have been around. Folks such as cbj and toosmartforyou feel as though new businesses should be ham-stringed right from the get go, and the restaurant is responsible for personal behavior.

    True republicans would grant the businesses what they need to get started. Smaller less intrusive government is what we need. Not more regulations.

    Utah does a decent job, but is a bit overzealous at times. Give these businesses what they need.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 20, 2012 6:57 a.m.

    I have no trouble finding a resturant when I want to go out to eat. Why is it a problem that some resturants don't want to move here? .. It isn't.

    If more resturant licences are allowed, the law ought to provide an automatic mechanism that if accidents (people being maimed and killed) increase as a result, that the additional licences disapear.

    I ask all legislators not to vote yes on the licences unless such a provision is included.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    June 20, 2012 6:33 a.m.

    The Des News has got to be kidding. If your view is correct, why the proposed increase in license fees to fund additional DUI enforcement? Your opinion doesn't match the facts in this instance. A little critical thinking might justify the proposition (maybe not, too) but to say it won't impact public safety is wishful thinking indeed.