Utah restaurant associations ask governor to veto .05 DUI law

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • capmotion Joshua Tree, CA
    March 27, 2017 7:46 a.m.

    This neoprohibitionistic knee-jerkism is idiotic. The test should be whether a person is impaired for purposes of driving, and not whether he/she has any particular %age of alcohol in the system, especially when the number is this low. Criminal law should be a matter of responsibility based on conduct and competence, and not of strict liability based on numbers. The 18th Amendment was repealed - even for Utah! It's a MADD, MADD, MADD, MADD World and it needs to be reversed.

  • Bluto Sandy, UT
    March 24, 2017 12:05 p.m.

    It's amusing reading and listening to snowflakes complain about this law.
    It's very simple....drink to your hearts content....Have beer and all the spirits all you like.

    Just don't get behind the wheel of a car!

    In England there is a pub on every neighborhood corner. People drink and "Walk" home.

    I've always thought it was weird that one thinks they can drink even a drop and think it's OK to drive.
    So the drinkers will have to be more serious about calling a cab, Uber or using a designated driver.

    Airline pilots 8 hour rule from bottle to throttle, is the standard, with .04 being the limit.
    All commercial truck drivers cannot exceed .04 either.

    Bottom line.
    Don't drink and drive.

    Great law.
    Utah was first with .08 and will set the trend Nationally for .05.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 24, 2017 7:43 a.m.

    Re: "Utah restaurant associations ask . . . ."

    Yeah, they're asking for what they always ask for -- that we subserviently embrace and enable their vicious, profit-based carnage.

    I'd ask, "Sir, have you no shame?" but the answer to that question has been demonstrated time and time again over many, many years.

    The "hospitality" industry is intent on making a buck -- that's all. Nothing else -- least of all the well-being of Utah and Utahns -- matters to them in the least.

  • BobbyPaluga Austin, TX
    March 22, 2017 11:28 p.m.

    Although I spent most of my time in Texas as well as Arizona, I pass through Utah and the gauntlet that is US 89 well known for very strange traffic citations, often. I have lots of family in the state, so I think I have some interest in this policy. As I see it you have three choices:
    1-Bring Lisa Steed back, offer her big bucks to leave her Wal-Mart greeter position. With Steed in command, Utah would revert back to the 0.00 blood alcohol standard that Officer Steed so valiantly created and enforced.
    2--Adopt the 0.05 standard and see it it reduces accidents or even better increases revenues.
    3-Stick with the old reliable 0.08

  • DrMAN Orem, UT
    March 22, 2017 1:38 p.m.

    @strom thurmond

    The URA and SLARA are not arguing the merits of the bill (that those with a BAC of .05 are less impaired than those with .08, hence the need for the change). They would be much more persuasive if they did, scientifically demonstrating that no extra safety from DUIs results from the proposed BAC driving limit change. Rather, all their arguments are fiscal: that the restaurant industry will economically suffer if people drink less while dining in restaurants for fear of getting a DUI when driving themselves home. The mobile phone company analogy is spot on: that less revenue will come to the mobile phone industry if anti-texting-and-driving laws are passed and toughened. We'd laugh at the mobile phone company for putting economical arguments ahead of of safety arguments, just as I (and it looks like many more) am laughing at the restaurant industry for putting their bottom line ahead of their patrons and the publics safety. And this is no laughing matter, either!

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    March 22, 2017 7:59 a.m.

    Separate from the . 05 BAC law let's talk about strengthening No Texting while driving. The law already states no texting while driving and does need to be strengthened and enforced better. Maybe there is an example - no drinking at all if one is going to drive. One difficulty with any source of impairment is an officer has to notice the impairment and then stop someone. Hopefully that happens before it is too late.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    March 22, 2017 7:49 a.m.

    Why are some diverting the issue? This is not about if a person can drink or not, not about Bears Ears, LDS Church, restaurants, texting or Europe.

    Its is about alcohol levels while driving on public roads. . O5 essentially says don't drink and drive. A law everyone can live with.

  • SFSteveS SF, CA
    March 22, 2017 7:45 a.m.

    the young man submits to the breathalyzer, and
    blows a .06 because of the Listerine. Bam--DUI.

    Poetry in motion ...

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    March 22, 2017 7:38 a.m.

    .05 follows the NTSB suggested level for BAC for safety.

    A person can still drink themselves to .08, .1, .2 or whatever they want you just can't DRIVE while over .05.

  • H. Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2017 6:08 a.m.

    This is not a "non-issue," and I'm surprised some of our more libertarian-leaning commenters haven't weighed in on this. It's an entirely plausible scenario that a teetotaling Mormon, who when getting ready for a date, applies too much cologne and/or gargles with Listerine, then on his way to pick up his date, encounters a DUI checkpoint. "I'm good," he thinks, and rolls down his window with his ID and registration in hand. The officer smells the Listerine or the cologne and asks how much the young man's had to drink.
    "Nothing--I don't drink."
    "Well, then, you won't mind getting out of your vehicle and performing some field sobriety tests then, right?"
    One such test is a handheld breathalyzer. The young man, thinking about the Listerine, declines--and is promptly detained, because refusing a breathalyzer test in Utah means you forfeit your driver's license. Or the young man submits to the breathalyzer, and blows a .06 because of the Listerine. Bam--DUI. He's not impaired; he passed the other sobriety tests, but because of the breathalyzer, he'll have to fight a DUI charge in court.

  • SFSteveS SF, CA
    March 22, 2017 4:22 a.m.

    I have no problem with the legal limit staying where it is or being lowered ... DUI is a huge problem and needs to be dealt with.

    That said, the penalty for driving while texting is in desperate need of stiffening and in enforcement. It is virtually impossible to drive more than 2 or 3 miles without seeing a texting driver. It is my considered opinion that these drivers are actually worse than drunk drivers. The drunk at least is aware he is impaired and makes an effort, however ineffectual, to drive well.

    The texting driver, on the other hand, believes himself in full control and pays far less attention to his driving than he needs to. For all practical purposes, he might as well be in the back seat and, like Luke Skywalker, trust in "the force" to pilot his vehicle.

    Laws against texting while driving need to be greatly beefed up and enforcement and penalty need to be rigidly addressed.

  • Good Spanish Fork, UT
    March 21, 2017 9:19 p.m.

    It is a non issue. If your driving is erratic and you are pulled over, no matter what the level or substance or reason (cell phones) you are still driving erratic. Be prepared for consequences. If .05 causes this then you should be sited. If you have no impaired driving at .05 you won't be pulled over, correct? I think that other reasons for erratic driving should also receive stiffer consequences. I am not immune but some where and some how we are going to have to deal with cell phones, even talking. Just look the next time you are on the road at how many people are on the phone and I mean phone to ear that you can see. I cannot imagine how much this usage must go up with handless devices in cars. Think about this as "automobile terrorists"--that is what I think drunk driving is, domestic terrorism at its best. Just look at the number of lives lost do too drunk driving.

  • oaklandaforlife SLC, UT
    March 21, 2017 8:22 p.m.

    Just guessing that Gary will be opting to stay out of this issue. By neither signing or vetoing this bill, He knows fully well, that his decision was not final but yet written into law and it would clear his pathway to re-election without a stain. Any bets?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2017 5:53 p.m.

    conservative scientist - "check out the very long list of countries published in this paper over a week ago, including almost all of the European Union countries including Germany, Ireland, France, Italy, Austria..."

    Not that long ago when a Supreme Court Justice was chastised for referencing legal trends in Europe when deciding a US case. Now it is all the rage. Interesting.

    To your point, conservative scientist, all of the countries invest quite a bit more in public transportation. Perhaps this is a good law, but it is missing a corresponding increase in spending on public transportation.

  • Sanefan Wellsville, UT
    March 21, 2017 5:20 p.m.

    No one should EVER get behind the wheel when drinking alcohol, even after 1drink. One drink, one beer, one glass of wine and you are impaired. Now I'd like to see the same enforcement applied to texting and driving and I mean right down to the letter. It is equally, no, more dangerous because many of the offenders are teens with very limited driving experience. Just like a DUI, it shouldn't take an accident to get arrested, and I mean arrested, not some silly ticket. These kids driving and texting are more dangerous than the person DUI. Both need to be vigorously prosecuted, lose their license and repeat offender go to jail. I don't care if they are 17 or 70.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2017 4:38 p.m.

    Note to Melva Sine, executive director of the Utah Restaurant Association. Utah does not want to be harder on those who consume alcohol, just those who consume and then believe they should be allowed to drive impaired. Our legislators are responsible for the peoples' safety, not the restaurant owners' profits. Most of Western Europe, Australia and Japan have BA limits of 0.05. Utah is simply catching up with the rest of the world.

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    March 21, 2017 3:38 p.m.


    "This is like the mobile phone companies taking up texting-while-driving legislation, advocating that to criminalize texting while driving will threaten the telecommunication industry "

    No it isn't. There isn't a level of texting that could be considered safe.

    " A person who is impaired, regardless of the source of impairment (e.g., alcohol, texting, prescription drugs, legal and illegal substances), should not be behind the wheel."

    Driving while impaired is already a crime.

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    March 21, 2017 3:30 p.m.

    oh, please

    "Many rapes and murders can be attributed to DUIs..."

    Rapes? That's a new one.

  • DrMAN Orem, UT
    March 21, 2017 3:11 p.m.

    @ Ranch This proposed law makes no changes to what restaurants can or cannot serve their patrons. Restaurants have no standing. This law does change how much can or cannot BE consumed IF one chooses to then drive. Patrons would have more of a standing than restaurants. But...patrons are NEVER going to come forward to argue their case because they essentially would be outing themselves as advocating their own and others' drunk driving.

    @ DougSegesman Are you suggesting people don't fear DUIs at a BAC of .08 but they will fear it at .05? If so...all the more reason to adopt the legislation: current DUI laws are ineffective at curtailing drunk driving.

    @libertarian DUI is the crime! Compounding that crime are the crimes committed against people (e.g., vehicular manslaughter) and property (e.g., car "accidents") when people drink and drive.

  • libertarian Cedar City, UT
    March 21, 2017 2:54 p.m.

    One of the principals of liberty is that you don't punish people for something they don't do. DUI laws punish thousands who have comitted no crime based solely on the assumption that they might, just to make people "feel safe ". Regardless of the "good intentions ", these laws are tyranny and turn regular folks into criminals at the stroke of a pen.

  • Oh, please! Saint George, UT
    March 21, 2017 2:53 p.m.

    Please, Governor, please help stop drunk driving in this state by signing this law.

    To coin a phrase in the article, I submit that drinking is a "social experiment" that doesn't work out well when mixed with operating a motor vehicle, airplane, or anything else that moves. Many DEATHS can be attributed to alcohol consumption. Many rapes and murders can be attributed to DUIs and drug-related activities.

  • Web Geek Lehi, UT
    March 21, 2017 2:53 p.m.

    "regular social behavior is going to be criminalized"

    Is it "regular social behavior" to drink and drive? If it is, then it's already criminalized! The arguments I've heard against this bill are incredibly weak and narrow minded:

    -"It's a Mormon thing". Actually, 85% of the world's population lives in countries where the legal limit is .05 - and they aren't all Mormon. The US is basically the only place where it isn't .05.
    -"It punishes social drinkers". No, it punishes those who drink and drive. You can drink all you want, but if you want to drive, think again.
    -"It will hurt tourism in Utah". Does it hurt tourism in all those other countries? And even if it does, are a few tourism dollars worth even one child dying due to a drunk driver?
    -"We have bigger problems to solve". So we can't solve this problem until we solve bigger problems? Please.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    March 21, 2017 2:39 p.m.

    @ Doug
    "The argument against this legislation is that patrons won't be able to go to a restaurant, drink alcohol and then drive without fear of a DUI.

    Let that sink in for a minute........"
    OK, I've let it sink in and let me say I'm not necessarily opposed to this legislation. But, I do think it's more an attack on ones social choices than about safety. Law enforcement will say they would rather have a responsible driver who has a BAC of .05 to .07 behind the wheel than a distracted driver. Why is it the legislature has chosen to lower the BAC before criminalizing many forms of distracting driving? Statstics show our roads would be much safer if we reduced those things more so than by lowering the BAC.
    Additionally, I find it humorous that the Governor says he wanted to explore the unintended consequences of the legislation before signing. If he had done that before signing the worthless resolution opposing the creation of Bears Ears National Monument we'd have about 60MM more of convention business in SLC this year.

  • DougSegesman Bountiful, UT
    March 21, 2017 2:21 p.m.

    The argument against this legislation is that patrons won't be able to go to a restaurant, drink alcohol and then drive without fear of a DUI.

    Let that sink in for a minute........

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 21, 2017 1:55 p.m.

    This bill is legislating LDS beliefs into law. The restaurant association should sue the legislature for a violation of their first amendment rights; if Hobby Lobby can claim that providing birth control is against their religious beliefs, restaurants can claim that a law lowering the legal limit violates their religious rights to serve alcohol to their customers. Jesus even served alcohol himself, turning water into wine.

  • DrMAN Orem, UT
    March 21, 2017 1:36 p.m.

    The URA, SLARA, and associated organizations can't possibly be advocating for drunk drivers?! This law has absolutely nothing to do with drinkers and even less to do with restaurants. It's amazing restaurants feel they even have standing to comment on this issue. This is like the mobile phone companies taking up texting-while-driving legislation, advocating that to criminalize texting while driving will threaten the telecommunication industry and businesses, the economy, etc. will be harmed. What would be the blood alcohol content (BAC) equivalent of texting: that to send 1 text message per mile is an acceptable impairment but sending 2 texts per mile is unacceptable? Mobile phone companies would be laughed at.

    This bill is aimed at curtailing drunk driving. A person who is impaired, regardless of the source of impairment (e.g., alcohol, texting, prescription drugs, legal and illegal substances), should not be behind the wheel. URA, SLARA, and associated organizations: listen up! We're all laughing at you!

  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    March 21, 2017 1:31 p.m.

    This is a good law Governor. Please sign it.

    Everyone opposed should check out the very long list of countries published in this paper over a week ago, including almost all of the European Union countries including Germany, Ireland, France, Italy, Austria, and dozens of others who have this same legal limit for driving. Those countries love their alcohol and the law works for them. It is also highly unlikely those countries are controlled by the overbearing Mormons.

    Your drinking is your business. When you get behind the wheel after drinking, it is everyone's business.