Liquor Laws
In the political arena, alcohol issues tend to stir great passion and little meaningful dialogue. (In Utah -- and 49 other states). Thus, I was pleased to read comments from the Governor’s Office that he will be active on alcohol issues. A strong voice and a measured approach would be helpful. The possibilities between the two extremes of abolishing private club laws and doing nothing are considerable. I hear from many Utahns, drinkers and non-drinkers alike, that they would like the Legislature to explore some of those possibilities.
Unlike many states, Utah does not have “dry” counties (where alcohol is completely banned). Thus, it seems that State policy should (1) discourage overconsumption and underage consumption and (2) allow adults to get a drink without undue hassle. I’m not convinced that Utah’s current private club law is the best way to accomplish those policy concerns, and I would like to take a look at the issue.
Utah has improved its alcohol laws over the past 6 years, by promoting the 2 policy interests I described above. We're a better place, because of it. I am hopeful that progress on this front will continue.
Unlike many states, Utah does not have “dry” counties (where alcohol is completely banned). Thus, it seems that State policy should (1) discourage overconsumption and underage consumption and (2) allow adults to get a drink without undue hassle. I’m not convinced that Utah’s current private club law is the best way to accomplish those policy concerns, and I would like to take a look at the issue.
Utah has improved its alcohol laws over the past 6 years, by promoting the 2 policy interests I described above. We're a better place, because of it. I am hopeful that progress on this front will continue.
posted by steve u. at 12/31/2008
Subscribe
28 Comments:
So you're saying that Waddoups lied when he said the Senate GOP was unanimous in its opposition to eliminating private clubs?
DD,
Uh, no.
I don't put much stock in reporters' paraphrasing. According to the quote in the story, President Waddoups said that Senators will stick with the status quo, "unless we find something better." I agree with that statement -- for every law on the books.
I am saying that I would like to look for something better concerning private clubs.
As an aside, I think I am going to start a Facebook page called "I'm so embarrassed to live in Utah" for all of the liquor lackies who insist that current (and wise) liquor laws make "us" look bad.
Here is something better than the status quo: extend the same accountability requirements in private clubs to people who drive to the liquor store, buy bottles of booze, and then drive home.
Frankly, the policy should focus on reducing consumption, not just overconsumption or underage consumption. If some smug drinker rolls his eyes over the current law and pridefully refuses to comply and, hence, not buy liqour that night...I'd say "policy success."
But that's just the opinion of a Latter-day Saint who doesn't know anything about "relaxing in public," the "restaurant business," or why truly enlightened people must be able to comfortably [read: not stigmatized] drink in public at will.
:)
Steve,
If I may...
There is one "flaw" as I see it (as a relative newcomer to the state). I can go to a bar and order a pitcher of beer for myself but I can not have two bottles of beer - even if one only has a swallow left in it - in front of me. That seems to me to be a little counter intuitive as it actually encourages over-consumption. That may be something to reconsider.
LL
Great post Sen-elect U.
It is good to know that the guys in charge are at least looking for something better. As much as I love Paul and his quaint desire to be our nanny I agree with the governor and others urging change. We need something better.
My desires are, indeed, quaint. Happy New Year, everyone!
LL,
You're actually wrong on that one. In Utah, one person cannot legally order a single pitcher of beer. Supposedly, this is to keep you from drinking all 64 ounces yourself. Nevermind that it's entirely legal to order 6 12-ounce bottles of beer sequentially, or two 32-ounce mugs.
The primary consequence of this law presents itself in a situation where, if you arrive at a crowded establishment with a group of friends, and one of your party tries to walk up to the bar and order a pitcher for your table, you will be required to bring another member of your party to stand next to you at the bar when you place the order.
It's a law that is completely ineffectual in accomplishing its stated goal, yet it contributes one more hassle and inconvenience to the lives of Utah's citizens and visitors.
Welcome to Utah!
"Hassle" and "inconvenience" is what we're looking for...so, good policy w/o being to prohibitive.
But, of course, and again, this is only if "reducing consumption" is a central part of the scheme.
So, Paul, I assume if "hassle" and "inconvenience" is what you are going for here, you disagree with Steve that we should be looking for something reasonable between abolishing private club memberships and doing nothing? How far are you willing to go? The ultimate in hassle and inconvenience is to criminalize alcohol consumption. You on board?
Gee, Margaret, I didn't see that question coming. :) Sort of like me asking you, so...because you support liberalizing liquor laws, do you want everybody to drink...or get drunk...or stay drunk?
That's why the "liberalize-booze-laws-so-we-won't-be-embarrassed-and-so-we-can-make-more-money-off-of-tourists (wink, wink)" crowd will lose. Lame arguments.
I guess, in this case, the good Senator and I might disagree. Oh well.
Cheers!
Paul, I'm surprised at your tone. I'm just exploring how far you would go on this, seeking a greater understanding of your position. And a wise man once said, "understanding others is more important than persuading others." Don't you agree?
Actually, like you, I'm active LDS. I'm becoming more of a libertarian as I get older. And we both know you are an ardent supporter of limited government. What is it that justifies your departure from one of your bedrock principles when alcohol is involved?
Paul,
I appreciate your candor. I’m not sure your statements accurately reflect the guideposts for Utah’s liquor laws, but they do paint a vivid picture of what is wrong with Government: a guiding vision that Government is wiser and more important than the governed, that citizens are subjects instead of rulers.
I don’t recall other think tank leaders actually admitting that hassle and inconvenience constitute sound policy pillars, but I do believe that most think tanks and political professionals currently share the sentiment that bedrock principles, like liberty, freedom and individual accountability, get in the way of transient policy victories that drive election cycles and fundraising campaigns.
Ignoring those foundational principles, we are dead reckoning off a reading we took a long time ago. No one should be surprised that we find ourselves foundering in uncharted waters of Government uber alles.
When professional participants in the political arena see virtue in disrespecting citizens’ time and intellect by promoting the rulers’ end-goal through hassle and inconvenience on something as simple as alcohol policy, one can only imagine what amount of disrespect political thinkers are willing to impose on the citizenry when dealing with weighty matters of security, the economy, education, the environment, etc.
Sounds like the wisest man.
The best way to understand my conservatism is to examine your growing libertarianism. IOW, don't worry so much about where I draw my lines as about where you draw yours (or not).
The libertarian dilemma is more severe on the soul than the liberal dilemma.
I'm not a doctor...heal thyself.
Steve, are you saying that there should be no liquor laws? Or, if there should be, what are their purposes?
My goal would be to reduce consumption. I'm not sure that makes my opinion arrogant...as if I were the elected official, which I am not...when my reasoning would be to reduce the impact of drinking on taxpayers.
To be a truly "free" people, the only alternative to liquor laws would be to abolish the welfare state and/or the general feeling that government could be used to be "my brother's keeper." Then, when a drunk ruined a marriage (leaving a single mom on welfare) or harmed or killed another person (leaving the deceased's family on welfare), taxpayers wouldn't be called on ultimately to pick up the pieces. The same principle can be applied to drug policy, porn laws, "no-fault" divorce, and a myriad of "victimless" crimes that inevitably end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars in "safety net" sorts of relief from all the social damage.
And so we do respect individual responsibility, right? We sell liquor. But we don't sell it to anyone, do we? And why? The same reason we don't sell guns to just anyone, or let just anyone get married, or let anyone buy drugs. There is a responsibility that comes with these activities...and our laws can actually encourage personal responsibility.
Chalk it up to the irony of liberty...being free doesn't mean getting to do whatever the hell we want to do.
There is socio-economic fallout from drinking liquor. All these laws are doing is pressing real accountability (and not enough in my opinion) regarding decisions to use a mind-altering substance in public.
I just don't see the intrusion or violation of someone's liberty when it's balanced against mine and anyone else's who will be called upon to pony up for the "safety net" or the cost-shifting that occurs throughout society when someone's "liberty" becomes someone else's problem.
Seriously? Paying five bucks and getting a driver's license number to drink in public is an intrusion on liberty? That America has never existed...nor should it...and it shouldn't because it wrongly defines the American ideal of liberty.
I don't expect libertarians to understand this concept, but I do expect faithful Latter-day Saints to get it. But that's just my personal quirk.
Paul,
Fine points, but they don't relate to anything I've written here.
If Government wants X, it should state that it wants X, and pass laws that will lead to X.
Utah's purported goals are to reduce underage drinking and excessive drinking. Great. I've worked hard on various laws that do just that. If you can think of anything more we can do in that realm, let me know.
But, the topic at hand is of-age people drinking not excessively. That is an activity that is legal in Utah. A significant number of people who engage in that legal activity say that our laws can be improved, without jeopardizing our stated goals of discouraging underage drinking and excessive drinking. I can't imagine why we wouldn't take a look.
If you want to take a straight-forward run at limiting drinking or outlawing drinking, that's fine.
But, instead of going about such policy in a straight-forward manner, you argue that inconveniencing people is fine, if it achieves an unspoken policy goal of discouraging drinking. That's wink-wink nudge-nudge politics, and it is very disrespectful to the governed and, therefore, harmful to liberty.
And, unless I missed a big announcement at Conference, I question the solidity of your statement that Mormons should get what you're saying. I don't speak for the Church; so, I won't try. But, I am interested in your references where private club membership laws are decreed superior to any and all other methods that might be employed to regulate liquor, such as increased liability under dram shop laws or a traveling pass.
Thanks, Steve. Good comments...they push for clarity and that is very helpful to me. Of all the writing I do I still haven't mastered the shorthand these blogs require.
Your comment..."If Government wants X, it should state that it wants X, and pass laws that will lead to X." I agree with 100%.
As I said in an earlier post, I am not an elected official and so what I am saying is what I feel the policy should be as well as a defense of what the policy is, even if imperfect, because it leans the way I think it should go.
Stopping underage drinking at public establishments is pretty cut and dry, right? A straight-forward law that says a public establishment can't sell liquor to minors.
The excessive drinking part, I think, is nearly impossible to legislate without highly intrusive regulations...or without imposing a drink minimum (but even that would be full of holes).
So, if those are the goals as you understand them as a legislator...or how they are drafted in law...then I would say yes to #1 and no to #2...and then add my own policy to reduce consumption.
I see your point about the "disrespectful" aspect of current law...if indeed legislators actually feel like I do but just don't say it out-loud. That goes to the annoying, passive-agressive, "Utah nice" thing I can't stand.
And, my comment about Latter-day Saints understanding what I was saying had to do with the broader aspects of their religion as applied in practice and in the laws of their society. It also had to do with "Margaret's" libertarian comment. I did not mean to say that I knew something about the Church's "official" stand on liquor laws...although, even there, we both know there is official and there is official (sometimes spoken, sometimes not...sometimes from public affairs, sometimes from the Brethren themselves).
Anyway, I am saying that the current law is not harmful to anyone's liberty.
Huntsman - Governor - 70 percent + Approval rating.
Waddoups - State Senator - Barely won his election.
We elected Huntsman to run the state Senator Waddoups, not you.
BTW, Paul Mero is one sexy man, after a few beers that is.
Beaker...are you saying I'm sexy only after I drink a few beers...or only after you drink a few beers?
If it's the former, then you must be a VERY old friend; if it's the latter, for the sake of everything holy, I hope you're a female. :)
Justin - thanks for the clarification. I know that the first (and only as my husband and I DON'T drink out much) time we went to a private club we ordered a pitcher for two because they said they could not leave two glasses in front of any one person. It may have just been the club.
Like I said - we don't drink out much anyway because of the consequences of drunk driving. However, I fully understand that not everyone thinks that way.
Thanks for the welcome - I LOVE your fair state.
LL
Keep up the good work on Utah’s silly alcohol laws, Senator Urquhart. Even though I’m not a Utah resident, as a native Utahn, I appreciate it.
I grew up in Utah, but for the past 10 years I’ve lived in Virginia. Over those 10 years I’ve yet to see why Utah’s restrictive alcohol laws are superior to Virginia’s more liberal alcohol laws. I don’t see problems with higher alcohol content beer, or wine being sold in grocery stores. I’ve been to a number of bars in DC and Virginia (though I don’t drink) and I don’t see any value of Utah’s private clubs. I don't see how private clubs reduce overconsumption or underage drinking.
I can't resist making some comments on Paul Mero's anti-alcohol arguments. Normally, I wouldn’t make religious arguments about someone’s political positions, but since Mero wrote that “he expects faithful Latter-Day Saints to get it” (discussing his positions on alcohol regulation) I’ll start with the religious arguments.
Where in the scriptures does it say that Mormons should make it harder for non-Mormons to buy alcohol or stigmatize the use of alcohol? Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants says that strong drinks are not for the body. Section 89 also states meat should be used sparingly. Obesity is a real problem in Utah (57% of Utahns are overweight or obese) Therefore, I assume that Mero supports making it harder to buy meat or to try to stigmatize people are eat overly-large meals in restaurants.
What is the difference between alcohol and overeating meat?
Another problem with Mero’s comments about alcohol and Mormonism is that the scriptures teach us not to “exercise unrighteous dominion” and instead to influence people “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.” Obviously these quotations are discussing the priesthood, but I believe they provide a good analogue for secular government and not just requirements for church government.
Persuasion is superior to coercion. That’s my problem with Utah’s alcohol laws. If people like Paul Mero want to try to get people to not drink alcohol (or make more healthy eating choices) I believe they should work to persuade them, not institute overbearing anti-alcohol laws.
Okay, I give. Let's go ahead and not have any laws, only persuasion.
I go back and forth between amusement and disbelief...amusement with your intellectual framwork and disbelief that you folks are actually LDS (the blog host and my friend, Jeremy, excepted).
Seriously, if you spent half as much time in introspection as you do in fuming about violations to your "liberties," you would see that your world doesn't exist, nor could it.
Back up on your libertarian ideals, wipe the rule of law clean, and begin to put your society together. What are the rules for people who live in your community? Are there any rules, or just persuasion? If you have rules, what are they? And where do you draw the line on them? And why?
Then get back to me.
Paul Mero, do you want to increase the level of hassle and inconvenience, or do you want to reduce the amount of consumption and drunk driving? At some point, when it becomes too tedious to deal with the various ridiculous liquor laws, people might decide to stop going out to bars, but they won't stop drinking.
Instead of paying $5 for a two-week temporary club membership for every seven members of their party for every bar they want to visit in a 2-week period, or $16 for every annual membership, and then $5 to $8 for every overtaxed, watered-down, metered drink at that particular bar, they will go to their neighborhood liquor store and buy a $15 bottle of vodka, bourbon, gin, or whatever, and mix their own drinks at home.
Aside from the matter of cost, it's a verifiable fact that more than half of the drink recipes in any standard bartending guide are illegal to make in a Utah "Private Club".
I can tell you that I heard a few of the people in my office say they bypassed the local bars and clubs this past New Years Eve. Fewer and fewer people are choosing to deal with the hassles involved in trying to meet at a downtown or neighborhood bar, so they have house parties, where it is much more likely that nobody is checking ID at the door, or cutting off anybody who is obviously intoxicated, or monitoring guests as they leave the house to drive home.
These ridiculous laws are not solving any problems. They're forcing people to find other alternatives, and as much as you might like to believe that you're helping the situation with your support for hassles and inconveniences, these alternatives can have dangerous consequences.
Justin...got what you're saying. If you read my comments carefully you will notice that I suggest expanding the "registration" method to liquor stores and their customers. In fact, I don't think it's an imposition on liberty in general, or someone's personal liberty, to have all liquor-content beverages, not sold at restaurnats or hotels, to be sold at liquor stores.
On the other hand, I don't know why we have to have government-run liquor stores. Why not let the private sector do that? But however liquor is sold, I don't see any offense to liberty by having people become "members" of establishments that sell liquor.
In other words, I agree that reform would be helpful...but more coverage, not less. If that's not acceptable politically, then keep the status quo.
I just want to say that I have really appreciate seeing some thought and time given to our states liquor laws.
Here's my 2 cents. I have had to sign up for memberships so that I could drink at public establishments. I do not feel this is an infringement on my freedom. But it does alter perceptions. I feel in a negative way. One, it is a reason why people get a bad taste in their mouth for "Mormons" I also travel for my work here in Utah. Guess what out of towners talk about at bars in Utah. Having to pay for a membership to drink at a bar, or having to order a meal when they just want a drink at the bar they can walk to from their Hotel. This inevitably leads to a conversation about the Mormons influence in the government, and it makes people that consume alcohol (reasonably or not) feel looked down upon. Paul, what do you think these people remember when missionaries knock on their door at their home. Hint: it's not gonna be anything from temple square.
Oh, and guess what people want to talk to you about when you are drinking in their state, well at least when they find out your from Utah... Again, not very often Temple Square. But frequently the laws that govern liquor in Utah come up. So Utah, I'm fine with paying $4, and giving my DL#, but when you have that large of an impact on my spontaneous conversations at bars in Illinois...maybe we should re-think our approach; which is all that is being proposed.
Paul, if you want to decrease consumption tell your missionaries to work double time, or volunteer at a middle school and support D.A.R.E week. Donate to M.A.D.D. It is my experience the individuals that have not experimented with alcohol/drugs prior to age 18 (in Utah) don't feel the need to later on in life.
I also have drank with Mormon college students, who drink because they want to, but then have to get really drunk to get over feeling guilty about what their mothers would think/do to them if they found out. I have had more "good mormon kids" on my shoulder headed for the bathroom than any other demographic or I would not think this mentionable. So my thought is show a little tolerance, your kids will be more likely to talk with you about this subject if it is present in their lives. And the majority of the Adult community that has at some point of their lives learned some very important lessons about alcohol consumption from experience won't feel looked down on.
Steve U. thanks for the attention to the topic. I really appreciate the thought. I won't expect change here, but really happy it's on the table.
I'm choosing to stay anonymous as I feel like an outsider at this point. You all seem to know each other. I am only here for this topic so I'll be on my way..
Anon.,
Please don't be a stranger. You add much to the discussion.
Like you, I am not saying that the current laws are denying any rights. But, if current laws are unnecessarily frustrating people and if there might be a better way of accomplishing desired outcomes of discouraging underage consumption and over-consumption, it seems worthwhile to take a look.
Unfortunately, there does seem to be an attitude (as Paul expresses) that drinker frustration is direct evidence of effectiveness of alcohol laws. That's an odd and abusive barometer.
I should stop by here more often, my bad.
How about the state getting out of the liquor business? Think of all the face saving and dollars they could save by doing so.
No more DABC micro managing and setting up situations they can then use against business owners. Even forcing them to shut down!
The state could sell that already too small of a warehouse they just built too.
Why?
Because here we have the stat3e as the single source4 of booze, and the same state which funds much of the education within it from such sales, whose thirst for money is endless, so pushing for more volume through this overtaxed facility.
If and as long as we have Private clubs, the govt above all, should respect the first word in that, PRIVATE! That applies directly toward the state forcing private clubs to ban smoking.
Now we have to smell the stench of the food fryers! That stuff has got to be toxic!
When recently interviewed by a local reporter a local club owner observed that, "well 90% of my customers smoke, and 100% of my employees smoke, the new law will probably not help me much".
It has not.
Controlling consumption is not an easy task. In fact as long as it is legal it is impossible. Young drinkers still seem to have no problem getting the beverages, no matter how many laws get passed, they are seemingly impotent to solving the problem of underage drinking.
Not saying you give up, just realize that the problem continues despite legislative and enforcement efforts.
Oh and do remember that Utah, though not alone, leads the nation with teaching young people how to drunk, not, how to drink responsibly.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
<< Home