The Anti-Private Club

[Booze Laws] The Utah Legislature tinkers with Utah liquor law every year. Even when the laws don't need tinkering. Most often they make a mess of it. They are about to again.

The governor has proposed doing away with Utah's arcane system of private clubs. His idea is one of normalizing, not liberalizing. It's not normal to have to join a drinking establishment in order to have a drink, entertain guests, or simply socialize. Utah isn't normal. Tourists know it. Drinkers know it. And non-drinkers know it. It's the whacks on the right who think it's hunky-dory.

Senator after senator makes ill-informed comments about "private clubs" like this from Senator Waddoups: "They help us track drunk drivers." Even the Utah highway patrol knows that's not true. You may know that the Senator's wife was once hit by a drunk driver. At 9 a.m. Clubs don't even open until 10 a.m., so go figure.

Sane Utahns made a big mistake when they began educating Waddoups on this and other wrong headed thinking. Now it's proposed that instead of having Private Clubs, all persons as in ALL PERSONS entering a club must have their ID scanned which will store their barcode information for 30 days. Not even I have had a 30-day hangover from one night on the town, so start there and go backwards. The state doesn't need my information for 30 days. Nor 15, nor 10 nor 5, nor 1. Scanning all patrons is the exact opposite of what a "Private Club" was and ought to be. It's a conflict in terms--what's private about having your ID scanned? That's Anti-Private!!

Let a scanner check ID if they must to eliminate human error on minors who started shaving in 8th grade. But don't scan everyone’s. And don't store data. That's flat out wrong.

Get the governor's bill back on track. Get rid of club memberships. It's the right bill. (John Saltas)

Update: Private Clubs Closer to Death

[Booze News] Walking into a Utah bar without being stopped for membership fees and personal details came one step closer today at the end of the monthly UDABC Commission meeting.

Commissioner Mary Ann Mantes proposed adding a fifth classification to the current four-tier system. Class E would cover social clubs with no membership required. Would-be licensees would have to pay 25 percent more than the current initial license fee of $2,750 under Mantes’ proposal, which she issued as a first step “in beginning to structure a law that gains support of the legislature as well as a few groups opposed to non-membership.” Penalties on violations would also carry an additional 25 percent increase on fines.

Mantes wrote in an explanation of her proposal that the additional fee paid by licensees could be used for “increased scrutiny and oversight,” which might include hiring additional compliance officers. After the hearing, she said she proposed more oversight, “because MADD and others are concerned [no longer requiring membership] will cause more drinking.” Clubs who took the class E route, would, she added, be held to a slightly higher standard that membership bars.

She suggested a two-to-three year trial period for the new law to “allay fears of MADD, the Legislature, other “Anti” groups. That way, “if it turns out to be a disaster (which it won’t), the law change goes away,” she wrote.

Quite how many of the current 244 license holders would switch from D to E if this proposal, or something similar, were to become law is hard to gauge. The two recent public hearings on the issue saw a minority of bar owners advocating for membership to continue. Mantes’ proposal includes that the class D social club with membership stay on the books.

For Mantes, such a change “is worth a try in the interest of economic development.” Her fellow commissioner, Gordon Strachan, asked where all this would leave tourists. In a class E social club, Mantes replied, “They’d just walk in.”

UDABC Regulatory director Earl Dorius quickly jumped in to point out his staff had already been brain-storming approaches to this issue in the wake of the public hearings.

“I’m presenting this today to see if we can get something going,” Mantes said. (Stephen Dark)

Last Splash

[Booze News] Sunday night marks the last time (for now) that Salt Lake City tipplers can legally obtain a full-strength Long Island Iced Tea--or at least the way they're used to having it. Utah's newly revised liquor laws take effect Monday, May 5. Yes, they take effect on Cinco de Mayo.

This could be a bummer--or not. While the new laws are, as usual, ultra confusing (especially to out-of-state visitors) the truth is the amount of alcohol allowed in each drink will shift from 2.75 ounces to 2.5 ounces. So if the bartender tinkers with each recipe, I suppose you can still have that cocktail in a new, slightly bastardized form.

I think we can all agree this is a headache. But we can also agree that locals will get around it, just like we cope with every other silly law enacted to make us drink less but which only drive us to drink more. Woot! So visit your local bar. I know Piper Down is at least one place throwing a last hoorah. Urban Lounge also has Time To Talk Twee Tunes, a mellow night of sounds perfect for drowning sorrows. (Jamie Gadette)

How Did You Get This Number?!

[Techophobia] I just got a call from "Withheld" on my cell phone from a group hell-bent on defeating the "Alco-Pops" bill. I listened intently to his spiel about how "flavored malt beverages" are no different than beer and shouldn't be relegated to liquor stores. Fight the power, bro.

Than I asked, "How did you get this number? It's a cell phone." His answer: "I don't know, it's in the computer. Can I connect you directly to the Governor's office?" My reply: "No. Go suck a warm Bacardi Silver, jerkoff."

Anybody else had the telemarketer experience on your cell? Slippery slope ... (Bill Frost)

Keep the Faith

... And have a drink. It's Repeal Day!

Without it, we wouldn't have moments like this:



(Jamie Gadette)

Voting Under the Influence

[Booze News] Recently State Sen. Scott McCoy D-Salt Lake has mentioned pushing to loosen liquor laws that prohibit getting a drink at a bar or restaurant on election day. Mccoy said these arcane laws were "bizarre and inconsistent."

And sure, I agree, but at the same time I can appreciate the logic that once went behind discouraging drinking and voting. Voting is afterall a very important duty, one not to be taken lightheartedly. Heaven forbid anyone throw back too many boilermakers and then head on over to the polling place- the results could be disastrous, think of all the write-in candidates suddenly sweeping into office (Phil Mcrevases, Hugh Jasals, etc...)

And yet as with other activities we as a society see fit to temper our inebriation when performing (driving, operating heavy equipment), voting and drinking shouldn't be completely banned so much as it should just have limits.

So I propose that McCoy consider as a backup bill to his upcoming legislative liquor package (which already has the values vote kiss of death on it) one that would set blood alcohol limits for voting. This way when voters lineup to their polling place and they notice the fella ahead of them with bloodshot eyes staggering to and fro, they can notify a friendly poll worker who would then submit the individual to a breathalyzer test before handing them their ballot.

And then how about this, just to encourage voting, why not after somebody has voted, instead of offering an "I Voted" sticker, how about a shot? They've already performed their civic duty why not reawrd them with something better than a sticker. It could still have the effect of notifying others that they voted when, for example, Joe Voter returns from his lunch break with the smell of cheap bourbon on his breath, everyone at the office will know that he is indeed a responsible citizen. (Eric S. Peterson)

Entrapment, er, Employment Notice

[Booze News] It's a wonder that anyone bothers to open an establishment that sells alcohol in Utah anymore, ain't it? As posted by the fine folks at NewCityMovement.com:

(Bill Frost)