Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Tuesday, February 24, 2009Happy Hour
By Macey Matthews
Senate Session Staff Alcohol is one of the hot topics during this year’s legislative session. Right now, Representative Hughes and Senator Valentine each have liquor-related bills that are being debated. We thought it would be good to get your input. Here is the low down on each bill as well as an endorsement from the sponsor. Answer the survey and let us know what you think. House Bill 347-Alcoholic Beverage Control Act Modifications Rep. Hughes classifies HB 347 as more of a private club bill than an alcohol bill. Utah currently has a unique private club law which requires every patron to purchase either a temporary or annual membership in order to enter the establishment. This bill would eliminate private clubs and in turn, require everyone under the age of 30 to have an electronic verification where their ID (either a drivers license, military ID, or passport) is scanned in order to make sure that it is valid and that they are who they say they are. Along with private clubs, this bill will also reshape the way restaurants handle liquor purchases. Many restaurants have bar-like structure where guests can dine. The law currently allows this seating option to be open to anyone; however, this bill would prohibit anyone under the age of 21 to sit in the bar area. In return, the bartender would now be able to serve a drink across a bar top instead of walking around to the other side like they are currently required to do. The main goal that this bill is trying to accomplish is to keep anyone underage out of bars and away from alcohol. Rep. Hughes says he has a bag of fake IDs that were collected by a downtown private club after they began using an electronic verification machine. Many opponents are afraid that this bill would loosen Utah’s liquor laws, but Rep. Hughes says it does just the opposite. “We are honing in on underage potential patrons to make sure that they are not getting into these establishments,” he says. Senate Bill 187-Alcohol Amendments Sen. Valentine's bill is designed to keep up the high standards that Utah liquor laws have had in the past. His goal is to prohibit underage drinking, to prevent over consumption, and to protect the public and their safety. The first thing that the bill will do is create more of a distinction between a restaurant and a bar. Restaurants will be required to prepare alcoholic beverages away from where the customer can see. The bill will give restaurants financial assistance to help them restructure they existing layout if it does not fit the requirements of the bill. The bill will also increase the dram shop liability, which is the responsibility that private clubs and other establishments serving liquor have when they serve alcohol to obviously intoxicated patrons who subsequently cause death or third-party injuries. Utah’s current fine of $500,000 would be increased to $1 million with this bill. Other portions of the bill include defining exactly what constitutes a person as being intoxicated as well as consolidating the licenses that a resort must obtain in order to serve alcohol. VOTE HERE:
posted by Laura B at 6:34 PM | Link
|
Connect & EngageRadio Free SenateKeep in TouchTwitter UpdatesYour Government 2.0 Lab
Current Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
13 Comments:
These are my choices?
HB347 would require creating a database of personal information about citizens in order to do any type of electronic verification, which I'm against.
SB187 is unreasonable both as a "solution" (what would this really solve? Demystifying alcohol reduces drinking much more than hiding it behind curtains and cupboards and pretending it doesn't exist) and as an unjustified burden on business owners who will have to redesign everything to play along. How about neither, and next year we start over with a bit more common sense? Is that on the poll?
Rep. Hughes, you have taken an original proposal and listened to the concerns people had (central database, to be exact) and presented a very rational, even-handed piece of legislation that I believe legitimately addresses the issue at hand: underage access to alcohol.
Your proposal is to be commended, and I hope the Legislature will seriously consider it. You free up the business of dealing in a legal product while making it more difficult for minors to obtain a product that is not legal for them to use. Bravo.
I wish the same could be said for the illogical piece of legislation being put forth by Sen. Valentine. Where, sir, does the state of Utah, in the middle of a financial crisis, get the money to help hundreds of restaurants across the state remodel? Where, sir, did you get the idea that putting liquor "out of sight" would do anything but make this state look even more foolish?
Sen. Valentine, with all due respect, you don't get it. Hiding booze is just going to increase the curiosity factor for our youth and create more problems down the road. Please take a lesson from your colleague in the House, Rep. Hughes, and get a clue. And when you discover that your proposal is not in line with what the residents of the state of Utah want, please share that knowledge with men like Sen. Waddoups, who also is extremely out of touch with the people of this state on the alcohol issue.
Thank you, Rep. Hughes, you give this voting resident hope that there are some rational representatives in this state.
Both bills smack of nanny statism.
First, Rep. Hughes's bill. What business is it of the state if I, as a parent over the age of 21, decides to go out to dinner with my family and CHOOSE to sit in the bar area, where my 15 year old may (or may not) see people drinking a beer with dinner. It is my job as a parent to teach said child about the dangers of alcohol consumption...
And Sen. Valentine - do you really think that hiding the preparation of alcoholic beverages is going to prevent people from drinking or over-imbibing? To put it bluntly - did you learn NOTHING from Prohibition? That will make it all the more enticing!
I agree with stepping up enforcement of fake id's. That is a common sense no brainer - as is increasing the punishment for drunk driving and increasing education about the dangers of alcohol consumption. But to hide it and pretend it does not exist is foolish beyond belief!
LL
LL,
Welcome to THE nanny state.
Whatever weaknesses may be found in Rep. Hughes' bill it is a major step in the right direction. I take great comfort in the idea that the ID information will not be stored in a central database and that it will not be stored for more than a week.
I don't drink, so to some degree none of this legislation affects me directly, but Sen. Valentines bill looks not only like nanny-statism, but also like stick-you-head-in-the-sand logic. Pretending that something doesn't exist (alcoholic beverages in this case) is not going to do anything to protect our children.
Senator Valentine's bill also ignores that fact that the far majority of underage drinking takes place inside homes, at parties, and at dorms and apartments. If Sen. Valentine had ever patronized one of these establishments with anyone who appears to be under the age of 40, he'd have seen the strictness with which employees check IDs when someone orders booze.
Do not make this a nanny state, please.
Why can't we have the same liquor laws as Idaho? The private club system and the Zion Curtain definitely need to go, but they are just the tip of a huge iceberg of ridiculous liquor laws in Utah.
Why are there restrictions on the amount and types of alcohol that can be poured into a drink? The majority of drink recipes in any standard bartending guide are illegal to make in a Utah bar. If I'm an adult, why can't I be trusted with a drink made the proper way? Why can't I buy a glass of beer at a bar if the alcohol content is higher than 3.2%, but I can buy as many bottles of that same beer as I want? Why can't I buy a bottle of wine at Costco, or a 6-pack of my favorite beer at a store that isn't run by a government agency?
Idaho doesn't have any of these restrictions, and I'm not aware of any mass carnage in the streets of Boise or Twin Falls.
Step up enforcement and sentencing of drunk driving laws. Verify ID on anybody who looks younger than a certain age. But, stop the type of ill-conceived restrictive legislation that comes off as moralistic and intentionally intrusive.
Can't we be as rational and reasonable as Idaho?
Supporting SB187 would be out of the question for me. I'm researching HB347, because on the surface, it sounds reasonable. I'm concerned about:
*how the database would be used
*what expense businesses would have to undertake in order to comply
*how out of state licenses would be treated
*whether there are any other items that the bill addresses that aren't listed here
As of yet, I have not voted, because I want the answers to those questions first. I hope to have time to research it, and speak to a friend who owns a private club for his input.
Thanks for posting this, and inviting public comment via the blog!
Senator Valentine's bill will "give restaurants financial assistance to help them restructure the existing layout if it does not fit the requirements of the bill."
Let me get that straight. The State is going to require restaurants to remodel their bars or serving areas so that they can prepare beverages in some back room away from public view, and the citizens of Utah are going to pay for that reconstruction?
How much is that going to cost? Remodeling a restaurant can't be cheap. Where is that money for that going to come from when the state's budget is as tight as it is? Doesn't the state have more important things to do with the people's tax dollars?
What is the purpose of preparing alcoholic beverages away from the view of restaurant patrons? If people are offended by the sight of alcohol, they can choose to dine somewhere else. Isn't that how the free market works? This bill seems like a lot of government intrusion, and government spending, to solve a problem that does not exist.
Jan Gates Would like Rep. Hughes and Sen. Valentine to agree to spend an evening with her family at one of "those restaurants"? Come watch my grand-children visit with us and talk about school, karate lessons, violin concerts, softball games, LDS church functions and many other topics pertinent to our whole family. At the same time several member of the family may have a beer or a glass of wine in their hand. Watch how the grand-children who are all under 18, visit with the family members who do have a drink and don’t even notice. Watch how the responsible adults that do drink never slur their words, never get loud and talk to these grand-children about their accomplishments - with pride and love. Watch my grand-children learn that alcohol exists, people don’t have to get drunk and silly, adults have privileges children do not, and most of all that they can live in this world, make the decision not to drink and still enjoy the company of people who do. A person can make that choice and fit in. I will call your offices to see if we can schedule a date.
The parents of my grand-children who do not drink have opportunities to discuss with their children why they don't. They have teaching moments where they explain the differences not only within our own family but in their community, their current and future friends or co-workers as they get older. They get to explain how there are people who abuse any situation and that's why they are being taught "moderation in all things"; and throughout their lives there will always be the good, the bad and the ugly. If there was a disturbance in the restaurant, which in my 25 years in Utah has never happened, my adult children would take the opportunity to teach their children by pointing out how irresponsible that person is. Maybe even use that moment to discuss what would happen if that person got in a car, maybe get up an offer to put that person in a cab - “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is an adult he will not depart from it.” Aren’t you stealing the opportunity for parents to do that training? The more you try and hide reality from these kids it will back-fire on you. The kids of today are so knowledgeable about life; they are savvy members of society because they are connected to the world in ways adults don’t understand yet. Take away the mystery and give them information and they will respond accordingly; treat them like idiots and they will respond accordingly.
When I was little my mother hid her can's of Dr. Pepper in the back of her clothes closet. That action taught me one thing - if she likes it so much and she hides it then I should too. When she found my stash of Dr. Pepper in my closet, can you image the absurd conversation that we had. Maybe if she'd just told me then what she told me when I was 30 I wouldn't have been so hell bent on drinking Dr. Pepper. She just thought I didn't need the caffeine ~ she couldn't keep up with me as it was. Dr. Pepper is still my drink of choice. Millions are spent on advertising focused on parents talking to their children about drugs, sex, smoking and alcohol. Well, if that’s what you want them to do, why should you step in and remove all the opportunities that a parent could use to have that conversation with their kids? Do not steal our “free-agency”.
Think about this long and hard because there will be unintended consequences of your actions. When you create so much mystery, allure and desire for an object, you really create a reason for the kids to try it, but you taught them it must be in secret. Do you really want them up in the canyons?
Eliminating the childish “private club” shield is a great start; but taking my tax dollars to rebuild restaurants, the answer is no. Can we go back and talk about the rest with some common sense. I could give you the names of about 30 people who would be happy to sit in a room and visit with you about this issue. Just normal, calm people who have experience.
Thank you Rep. Hughes. The time has come for HB347…a very courageous effort on your part. Regarding SB187...it’ nonsense. I'd much rather see some money go back to the educational campaign to curb under-age drinking. Education works. Superficial barriers are a waste of time and money.
I want to know the financial ramifications of the bills.
187 says it will have financial provisions for current bar/restaurant type establishments to remodel so patrons can't see drinks being mixed... How many Child Protection Caseworkers will lose their jobs so people can't see drinks mixed? Oh yeah, the same legislature proposed over 100 should be fired. Nice to know children not seeing alcohol is more important than protecting children from abuse and preserving families.
347, on the other hand, could ACTUALLY decrease the number of underage drinkers able to obtain beverages in the first place, which seems like the whole point, doesn't it? I would like to know how the database would be used / managed. I read somewhere that MADD was concerned that the database would prevent us from tracking drinkers as well. Is that like tracking sex offenders? Shouldn't we be tracking people who don't drink RESPONSIBLY?
I'm a lifetime resident of Utah, and i have been working in the restaurant business for the last four years that I have been in school at the University of Utah. I'm all too familiar with Utah's liquor laws and am well aware of how they can affect my job, my income and my criminal record if disobeyed. In the end I feel that our laws aren't necessarialy the worst in the country and I'm happy that we are not a dry state, however I feel that this most recent bill, # 187, sponsored by Senator Valentine is a step in the wrong direction. Less than a year ago restaurant drinking laws made great progress allowing for an aditional .5 ounces of alcohol in a single liquor beverage for the sake of helping tourists not get the impression that it is "difficult to get a drink in Utah." Requiring alcohol to be stored in a place that is not visible to the customers only goes to enhance the notion that it is difficult to get a drink here. If I went to a steakhouse for example at any place in the country and didn't see beer advertisements near the bar and bottles of wine to choose to go with my steak, then I would assume there was no bar, no liquor served and would think poorly about any state who made a law that infringes on my basic civil liberties and the right of any business to advertise the products which they sell. Furthermore, even if i was still able to order wine if this bill is passed, the entire wine service would be affected to the extent that i would be unable to bring a bottle of wine to the table and open it with proper etiquite. I know many winos who would simply eat a meal without pairing it with a good wine rather than deal with the bottle being improperly served. Furthermore, in our struggling economy and crippled food service industry, alcohol sales make up not only the largest profit margin of any product offered in a restaurant, but are a quintessential part of ensuring that our tourism industry stays strong and effective. Everybody knows that our local economy is supported by two main aspects of tourism, the ski industry and conventions. As these laws, if passed, become more known around the country more and more people will simply choose places like Las Vegas for conventions and resorts in Colorado for skiing. removing a necessary support for the local economy. Additionally, the notion that hiding drinks in restaurants shelters our children from the temptation to drink is utterly ridiculous. Hiding things from children only goes to drive curiosity and in the end enhances their desire to try something they shouldnt be doing in the first place. Ask any 16 year kid not to do something and whatever you ask them not to do immediately becomes the focus of their curiosity, asking themselves why not. In conclusion i feel that the money spent in debating this bill and remodeling every restaraunt across the Wasatch front would be better invested in programs to increase awareness of the dangers of alcohol; Liver disease, DUI's , car accidents, accidental death by overdose or hitting somebody with your car while intoxicated. If we can better educate our youth in a way that they know what to expect when they are let out into the real world is the best and only way that we can ensure that alcohol is either avoided or used responsibly. Shutting the world out and hiding alcohol will only serve to increase overconsumption problems, and will provide an unnecessary roadblock in the way of already struggling businesses.
Jan Gates is back with a question. Isn't child obesity on the list of things hurting our children in multitudes of ways? Or aren't we supposed to worry about that since the ramification of bad food decisions as a child won't really destroy their lives until later in life. When will I see the candy aisle in the grocery store redesigned so that the children can't see the candy? When will the bakery stores be told to cover up those tables and paint the display cases with those cakes, cookies and donuts with thousand calories in every bite? Those evil sweets are right there in the open, inviting these kids to partake. How can a parent even dare to take their children with them to the store?
I guess while you are spending my tax dollars to protect the kids from seeing the alcohol in the restaurant, you need to allocate millions more to cover up the boxes of sugared cereals, the cookie aisle needs to be its own area where only adults can shop. Kids can't be trusted not to stick their hands in the bag of cookies or the candy their parent put in the cart, they might turn their heads to grab a jar of peanut butter and in that split second, eat one. If we don't get this taken care of soon, there won't be an America left. This generation will have died from health complications and there won’t be anyone working to fund Social Security. As I type this I'm starting to shake as I realize that these innocent children can see the soda pop in the refrigerated aisle and the case aisle; bombarding them twice with the temptation of all that sugar and caffeine. After all, a parent can't be trusted to tell their child they can't have those either.
Oh my goodness, I just realized that you need to ask the clothing stores to hide those bikinis behind a curtain as well, these young boys will see that bathing suit and start thinking of girls on the beach and who knows what might happen. You have got to get a bill passed to eliminate bras and panties from the aisles at the department store. I can’t take my grandson into the store without worrying he might grab one off the hanger and…touch it!
While you are allocating funds for renovations it’s time to level every grade school playground. Accidents happen on these playgrounds every year causing broken bones and cuts and bruises. This can’t continue.
Maybe the solution is that each child should leave the hospital after they are born with a box to protect them from everything in this world that they might see. But then can you really trust those parents not to let the child out of that box until they are 18? Since the prevailing religious theology on the hill is LDS, maybe they only have to stay in the box until they are 8. Absolutely no temptations allowed until they come out of that box. If you believe those children “chose” their parents, then you have to believe those children have the right to work through that package of challenges and earn their rewards. Oh darn, it’s that “free agency” thing again. That always seems to ruin my theory.
Post a Comment
<< Home