RealGM

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11838528

Utah could see its most sweeping liquor reform in years, including doing away with private clubs and dismantling the so-called Zion Curtain under a deal that is on the verge of approval by negotiators.

"It's not my favorite solution at this point," said Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, among the most strident anti-alcohol senators. But it is one that he expects he will be able to live with.

Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, who was one of the negotiators, said a deal is close.

"I'm hoping tomorrow we can have it nailed down," he said Wednesday evening.

Excellent. Finally letting business owners control their business and adults mind their own business. Fight law breakers, not adults!

Representatives of the House, the Senate, bar owners, restaurants, the governor's office and the LDS Church hammered out the framework during intense closed-door negotiations this week.

lds church? so much for separation of church and state.

Exactly.

Im not a drinker, but I guess its about time this happened.

And as far as church and state goes....well, maybe we ought not go off on that tangent since this isnt a political debate forum.

This is an OT topic, and it isn't detracting from the other threads. It is 100% about church an state separation. Even in other conservative states like Mississippi there is not a unified religious group with big time lawyers and marketing departments and unyielding control over a large group of legislators. Without a single demographic change this would be a perfect state to live in if that corporate religion stayed out of the capital building. Not in the values of the voters, but physically and in an official capacity.

xstockholmsyndromex wrote:Im not a drinker, but I guess its about time this happened.

And as far as church and state goes....well, maybe we ought not go off on that tangent since this isnt a political debate forum.

ya, there shouldnt even be a debate about church and state, this is not 19th century.

Turco, you need to visit Utah and see a Jazz game. Just so you can really see what it's like. It's not like Mississippi or Alabama. Maybe more like Beirut and Rome and Portland.

DelaneyRudd wrote:This is an OT topic, and it isn't detracting from the other threads. It is 100% about church an state separation. Even in other conservative states like Mississippi there is not a unified religious group with big time lawyers and marketing departments and unyielding control over a large group of legislators. Without a single demographic change this would be a perfect state to live in if that corporate religion stayed out of the capital building. Not in the values of the voters, but physically and in an official capacity.

Funny thing is, EVERY other large private interest group has just as much opportunity to interject their values and opinions into legislation that they feel strongly about, yet people only complain about the LDS church's involvement in the political process. Guess what....ITS THEIR RIGHT...its your right, its my right. Dont blame them for exercising their right to have their voice and opinions heard. The Church is the largest organization in the state, and they have involvement in numerous aspects of the state, that extend past the "spiritual" aspect of the church's mission. The church's for profit arms pay enough taxes and contribute so much to the economy of the state that it's not unprecidented for the state leadership to meet with them.

As far as church and state goes.....there is nothing that states that church's cant interject their opinions into matters of government. Unfortunately, too many people have a complete misunderstanding of the doctrine of "church/state". Show me where in the Constitution that it states anything about seperation of church and state??? It says that there will be no state sponsored religion, but no where does it state that religious organizations can have no voice in the political process......especially on legislation that they deem to be morally relevant.

Honestly, if someone could have LEGALLY challenged the church on their involvement in the political process, then they would have a long time ago. This is an argument that has been argued time and time again, and amazingly enough....none of the liberal attorneys have ever been able to challenge the church and be successful, because the church knows what rights they have and you cant fault them for excercising those rights. IF you disagree, then maybe you can file the next law suit against them? Good luck with that!

What part of the LDS stance do you disagree with here? Are you in favor of overconsumption of alchohol? Are you in favor of drunk driving? Or even impaired driving? Or you in favor of underage drinking? I would think a "REASONABLE" person would side with the LDS church on this issue. It is clearly in society's best interests to minimize each of those three things. And by society I include everyone regardless of religious preference. I also think a "REASONABLE" person would try to help reduce each of these things (alchohol abuse, impaired driving, and underage drinking). A "REASONABLE" person would be grateful such an influential group was willing to help find ways to fight these things. Feel free to disagree with a particular method of combatting alchohol abuse, but perhaps if you worked together with us on this one we could find a win-win solution. Don't we all have the same goal on this one?

They invited legislators (the ones voting on the laws), Restarant and club owners (the ones whos businesses are affected directly), the Governors office (the ones signing the bill) and a freaking religion. It's like that song on Sesame Street, "One of these things are not like the others, one of these things doesn't belong!" What does a religion have to do with laws about how to run a bar? They are a RELIGION! Not public safety experts. Not doctors. Not law enforcement. Their goal is to get people to heaven (supposedly). Their view is that this is a moral issue, not a matter of public safety or health. OK, maybe it's their right to lobby as much as any lobbyist. It's the legislators who are at fault for inviting a group with ZERO reason to be in that CLOSED DOOR meeting to have unreasonable input.

And here is the part of the LDS stance that I disagree with: I am a degenerate person with fewer rights than them because I don't believe in their religion.

DelaneyRudd wrote:Turco, you need to visit Utah and see a Jazz game. Just so you can really see what it's like. It's not like Mississippi or Alabama. Maybe more like Beirut and Rome and Portland.

i can relate to the problems with overzealous religious congregations, but, i hold united states(or western world in general) to higher standard than others.

DelaneyRudd wrote:And here is the part of the LDS stance that I disagree with: I am a degenerate person with fewer rights than them because I don't believe in their religion.

Can you show me a link where the LDS Church and its leaders have come out and said that??? Because every six months when General Conference comes around, I think they pretty much ALWAYS come out to the members and tell them to respect others that aren't of our religion and to not treat them as a second class citizen. Just because certain "members" of the church may act that way, doesn't mean that the "CHURCH" as a whole believes that or even promotes that. Im LDS and I have issues with the way that many of the members of the church act, but I doubt you will ever find any official Church doctrine that supports the claim you just made about the "church's stance regarding non-members".

Anyways....Ive voiced my opinion on this and Im done. Im not hear to argue politics and religion....im here to TALK JAZZ BASKETBALL!! I think thats one thing we can all agree on.

xstockholmsyndromex wrote: I would think a "REASONABLE" person would side with the LDS church on this issue. It is clearly in society's best interests to minimize each of those three things. And by society I include everyone regardless of religious preference. I also think a "REASONABLE" person would try to help reduce each of these things (alchohol abuse, impaired driving, and underage drinking).?

And what does charging people a stupid membership fee have to do with any of those issues? State run liquor stores and stupid cards that you have to carry in your wallet do nothing to stop someone from getting completely drunk. Underage drinking also has nothing to do with private memberships. Underage kids getting into a bar is completely irrelevant to having to purchase a membership or not.

xstockholmsyndromex wrote:What part of the LDS stance do you disagree with here? Are you in favor of overconsumption of alchohol? Are you in favor of drunk driving? Or even impaired driving? Or you in favor of underage drinking? I would think a "REASONABLE" person would side with the LDS church on this issue. It is clearly in society's best interests to minimize each of those three things. And by society I include everyone regardless of religious preference. I also think a "REASONABLE" person would try to help reduce each of these things (alchohol abuse, impaired driving, and underage drinking). A "REASONABLE" person would be grateful such an influential group was willing to help find ways to fight these things. Feel free to disagree with a particular method of combatting alchohol abuse, but perhaps if you worked together with us on this one we could find a win-win solution. Don't we all have the same goal on this one?

it is not really about what lds stands on this issue but it is allowing a religious influence on legislative decisions. it may or it may not lead to slippery slope to bigger issues but it is wrong to take a chance on it, no matter how good their intentions are for this issue.

also, i don't see any atheist group or any other belief group invited to chime in on the issue, if it is ok to involve church into this why not get all the belief groups involved? since that is impossible, it is wrong to let lds into it as well.

Actions speak louder than words. The legislative stance is to restrict access for law abiding adults.

But anyways, in regards to the public safety issues there needs to be more emphasis on systems that restrict underage drinking and drunk driving.

For underage drinking they should require scanning drivers licenses to prevent fake IDs. They should not keep the information of who visits bars though. That was on the legislative table but is a huge invasion of rights.

For drunk driving there should be more emphaisis on breath interlock systems for offenders. There should also be a drivers license that precludes people with multiple drunk driving offenses from being served at state licensed bars. In Minnesota the drivers license is a different color. Under this system every one gets carded, no guessing. The problem is out of state licenses, but the penalties can be stiffened for fraudsters.

its about time!

DelaneyRudd wrote:Actions speak louder than words. The legislative stance is to restrict access for law abiding adults.

But anyways, in regards to the public safety issues there needs to be more emphasis on systems that restrict underage drinking and drunk driving.

For underage drinking they should require scanning drivers licenses to prevent fake IDs. They should not keep the information of who visits bars though. That was on the legislative table but is a huge invasion of rights.

For drunk driving there should be more emphaisis on breath interlock systems for offenders. There should also be a drivers license that precludes people with multiple drunk driving offenses from being served at state licensed bars. In Minnesota the drivers license is a different color. Under this system every one gets carded, no guessing. The problem is out of state licenses, but the penalties can be stiffened for fraudsters.

You really think that if it gets to the point where you have to scan your license to get into a bar that the information won't be used to "track" you. That's the biggest slap in the face to our rights as a citizen as I've heard. I don't have a problem with a lawmaker being LDS, but when you invite members of the church who are not legislators to help make laws that is a clear violation of church and state. I bet about 90% of the Utah legislature is LDS regardless, but you cannot legislate morality, period the end.

As far as the scanning of licenses I for one think that Big Brother is already watching over enough. This idea of scanning your licenses when you drive through an intersection or to track spending habits and such is another way for the government to invade your privacy. I for one would rather pay the $5 dollar membership fee then have someone scan my license, invade my privacy and turn me into a glorified lab rat.

There is already a leap o faith in any card you have scanned anywhere. I am saying the business is in control of the machine and info. There just happens to be a part of the bar code that is your birthday and one that is a yes or no for serving (repeat DUI flag).

DelaneyRudd wrote:Actions speak louder than words. The legislative stance is to restrict access for law abiding adults.

Do you know why the Private Club Law was originally enacted??? It was started originally to allow smoking in bars and clubs. Utah has a law prohibiting smoking in any PUBLIC place. That would have included bars and clubs, had they not privatized. There were reasons as well relating to alcohol, but the original legislation came around because of the smoking laws. Now the laws ban smoking in bars and clubs, so in reality the need to the Private Club Law is now a moot point.

I agree that there needs to be more done to help combat the problem of underage drinking and DUI;s, but there already is a lot being done...unfortunately with the low numbers of law enforcement officers in this state, many times problems such as this are combated in a reactive manner, instead of a proactive manner. Scanning licenses would be nice and all, but the new Utah Drivers License actually has numerous fail stops that make creating a "good" Fake ID nearly impossible for anyone who isn't a professional forger. I do like the idea of having something on their ID that idenitifies them as an alcohol restricted person.(That information does show up to Law Enforcement when a license check is done, but I think it should be that way for places that serve/sell alcohol).

Interlock devices are great, but they can be beat. How easy is it for someone to have someone else "bypass" the interlock for you. Problem is there is not a lot of follow-up by the courts when it comes to alcohol related offenses....thats whey there are so many repeat offenders. There needs to be stiffer penalties and jail sentences for DUI's, even on first time offenders. I rarely see DUI offenders sentenced to any jail time, until the 5th and 6th offense. Maybe if a DUI was charged as an offense higher than a freaking Class B Misdemeanor, then that might help as well....but in the end that is a reactive measure. Unfortunately there arent too many proactive measures that arent already in affect. I think more court mandated counseling, regular/suprise UA's, and stiffer probation penalties would also help curtail the repeat offenders.