2 bars per block rule should it stay or go (population, snow)
Salt Lake City areaSalt Lake County - Davis County - Weber County
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....................... Selling liquor isn't like selling groceries and even grocery stores are subject to zoning regulations because of parking and issues with crowds. Selling liquor involves certain inherent externalities that impose costs on society at large.
............................
So true. I would never want a bar OR a gorcery to open near my house. I couldn't take the noise and the parking problems. I don't like the idea of opening up neighborhoods to "neighborhood bars" or taverns or whatever they're calling them to float the idea. People buy houses expecting certain factors to remain the same, i.e., the mix of commercial and residential that already exists.
Honestly, who goes to Utah to be seen in a trendy bar? We all drink alone in the closet so our neighbors won't find out, don't we?
Seriously though, leave the law as it is.
There cannot be any regulations defining a "upscale" establishment (which would be OK to live by) from a "dive bar" (which usually involves lots of noise, fights, gunshots, property crime and strange people pissing in the gutter).
My experience is the majority of bars in this state fall under the second definition. We don't need any more of those places and there isn't a great market for nice places.
Hey guys..I don't live there but I just wanted to say.. I have seen the bar thing in debate here in pittsburgh. The only thing you get with more bars are more problems. People spewing liquids in the streets, loud activity late at night, parking issues, cars getting dinged/broken into, ciggarette butts everywhere outside the bars, people get jacked because the criminals know its easy to mug a drunk..They just seem like garbarge magnets. The people that own large buildings and rentals in my current area have had to bust thier butt to get some bars shut down because it was affecting renting. No one wants to live by a bar and it trickles down the whole street. Not just the area right around the building.
there should be as many bars as the community supports. Meaning, if you open 100 bars and enough people frequent them, then they should all stay. If you open 100 and 50 go out of business b/c not enough people go to them, well then there should be 50 bars.
The arbitrary license thing is ridiculous. Whatever the economic market/demand can support is what there should be.
I am not an opponent of liberalizing Utah's liquor laws. I will say that I think DABC ought to issue more licenses. Still I reject the libertarian approach you advocate here. Selling liquor isn't like selling groceries and even grocery stores are subject to zoning regulations because of parking and issues with crowds. Selling liquor involves certain inherent externalities that impose costs on society at large.
While most drinkers are pretty responsible there is a segment of that population which is not. Regulations which limit the number of bars and restrict their locations help curb activities like drunk driving. Another often unspoken issue is that while most drinkers are not alcoholics, bars always end up serving liquor to alcoholics and thereby facilitating alcoholism.
Even without the problems I list above, I'm not a huge fan of bars anyway. The prices charged for alcoholic drinks in a bar are ridiculously high. Its a good way to take money from a segment of the population which is often young and naive and thinks it needs the society and camraderie that a bar or club provides. I see what bars do as exploiting a vulnerable segment of the population.
All states regulate the liquor trade and all states should.
I find it amusing that so many "conservatives" don't want the government meddling or in control of their health care, but they don't mind the government controlling a significant segment of retail sales. What happened to market capitalism?
All states need to regulate WHO buys alcohol (adults, preferably 18+ [if your country considers you mature enough to make the decision to join the Army and potentially die for your country, your country should consider you mature enough to make the decision to have a beer]), but states do NOT need to regulate HOW those adults buy alcohol. There are much more dangerous substances (as far as judgment/driving impairment) available---without regulation---over the counter at your local pharmacy. Why the double standard with liquor? It's nonsensical and insulting.
I find it amusing that so many "conservatives" don't want the government meddling or in control of their health care, but they don't mind the government controlling a significant segment of retail sales.
.................................................. ...............................................
I assume this is directed at me. If so, I should point out that: 1. I voted for Obama; and 2. I favor healthcare reform.
What happened to market capitalism?
.................................................. ...............................................
Capitalism is a useful economic system that can do much good. However, I am not a proponent of laisse faire capitalism. The market can't solve all problems and the recent financial crisis demonstrates how indispensable government regulation is in some areas. I find the true "Ayn Rand Libertarians" to be simple-minded and generally ignorant of history. We've never had laisse faire here and we never will for good reasons.
.................................................. .................................................
All states need to regulate WHO buys alcohol (adults, preferably 18+ [if your country considers you mature enough to make the decision to join the Army and potentially die for your country, your country should consider you mature enough to make the decision to have a beer]),
.................................................. .................................................
So two wrongs make a right? lol. Look, you could make the same argument about lots of activities. You could say if 18 year olds are old enough to join the army it ought to be legal for them to buy Methamphetamines, angel dust, narcotics, etc. Society draws bright lines in some areas. Is there some hypocrisy involved? Maybe. Probably always will be.
.................................................. .................................................
but states do NOT need to regulate HOW those adults buy alcohol. There are much more dangerous substances (as far as judgment/driving impairment) available---without regulation---over the counter at your local pharmacy. Why the double standard with liquor? It's nonsensical and insulting.
What are you referring to as being unregulated and over the counter? Stuff that can be made into Meth? Narcotic medications are strictly regulated and cannot be given without a prescription. There is a great deal more control over these than there is over someone going to a bar and getting a drink.
State laws need to strike a balance between allowing reasonable consumption of alcohol by responsible drinkers and discouraging practices that lead to drunk driving, the serving of minors, and making those who are drunk even more intoxicated. The concept of limiting the number of outlets that one can purchase liquor by the drink is simply a means to that end. Utah could probably strike a better balance, but the general concept of liquor regulation in this state is correct.
I assume this is directed at me. If so, I should point out that: 1. I voted for Obama; and 2. I favor healthcare reform.
You assume wrong. Merely a general observation about conservatives. I didn't have a clue as to your personal political ideologies, and don't really care to know.
State laws need to strike a balance between allowing reasonable consumption of alcohol by responsible drinkers and discouraging practices that lead to drunk driving, the serving of minors, and making those who are drunk even more intoxicated. The concept of limiting the number of outlets that one can purchase liquor by the drink is simply a means to that end. Utah could probably strike a better balance, but the general concept of liquor regulation in this state is correct.
Serving minors and serving anyone who is intoxicated is already illegal in Utah. In fact, serving someone to the point of intoxication is illegal. I'm a bartender and both these laws are well enforced.
Limiting the number of outlets does absolutely nothing to prevent a person who has decided to get drunk from getting drunk. It quite actually causes people to have to travel FURTHER to get to another bar. I'm not being sarcastic or exaggerating here. People who want to get a drink will go get a drink somehow. It would be a lot safer if, once I cut someone off (as I often do), they could walk a couple storefronts down and try to get another drink (I say try because a good bartender will see that they are already intoxicated and will not serve them, as required by law).
Instead, because of what you advocate (the limiting of outlets to fewer per block), this cut-off person from my bar has to travel much further to get that drink, and believe me, he will.
We offer to call cabs, we encourage patrons to stay and drink water, eat something, we even call the police if necessary. But we cannot legally prevent a person from leaving, and by the time the police arrive in such cases, the person has often driven away to find another bar that WILL serve him. You really think that's a reasonable means when in other cities the person can just walk over to the next bar on the block or around the corner, where the police we've called can easily find him?
Serving minors and serving anyone who is intoxicated is already illegal in Utah. In fact, serving someone to the point of intoxication is illegal. I'm a bartender and both these laws are well enforced.
Limiting the number of outlets does absolutely nothing to prevent a person who has decided to get drunk from getting drunk. It quite actually causes people to have to travel FURTHER to get to another bar. I'm not being sarcastic or exaggerating here. People who want to get a drink will go get a drink somehow. It would be a lot safer if, once I cut someone off (as I often do), they could walk a couple storefronts down and try to get another drink (I say try because a good bartender will see that they are already intoxicated and will not serve them, as required by law).
Instead, because of what you advocate (the limiting of outlets to fewer per block), this cut-off person from my bar has to travel much further to get that drink, and believe me, he will.
We offer to call cabs, we encourage patrons to stay and drink water, eat something, we even call the police if necessary. But we cannot legally prevent a person from leaving, and by the time the police arrive in such cases, the person has often driven away to find another bar that WILL serve him. You really think that's a reasonable means when in other cities the person can just walk over to the next bar on the block or around the corner, where the police we've called can easily find him?
What I really think is that statistics don't lie. Utah has the lowest rate of drunk driving in the nation. Both religious values and strict state laws are the reason why. Making liquor less available seems to reduce alcohol-related problems.
What I really think is that statistics don't lie. Utah has the lowest rate of drunk driving in the nation. Both religious values and strict state laws are the reason why. Making liquor less available seems to reduce alcohol-related problems.
Actually, statistics do lie. Depending on who commissioned a study, what their objectives and biases were, and how they manipulate the data, they can get almost any answer they want.
And even if you want to go by statistics, if you do the numbers per capita, taking into account a smaller alcohol-consuming population, Utah is dead-on average with the country for drunk driving. The report you cited references the percentage of "adult drivers" who have admitted to driving after having a drink. When you're looking at all drivers, if 40% of your control population doesn't drink to begin with, then OF COURSE you're going to have fewer drunk drivers because you started with fewer possible drinking drivers to begin with.
Actually, statistics do lie. Depending on who commissioned a study, what their objectives and biases were, and how they manipulate the data, they can get almost any answer they want.
And even if you want to go by statistics, if you do the numbers per capita, taking into account a smaller alcohol-consuming population, Utah is dead-on average with the country for drunk driving. The report you cited references the percentage of "adult drivers" who have admitted to driving after having a drink. When you're looking at all drivers, if 40% of your control population doesn't drink to begin with, then OF COURSE you're going to have fewer drunk drivers because you started with fewer possible drinking drivers to begin with.
In short, the laws have nothing to do with it.
.................................................. ..............................................
Its really not that simple. I think you'd find in Utah even among the drinking population that per capita useage of alcohol is less than in many other places. I'd argue that this is largely a function of 'availability". The reason that 3.2 beer was mandated here was because it was thought that someone would have to drink "that much more" in order to become intoxicated.
I guess you are suggesting there is a hard bright line between the drinking and non-drinking population that is based solely on religion. I think you also have a percentage of people who choose not to drink (or drink in smaller amounts) because of the limitations of the bar scene here in Utah. I suspect alot of others do what I did in my younger years. My buddies and I would buy our liquor in a state store and go home and drink it there. I think that's the cheapest safest way for someone to drink--providing they don't go for a drive right afterwards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
