Recently, a friend asked me to accompany him on a trip to St. George. Being ever-interested in travel, I accepted. My first priority after accepting, of course, was to check out the nightlife and party scene.
After doing so, I promptly rescinded my offer. St. George is a fine example of a city crippled by Utah’s liquor laws. The city, with a population of 72,718 in 2007, only has nine full liquor licenses, most of which are located in hotels8212;not bars or private clubs, according to the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Last week, Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, said he is concerned with the increase in demands for liquor licenses. As a Republican member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with a degree from BYU, Valentine obviously has little to no insight into the consumption of alcohol. A shining example of this lack of insight is that one of his principal concerns is an increase in underage drinking if liquor license limitations are repealed. This concern remains paramount in his mind, even though he presented no strong evidence to support it.
There are several reasons why more restaurants and bars would want to gain a liquor license at this point. A harsh economic climate makes selling more products appealing. The hope that Utah might be easing up on its arcane liquor regulations, brought on by former Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., likely gave restaurants and bars false hope of gaining a license.
Regardless of why people want a license, the fear that an increase in the number of licenses would increase drinking problems is irrelevant. This is because they are not going to have the opportunity to get the license in the first place. In Utah, liquor licenses are based on population. On March 19, Senate Bill 211, after three substitutions, was finally signed into law. Along with further muddling all other liquor laws, it decreased the number of licenses granted per population from one per 7,300 to one per 7,850 people. Not surprisingly, this bill was sponsored by another LDS Republican and BYU graduate from Provo.
But does any of this really matter? People are not going to drive drunk simply because they can purchase a gin and tonic at Chili’s instead of a beer. My extensive knowledge of underage drinking has taught me that very few underage drinkers go to T.G.I. Friday’s to get smashed.
So what we have here is another commitment from Capitol Hill to not consider any improvement in regards to liquor laws. Valentine’s statements were unnecessary as well, because Gov. Gary Herbert has already said he will veto any liquor legislation that crosses his desk until next year’s election has come to a close.
The Utah State Legislature is not only committed to avoiding positive change, but it has also dedicated itself to making laws more confusing and ultimately amusing. Indeed, S.B. 187, sponsored by Valentine, goes as far as defining different classifications of private clubs for no apparent reason.
This brings us back to St. George. A city that exists as a crossroads between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas should cater to a variety of visitors, many of whom are heading to or from the “City of Sin.” St. George offers mountain biking, hiking and arguably some of the best golfing in Utah. It’s just too bad it has to lose potential business to people who opt to drive the extra two hours for a cocktail. Salt Lake City shouldn’t find itself in a similar situation.
