Behind the Zion Curtain

Behind the Zion Curtain
2 comments, Tuesday, February 4th, 2014, by Kate Ayer, in Opinions

Kate Ayer, staff writer

 

Utah’s Legislature is taking on the liberalization of liquor laws—again. And the LDS Church made it clear—again—that it is strongly opposed to the amendments, which propose increasing the number of liquor licenses, privatizing liquor sales, demolishing the “Zion Curtain” and removing the “intent to dine” requirement.

 

These proposed amendments are on the docket this year mainly due to Utah’s multi-billion-dollar per year tourism industry. Tourists want to drink and to accommodate them the Legislature is considering these changes.

 

That’s all good and well—but what about us local Utahns? These amendments should be passed for us. We want to drink. And we don’t want to cater to the unreasonably restrictive liquor laws currently in place.

 

Recently an assertion was expressed by D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the LDS Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, that approving more liberal liquor laws would cultivate an alcohol culture in Utah. He also noted that Utah has the lowest rate of binge drinking and ranks among the lowest states in DUI arrests. Christofferson continued that there is a possible correlation between those statistics and the state’s current liquor laws.

 

I say Utah has the lowest rate of binge drinking because it also happens to have the highest Mormon population in the country. Mormons don’t drink and that has nothing to do with liquor laws. It has to do with their doctrine, and that doctrine will not change—even if I am able to purchase my wine in a grocery store.

 

Until someone can produce data confirming there is a direct correlation between conservative liquor laws and a low DUI arrest rate, then I’m going to assume that Utah’s low DUI arrest rate also has something to do with a large non-alcohol-consuming population found here.

 

For those of you who don’t know what a “Zion Curtain” is, it’s a 7-foot-2-inch barrier at a restaurant placed between the bar and restaurant patrons. The “Zion Curtain” was put in place to protect diners, mainly children, from seeing alcoholic drinks being prepared.

 

This is the same logic used for the clause preventing wine, liquor and full-strength beer from being sold in grocery stores—people want to protect their families from things they don’t support—and because of that the rest of us can’t purchase wine at the grocery store.

 

That results in all the wine, beer and liquor sold in the state of Utah being sold by the state of Utah. Yes, this means Utah State Liquor Stores are government agencies and there are no private liquor sales in the state at all.

 

Here’s how illogical these argument sound to everyone else, “I am on a gluten free diet. I do not eat gluten, my children do not eat gluten, and we should not be subjected to watching others eat gluten when we are at a restaurant. Also, we should not have to walk into a grocery store where gluten is brazenly sold to those who do eat gluten. Ban private gluten sales, ban gluten sales at the grocery store, and ban gluten from being served in front of my children.”

 

Seems a bit unreasonable, right? I agree.

 

 

 

 

About Kate Ayer

2 comments

  1. Carl
    February 6th, 2014 12:59

    The source of the article was by a student at UVU. It was published on the university’s UVUreview.com page. This writer shows significant bias and makes their stance on the topic very clear and writes in a way that assumes the readers are all in agreement.
    Basically the issue at hand is there is legislation that is being discussed that would amend liquor control laws in Utah. These changes include increasing the number of liquor licenses, privatizing liquor sales, demolishing the “Zion Curtain” and removing the “intent to dine” requirement. The reader makes several assumptions and with little supporting information in on comment,
    “…but what about us local Utahns? These amendments should be passed for us. We want to drink. And we don’t want to cater to the unreasonably restrictive liquor laws currently in place.”
    The writer in only a few sentences implies that all utahns are…

    Reply

  2. Cody Bair
    February 10th, 2014 21:54

    I am thrilled that you wrote this article in the manner of which you did Kate Ayer. One of the scarce common sense articles in the UVU Review. The video the mormon church made was complete bullsh*t, like the rest of their teachings. I particularly liked the comparison to gluten. Thanks for a reasonable voice in the heart of mormondom. Here’s a link to some fact-checking of their video if you haven’t seen it already. http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blog-25-10351-fact-checking-the-lds-churchs-lir-law-video.html

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>