Position Paper of the Utah Hospitality Association  (“UHA”)
on House Bill 347

 

The issue of eliminating the requirement for private club memberships has caused significant contention between a few members of the Legislature, two members of M.A.D.D. vs. the majority of the State’s population, the UHA, the tourism industry, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“DABC”), and the LDS Church.  Notably, what has been left out of the discussion has been the focus upon the shared values and concerns among these groups.  Not one individual or group has testified or adhered to any position that supports the over-consumption of alcohol, the increased availability of alcohol for minors, and the decrease or complete elimination of public safety in regard to public intoxication and drunk driving laws.  It is undisputed that everyone shares the common goals to do whatever possible to reduce the occurrence of these public safety issues.  What remains inexplicable, however, is the opposition’s continuing supposition that the elimination of the private club requirement maintains even a minute connection to such hazards.  Instead, they rely upon unsupported data and emotional rhetoric to arouse alarm and panic.  The UHA promotes the passage of HB 347 after carefully reviewing the following facts, not myths: 

Myth:
Most alcohol is consumed in private clubs. 
Fact:
Only five percent (5%) of alcohol in the State of Utah is consumed in private clubs, according to the DABC, the agency in the state assigned to compile such information.    

 

Myth:
HB 347 will increase availability and access to alcohol.
Fact:
HB 347 requires anyone who appears under the age of thirty (30) to have his or her driver’s license scanned and the information retained for forty-eight (48) hour (unfortunately, the time period was amended in committee on Feb. 23, 2009 to seven calendar days). Despite the UHA’s concerns about retaining any information, presumably, these scanners will detect more underage identifications and therefore actually decrease access to alcohol.  In addition, the Bill does not increase the number of “social on-premise liquor establishments”.  Finally, local fire ordinances cannot modify the number of people  allowed in these establishments.

 

Myth:
HB 347 creates a more favorable attitude towards alcohol use.

 

Fact:
Alcohol activist groups have a difficult task promoting such ideas, because scientific evidence usually does not support their beliefs and proposals.  As an example, most such groups oppose alcohol beverage ads.  However, decades of research by governments, health agencies, and universities show that such ads have no effect on consumption, but only increase the market share of particular brands at the expense of its competitors, who lose market share (much like any other advertising).  Again, activists can demonstrate no nexus between HB 347 and “favorable attitudes toward alcohol use” resulting from the simple elimination of paper work.

 

Myth:
HB 347 removes all barriers to bar hopping, thereby accommodating high-risk binge drinkers and increasing drunk driving trips.
Fact:
Once people become comfortable at certain establishments, they stay there. They have no incentive to leave.  Activists exploit the tendency to assume that correlations demonstrate causations.  For example, they make associations between drownings and the consumption of alcohol.  In other words, as one goes up, so does the other.  But one does not cause the other.  The fact is, both increase during hot weather. 

 

Myth:
HB 347 will increase consumption.
Fact:
Activists appeal to emotion rather than to reason or logic.  They present irrelevant facts.  For instance, they report on the proportion of people who believe that alcohol ads cause young people to drink, but the fact that large number of people believe in things that do not exist does not make a fact true. 

 

Myth:
HB 347 will increase the amount of DUIs, causing “death, disaster, and heartache.”  “DUI crashes cost Utahns almost a half billion dollars yearly.”  “Fifteen Thousand (15,000) DUI arrests occur yearly.” 
Fact:
Everyone, including the UHA and other tourism and hospitality groups, bemoan the damages and heartache caused by alcohol ABUSE. Many of us know people who have been affected by such occurrences; HOWEVER, the elimination of paper work does not correlate to alcohol abuse. One UHA member has a close relative who became a paraplegic as the result of a tractor accident on a farm.  But it would be illogical and even disingenuous to pursue a personal agenda to ban all tractors as a result.

A technique routinely used by alcohol activist groups is to present advocacy reports as though they were scientific reports.  Such groups, being political rather than scientific, usually refuse to submit their reports to peer review.  By doing so, their procedures are contrary to the way real science operates.  In peer review, the editor submits the report to a number of peer experts on the particular subject.  Those authorities read the report to determine if its methods, the statistical analysis performed, the logic, and other essential criteria, and approval by the peer experts reduce the chances that the findings are erroneous.  Such peer review is fundamental to science.  Without it, no quality control exists.  Peer review is a fundamental defense against incompetence, pseudo-science, junk science, and dishonesty.  Without peer review, a political report full of erroneous and misleading statistics can be passed off to the public as a scientific report.  That is exactly what most alcohol activist groups do, and as a result, they are not held in high regard by scholars and other researchers.

 

Myth:
HB 347 will increase DUIs and entry of minors into “bars.”
Fact:
M.A.D.D. contradicts its own, earlier statement with this latest position, claiming that “only one percent (1%) [are] arrested per night” and “most minors don’t attempt entry [into clubs] anyway.” 

 

Myth:
HB 347 reduces bar owners’ accountability for causing death or injury due to over serving. 
Fact:
The DRAM Shop Act stays in place.  Police officers will still vigorously enforce DUI laws.  Representative Oda’s bill shares liability by making minors and their parents responsible for the consumption of alcohol by minors.  Finally, HB 347 does not change the civil and criminal responsibilities of the establishments.  In short, the police are still able to do their jobs effectively as they have been trained to investigate any crime.  

 

Myth:
HB 347 “drastically changes the protective social norm that alcohol is an adult product that needs some controls to protect public safety.  Changing the social norm will negatively affect kids.”   
Fact:
Most alcohol activist groups take an approach, based upon the failure to engage the normal peer review process by essentially stating “just trust us.”  As noted previously, HB 347 makes very few changes to the existing DABC Code.  It eliminates the paperwork, thereby increasing safety.  Instead of focusing on explaining and filling out paperwork, the door people can focus on checking for signs of over consumption and underage entry.  The same punishments and directives remain in place.  “Social norm” is an ambiguous term.  Since M.A.D.D. admits most kids “don’t attempt entry anyway,” its argument that such change will “negatively affect kids” is illogical. 

 

Myth:
HB 347 will allow bars to “glamorize alcohol use” in public restaurants where kids dine. 
Fact:
Again, HB 347 does not increase the amount of “bar-like structures,” nor the number of “bar-like structures” in restaurants.  Around the world, alcohol is almost uniformly available in restaurants and visible to all those who enter.  Many groups around the world have learned how to consume alcohol with few problems, such as Europeans.  The success of these groups involves three parts:  (1) beliefs about the substance of alcohol, (2) the act of drinking, and (3) education about drinking.  In other words, the substance of alcohol is seen as neutral.  It is neither a “terrible poison, nor is it a magic substance” that can transform people into something better than they are.  The act of drinking is seen as natural and normal.  While there is little or no pressure to drink, there is also no tolerance for abusive drinking.  Finally, education about alcohol starts early and in the home.  Young people are taught, through their parents’ good example and under their supervision, that if they drink, they must do so moderately and responsibly.  And if they do not consume alcohol, they are taught to respect those who do.
(Henry Hanson, Ph.D., State University of New York, Potsdam,  Underage Drinking.)

 

Myth:
Many lives would be saved if everyone abstained from alcohol.   
Fact:
Some lives would indeed be saved from accidents now caused by intoxication and health problems caused by alcohol abuse.  However, regardless of religious beliefs (which should have no place in this dialogue), it is also an accepted scientific fact that alcohol consumption in moderation is a health benefit.  As a result, many other lives would be lost from increases in coronary heart disease due to the failure to ingest moderate levels of alcohol. (Id.)

In conclusion, no nexus exists between the elimination of the private club requirement and the concerns raised by activists who rely on myths and fabrications to create alarm in the community.  A careful review of HB 347 will show that the same protections, prohibitions, and preservations still exist.  The benefits, however, will allow a major positive change for Utah’s image to occur while still maintaining Utah’s strong dedication to safety, respect for diversity, and moderation.     

 

Lisa A. Marcy