Slashdot Mirror


Utah Mulls a Database of Bar Customers

sundancing alerts us to a political dustup in the state of Utah, which doesn't have bars like the rest of the country does. Instead, "private clubs" require you to fill out an application and pay a fee if you want to have a drink outside the home. While there is pressure to reform this arrangement — one argument is that it's bad for tourism — the head of the state senate recently floated a proposal to create a database of every bar patron's visits. Now Utah's governor has called that idea "almost Orwellian," adding that "it's very difficult to legislate adulthood," and its supporters seem to be backing off. The idea of requiring bar patrons to swipe their drivers licenses as proof of age is still on the table, though.

623 comments

  1. Ob by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 5, Funny

    This idea is absolutely mormonic!

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    1. Re:Ob by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1, Funny

      I always wondered who slipped that second "m" in "moron".

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Ob by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Sloppy Spelling and witting.
      moron without the o = morn
      that rn combination with bad handwritting or right font look like a rn - m so when they rewrote it the following happened

      M O R (then he looses focus and then focuses on the letter) M (focus returns) N
      so we get Mormn
      Then someone points out hey you lost a vowel (well you don't know wich one so lets choose the first)
      Morman

      There you go.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Ob by Atraxen · · Score: 1

      In this context, I guess that makes you a real Moroni!

      --
      Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
    4. Re:Ob by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      In addition I just wanted to add. I am not making fun of their religion or anyones, just letter play with broken though processes.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Ob by Hatta · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah! Get a brain mormans!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Ob by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Now that's funny!

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    7. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Ah. Religious slurs.

      They're not as offensive to some as other kinds of bigoted speech. We can publicly and safely hate religious people in what we write and say: Mormons, Evangelicals, Catholics, Scientologists, Muslims (well, we're a little bit afraid to hate Muslims).

      But if you say anything about race or sexual orientation... it's barbaric and will immediately be condemned as hate speech.

      Here's a clue for you: Utah's governor, who has spoken out against this legislation, is a Mormon. There are plenty of other Mormons in Utah who think that this type of legislation is completely ridiculous and shameful.

      Please keep your generalizing religious epithets to yourself.

    8. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plural is "mormen", you idiot.

    9. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:Ob by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      Jellomizer: Removing the "fun" from "funny".

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    11. Re:Ob by ReallyNiceGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not? Why should we not make fun of religion?
      Want to do anything, anything at all and not get busted? Say: my religion says I must do it...
      It is a "get out of jail" card. If we keep respecting religion as sacred and true, they will never mend.
      We should respect people. People beliefs are fair game, though.

      -1 Troll ... ;)

    12. Re:Ob by gnick · · Score: 0

      Want to do anything, anything at all and not get busted? Say: my religion says I must do it...
      It is a "get out of jail" card...

      Um... Not really. We do draw the line at blowing people up in the name of jihad, marrying little girls, and for some reason smoking ganja. Other than that, I guess it works OK.

      Agreed about making fun of sacred stuff though. Blasphemy is sometimes funny - My typical explanation of communion includes a scene where Zombie Jesus (who has returned after 3 days of death to feast on the brains of the living) gets miracled into wine and crackers so that we may feast upon him as he once feasted upon us. Not totally scripturally accurate, but more fun.

      Seriously, if somebody gets all huffy about somebody cracking a joke about their religion, they must not be that secure in their beliefs.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    13. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I lived in Utah and there's a reason why people there are nationally called "Utahrds" :)

    14. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heresy been very very good to me.

      Altho in my case it was mathamatical heresy.

      (Bought a lottery ticket and it hit for millions.)

    15. Re:Ob by ReallyNiceGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously, if somebody gets all huffy about somebody cracking a joke about their religion, they must not be that secure in their beliefs.

      Well, at the end of the day, most of the believers are not sure at all on what they believe. This is not the question.

      I have a problem with taxes exemption, circumcision of babies (they cannot consent), and all this crap. If we are allowed to make fun of it, maybe people will start to realize how crazy these beliefs are.

      My opinion is that we (the whole secular world) should stop giving religion a high status. They are business, and should have to follow the rules.

    16. Re:Ob by SkyDude · · Score: 1
      It is a bit disconcerting.

      Some years ago, me and a few friends stayed in Park City to ski and the "private club" thing didn't stand in the way of us getting all out drunk. Even got laid. Yes, with a woman and no she wasn't a Mormon.

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    17. Re:Ob by InlawBiker · · Score: 1

      Sign me up!

      Sincerely,

      Heywood Jablowme.

    18. Re:Ob by CynicalTyler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Dude you should try it some time: circumcised is way better. The ladies love it! And I'm glad it happened back when I can't remember it.

    19. Re:Ob by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      It seems like a bad idea until you inspect potential benefits. For example drunk driving might be ascertained by a bar patron's every order being tracked by computer. It might also be quite useful for welfare, child support and employment issues such as a pilot ordering drinks one hour before work or for keeping people on parole away from drinking in bars.

    20. Re:Ob by YttriumOxide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      circumcised is way better .... I'm glad it happened back when I can't remember it.

      So how do you know it's better? The vast majority of men who have been circumcised later in life (late enough to have experienced "pleasures of the flesh" before and after) say that it was way better before. (However, even that's not a conclusive argument, since perhaps the process affects you differently later in life.)

      The ladies love it!

      And THAT depends where you live... in this part of the world, it'd make most girls say something like, "That looks so weird! I didn't know you were Jewish..." (most people in Europe are not circumcised unless they're Jewish)

      And, to reply to your first statement last:

      Dude you should try it some time

      Being an irreversible process, I'd rather not chance it...

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    21. Re:Ob by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      A priest, A rabbi and Micheal Phelps walk into a bar .....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    22. Re:Ob by daMosh · · Score: 1

      Granted, the last time I was in Salt Lake City (Utah) I enjoyed a couple of adult beverages with my bangers and mash at a pub in the downtown area. I believe I had to show an I.D. at the door (silly considering my age and mostly gray hair) but I certainly didn't have to fill out any paperwork... So why would anyone bother to visit a "private club" if the beverage of choice is available elsewhere, without the hassle of registration?

    23. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One part of the Book of Mormon IS called the "Book of Moroni"

    24. Re:Ob by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Circumcision isn't always a religious thing...once upon a time, they decided to "protect" people by doing it automatically at birth. Kinda sucks...I would've rather had the choice.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    25. Re:Ob by ReiDragon · · Score: 1

      http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/f/f/get_a_brain_morans.jpg Stupid Anonymous Coward is stupid.

      This is why people hate the US.

      --
      PouchPC 2.13ghz C2D, 8gb ram, 9800 GT, 1.5tb, Vista Business.
    26. Re:Ob by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Everybody clones the RFID from the local Mormon bishop and goes out an gets stinking.

      Bishop is ex-communicated, new one appointed.

      Repeat...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    27. Re:Ob by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

      > moron without the o = morn

      You must be one of those mrns I hear on TV all the time.

    28. Re:Ob by operagost · · Score: 1

      I have a problem with taxes exemption

      I do, too. Maybe once churches stop accepting exemptions, the government will stop trying to tell congregations what they can say and do in both the churches and in the community. Naahhh...

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    29. Re:Ob by slapys · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I got it done at age 16. It is definitely better after. Also, in the U.S., nobody really cares one way or the other. Both ways are socially accepted. I know this is a topic of debate but I thought I'd add a data point since it's rare to find people who have had it both ways.

    30. Re:Ob by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Why aren't Rostafarians protected under the 1st amendment? It seems that outlawing a sacrament is unconstitutional.

      "Freedom of religion," my ass.

    31. Re:Ob by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      So how do you know it's better?

      It has two distinct advantages, one of which only applies in tropical climates. One, it is easier for an uncircumcised man to catch AIDS than one who is circumcized. Governments are pusing for circumcision in countries with epidemic rates of the disease.

      In tropical climates, uncircumcized men are prone to getting "jungle rot" on their penises. A guy I was stationed with in Thailand when I was in the AF got jungle rot on his dick (it's a fungus, similar but much worse than athelete's foot). The treatment was circumcision, which is very painful when performed on an adult. He had to carry amyl nitrate "poppers" in case he started getting a woody. I was damned glad I'd been done at birth.

      As to how sex feels, if it feels better uncircumcised than I'm glad it was done, I think too much about sex as it is. If it felt even better it would drive me insane.

    32. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any negative comment about race or sexual orientation is an attack on the individual.

      Many/most negative comments about religion are attacks on beliefs/ideas, and not necessarily the individuals who hold those beliefs/ideas.

      Nevertheless, the comment to which you were replying was simply a humourous play on words.

    33. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it would be ridiculous to assume that a majority of people who come together under one set of beliefs would *gasp* share those beliefs.
      It's bad to hate in general, but it's bad to hate black people because they can't choose to be black; their skin color has absolutely no bearing on who they are as a person.

    34. Re:Ob by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Faulty assumptions. My religious beliefs are who I am. They have more impact on my identity than my race or my sexual orientation or anything else.

      I also disagree that most of the attacks on religion are focused only on the beliefs and not the people (having been on the receiving end of some of those attacks).

    35. Re:Ob by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Sorry. It doesn't work like that. I know you're just trying to be funny (mostly) but excommunication doesn't work like that (i.e., not that simple).

    36. Re:Ob by bitrex · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, ever make fun of any Jews besides Jesus? Or do you just like blaspheming down the path of least resistance?

    37. Re:Ob by paving-slab · · Score: 1

      I used to have a Morini. A 3 1/2 Sport. Lovely little bike, but not without it's foibles. The carburettors would fall off and the nipple would pull off the front brake cable.

    38. Re:Ob by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but I think that the 'private club' fee only applies to Utah residents.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    39. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. But then I pretty much make fun of anyone whose life is centered around ancient tribal myths.

    40. Re:Ob by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't really having the drinking habits tracked by bar patron, although it is suggested that when somebody is "bar hopping" and going from one place to another that serves liquor that you can refuse a patron because they are intoxicated based on the volume of their purchases for the evening.

      Where the problem comes is with this bill is that the database is going to store not just where the person has been drinking, but the full itemized receipts of what was purchased by that patron, and tie that information to their vehicle registration where a police officer can call this information up on their laptops (all Utah police officers have them in their squad cars... fairly typical in the USA now and not unique to Utah) and can pull this information up just doing a license plate scan. No warrant, or even notification to the citizen that they've even been searched.

      I just don't think a police officer needs to have itemized billing records for folks who go drinking.... and giving this sort of scrutiny into the lives of ordinary citizens won't stop just for those consuming alcohol. I'm sure law enforcement types would be thrilled to have this level of information available to them, but we shouldn't give up privacy for the sake of helping law enforcement at all times and places.

    41. Re:Ob by Teancum · · Score: 1

      You are wrong.

      The purpose of the "private club" law has nothing to do with bars, but rather to fraternal organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Elks Club, Moose Club, and other "civic" groups that are common place throughout America. Many of these groups (not just in Utah) serve liquor and other "adult beverages" to their club members.

      The point of the private club law was to allow these groups to be able to have that opportunity to serve these beverages to their members, as these clubs generally do add value to society as a whole. The problem comes that the law is incredibly vague about what is defined as a club. There is no legal requirements about membership in terms of this law, nor even a requirement that it must be a non-profit group either.

      As a result of all this, the "private clubs" only require a little bit of money and you to sign the membership form to gain membership. There are even "joint-club" memberships (just like there are multiple VFW clubs across the state) where you can go from one private club to the next with the same membership card.

      So the point of all this is that these "private clubs" are really taking advantage of a loophole in the law. Residency in Utah is not a requirement, but you must be a member (or a guest of a member) in order to be in these clubs even if it really is just a wink at the law.

      BTW, there are taverns and "pubs" that aren't private clubs, but they are significantly more restricted in terms of what they can offer to their patrons. About all they are allowed to serve is watered down 3.2% beer... although there are some microbreweries that kind of fudge this percentage a wee bit. Wine can also be served, but that is a separate license that many communities make nearly impossible to obtain.

      Private clubs are given quite a bit more latitude in terms of what they can serve, which is why both businesses and the patrons (aka "club members") go through the effort of even setting up a club in the first place.

    42. Re:Ob by Teancum · · Score: 1

      There are some pubs and taverns that serve beer and wine to patrons that aren't private clubs. It gets sort of fuzzy about that makes up a private club and what is a typical "tavern", and it can sometimes be hard to even find an ordinary tavern. Most Utah towns try to shut them down through a bunch of other silly laws, but that is on a local basis and not something necessarily as a result of the state-wide laws.

      Salt Lake City is one Utah municipality that isn't quite so anal to get rid of the traditional tavern, which is why you likely were able to find one there. Showing the ID is mostly due to heavy handed law enforcement cracking down on these establishments and very stiff fines to the business owners if they get caught with a minor inside their premises.

    43. Re:Ob by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Religion is a neurological cancer, that strips all sense of logic and reason from a persons mind.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    44. Re:Ob by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      I got it done at age 16. It is definitely better after.

      For you it might be better, for others it might not be.

      I know this is a topic of debate but I thought I'd add a data point since it's rare to find people who have had it both ways.

      And I feel that everyone should have that same opportunity.

    45. Re:Ob by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      One, it is easier for an uncircumcised man to catch AIDS than one who is circumcized. Governments are pusing for circumcision in countries with epidemic rates of the disease.

      This is at best controversial, but the WHO and 3rd world governments are desperate and willing to try anything. Nearly every study done in industrialized countries shows no connection between circumcision and any STD, and the South Africa-Uganda-Kenya set of experiments (what most "circumcision decreases AIDS" claims are based on) had massive methodological problems (more people dropped out of the studies than got AIDS, more contact between medical personnel and the test group than the control group, including the time the test group was recovering from surgery in the exposure time, ending the study early to produce desired results).

      In tropical climates, uncircumcized men are prone to getting "jungle rot" on their penises. ... The treatment was circumcision ...

      Well, a treatment for it, but in the 21st century we have less drastic solutions to (and ways to prevent) problems like that.

      ... which is very painful when performed on an adult.

      Well, breast cancer ends up killing 1% of all people in the world, and we could preform mastectomies on infant girls the way that some doctors preform male circumcisions, which would save them from painful adult mastectomies. It would also be a simple, effective way to save half a million lives a year (no controversy about that!), but I've never met someone who actually suggested that this was a good idea. :)

      As to how sex feels, if it feels better uncircumcised than I'm glad it was done, I think too much about sex as it is. If it felt even better it would drive me insane.

      If you'd been given a choice, you could always have gotten it done later. You body, your choice, and all that freedom stuff.

    46. Re:Ob by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Must not be or Daryl Mc Bride would have been excommunicated, the LDS is a big time Linux user, their genological database is on a mainframe running thousands of instances of Linux and that would have been a big chunk of change at $699.00 an instance to licenses!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    47. Re:Ob by Copid · · Score: 1

      Faulty assumptions. My religious beliefs are who I am. They have more impact on my identity than my race or my sexual orientation or anything else.

      Would it be legitimate for somebody to say the same thing about their political beliefs and take those out of the realm of criticism?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    48. Re:Ob by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      yes, there are a lot of new drugs, but I don't know of any new fungucides that are any better than the old ones. I got athelete's foot and was prescribed a new fungicide, which didn't work nearly as well as an old over the counter drug.

      As to mastectomies, women's breasts are functional, foreskins aren't. An argument using the appendix rather than the breast might be better, except that appendectomies are dangerous while circumcision isn't.

    49. Re:Ob by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      yes, there are a lot of new drugs
      I was thinking less drastic surgery and better preventative treatment.

      ... circumcision isn't [dangerous].
      Unless a screw up leads to your penis being amputated, or damage so extensive that you have to be surgically reconstructed as a girl, or it kills you - all rare, but quite possible. And then there's the [perhaps not technically dangerous] possibility of infection, changes in pain response, undesirable cosmetic outcome, etc.

      As to mastectomies, women's breasts are functional, foreskins aren't.
      Are you saying that providing sexual pleasure isn't a function, or that you believe that the mucous membranes of the penis don't provide sexual pleasure?

      "The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis." - British Journal of Urology, April 2007

  2. Yeah... Ok by dmacleod808 · · Score: 1

    Utah still has(Had) a firing squad as method of execution until not long ago IIRC. Yeah, this is surprising /sarcasm

    --
    There Can Be Only One...
    1. Re:Yeah... Ok by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Utah still has(Had) a firing squad as method of execution until not long ago IIRC

      What's wrong with that? If you believe in the death penalty then I don't see firing squads as being any worse than lethal injection. Hell, I'd actually prefer the firing squad myself -- I'm afraid of needles. If you don't believe in the death penalty then it seems that you shouldn't be limiting your criticism to Utah.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Yeah... Ok by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know it's not manly and tough but...

      Lethal injection is considered humane because no pain is felt.

      Civilized societies have long moved towards executions that are as respectful of life as possible, as opposed to some societies which still publicly rape and stone to death.

      It's the same idea about those who abuse animals end up abusing humans, and lethal injection, which is very nonviolent, is one of the better ways to separate the death penalty from murder.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    3. Re:Yeah... Ok by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lethal injection is considered humane because no pain is felt.

      Says who? If you believe the anti-death penalty crowd it's horrible agonizing pain. I don't really know who to believe as every side has an agenda and we can't exactly ask the people who were executed what it was like. I suspect the reality is probably somewhere in the middle of the 'no pain' and 'worse than being burned alive' arguments.

      I know it's not manly and tough but...

      *shrug*, for me at least it doesn't have anything to do with that. I'd honestly rather be shot than strapped to a table and killed with a needle. A head shot would be even better and probably painless (the brain is destroyed faster than the pain receptors can fire) but I'd still take the shots to the heart over the needle. To each their own I guess....

      Civilized societies have long moved towards executions that are as respectful of life as possible, as opposed to some societies which still publicly rape and stone to death.

      Raping and/or stoning would be cruel and unusual punishment. Being shot isn't, IMHO.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Yeah... Ok by Shajenko42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hell, I'd actually prefer the firing squad myself -- I'm afraid of needles.

      I'm no fan of needles, but I'm also afraid of bullets.

      Oh, and death itself.

    5. Re:Yeah... Ok by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For reasons ill understood by me, the method of lethal injection commonly used in human capital cases is actually pretty nasty. Fuckups that involve some minutes of the injectee screaming and struggling and whatnot are practically routine. I'm not sure why this is so, given that the technique used on domestic animals pretty much Just Works; but it is.

      In the present state, firing squad is probably actually more humane, in terms of intensity and duration of suffering. It is a lot messier, so it looks more barbaric; but anybody who measures humaneness by how queasy the bystanders are is Doing It Wrong.

    6. Re:Yeah... Ok by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      To borrow from Texas...

      "Utah - It's like a whole 'nuther country."

    7. Re:Yeah... Ok by genner · · Score: 1

      I know it's not manly and tough but...

      Lethal injection is considered humane because no pain is felt.

      Civilized societies have long moved towards executions that are as respectful of life as possible, as opposed to some societies which still publicly rape and stone to death.

      It's the same idea about those who abuse animals end up abusing humans, and lethal injection, which is very nonviolent, is one of the better ways to separate the death penalty from murder.

      Several bullets to the head is painless too. Less painful actually. You don't have to feel the needle prick your skin.

    8. Re:Yeah... Ok by digitig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hell, I'd actually prefer the firing squad myself -- I'm afraid of needles.

      But you're not afraid of a volley of bullets flying towards you?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    9. Re:Yeah... Ok by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, whatever. It's a terrible thing to have to execute someone. It shouldn't be something you can support from arms length. It shouldn't be something you hire a professional to do for you, so you can keep your hands clean and remain philosophical about it. If you, as a community, are deciding to execute someone, and you as an individual are supporting the decision, then you should have to confront the consequences, see the blood and pain, and have good reason not to be cavalier about it.

      Societies that have an executioner who takes them into a room where no one can see and makes the person disappear are the barbaric ones, while those societies where the citizens stone the person to death are the civilized ones. It has nothing to do with the pain suffered by the dying, and everything to do with the pain suffered by the living.

      Killing people doesn't make you manly and tough. But hiring someone else to do it for you does makes you cowardly and small.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    10. Re:Yeah... Ok by v1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Lethal injection is considered humane because no pain is felt.

      Civilized societies have long moved towards executions that are as respectful of life as possible, as opposed to some societies which still publicly rape and stone to death.

      Criminals get many of their rights temporarily suspended because they have deprived others of their rights. If you've behaved badly enough to deserve death, society has very little moral obligation left to you.

      I think the criminal view of the death penalty has lost a lot of its "deterrent-factor" over the years, partly due to the slowness of justice (spend 4 yrs on death row etc) and all this effort to make executions more "pleasant". There was a time in the past when a bank robber would make it a point not to shoot their gun for fear of "gettin the chair". Nowadays they'll cap the old lady that's blocking the door on the way out.

      Bring back stoning. It might help.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    11. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      society has very little moral obligation left to you

      Society has the moral obligation to remain on the high ground and not sink to the level of the criminal. Otherwise, we should just go back to killing anyone who does anything we don't like.

    12. Re:Yeah... Ok by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      But you're not afraid of a volley of bullets flying towards you?

      With the bullets it's over before you realize what's happened. If the shooters know what they are doing you'll be dead in less than 30 seconds. With the needle they strap you down to a table and have to find a vein, then start a saline drip, then start the first drug.....

      I do have something of an irrational fear of needles (spent too much time in the hospital as a kid) but even if I didn't I'd still prefer the firing squad. I would take the needle over the gas chamber though.

      Since I've started this morbid discussion let's take it another level: What would you want for your last meal? ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Yeah... Ok by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Totally got distracted from my actual point there.... legislating adulthood is easy. If you're a parent, responsible for the next generation of humanity, tied to the future of mankind, having experienced all those painful changes that come with being responsible for someone elses life, you're an adult. If you haven't experienced this yet, you're not an adult. If you never experience it, you never become an adult, just a wrinkly creepy version of Peter Pan.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    14. Re:Yeah... Ok by billybobbubbasmith · · Score: 1

      looking at it from a programming standpoint, we have laws prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. to me the most important word in there is AND. Both conditions would have to be true for it to be excluded. If we catch a mass murderer who uses a chain saw as his weapon of choice, and take his victims as a sample set, it may be extremely cruel to use a chainsaw to execute him, but it is certainly usual, so it would pass the test as a valid method of punishment

    15. Re:Yeah... Ok by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Society has the moral obligation to remain on the high ground and not sink to the level of the criminal

      Bullshit. Society has a moral obligation to protect the law-abiding members of said society.

      Otherwise, we should just go back to killing anyone who does anything we don't like.

      That was never intended to be the case in the United States:

      nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:Yeah... Ok by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the law can never be wrong, right?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    17. Re:Yeah... Ok by Extremus · · Score: 1

      Maybe the criminals are changing and becoming more violent as the society becomes more individualist. INAP, but really perverse criminals, these that deserves death penalty, do not fear pain. Of course they want do live, but they can simply do not fell pain and can ignore it pretty well. So, the way you kill the person is not at all important. The rest is sadism.

    18. Re:Yeah... Ok by digitig · · Score: 1

      But you're not afraid of a volley of bullets flying towards you?

      With the bullets it's over before you realize what's happened.

      I think I'd notice the firing squad lining up, which would make me pretty nervous.

      Since I've started this morbid discussion let's take it another level: What would you want for your last meal? ;)

      The last ever pigeon on earth, roasted.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    19. Re:Yeah... Ok by mrclisdue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah - the death penalty has always been a deterrent, as proven by the lack of crime in the US.

      All the death penalty has ever really accomplished is to satisfy a lust for revenge. Nothing more.

      cheers,

    20. Re:Yeah... Ok by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Both conditions would have to be true for it to be excluded.

      I'm sorry, but that Boole guy wasn't even born when the bill of rights was ratified. I very much doubt that any of the people who drafted the bill of rights had heard about Boolean logic for that reason, and normal usage of language does not conform to Boolean logic.

      By the same logic, the government could search and seize all it wants, as long as it doesn't do both at the same time.

    21. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civilized societies have long moved towards executions that are as respectful of life as possible

      A lot of people feel that civilized societies do not have have the death penalty.

      societies which still publicly rape and stone to death.

      Publicly rape? I have never heard of a society that has that as lawful punishment.

    22. Re:Yeah... Ok by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the law can never be wrong, right?

      I've never understood the argument that spending the rest of your life in prison for a crime you didn't commit is any better than being killed for a crime you didn't commit. Both are horrible and we need to take steps to ensure that they don't happen -- but I don't buy "the law isn't perfect" as a justification for eliminating the death penalty.

      I've been charged with a crime I didn't commit. Mind you it wasn't a capital offense but it was a felony. The system prevailed for me when a grand jury of my peers looked at the evidence, considered my testimony and refused to indict me. This episode strengthened my confidence in our legal system (while simultaneously weakening my confidence in our law enforcement agencies, but that's another story). There is no other country on this planet where I would want to be as someone wrongfully accused.

      So no, the law isn't perfect and can be wrong. But I still believe in capital punishment. When you've inflicted egregious harm on society, society has the right to put you out of our collective misery after you've been accorded due process of law.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    23. Re:Yeah... Ok by Saerko · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Society has a moral obligation to protect the law-abiding members of said society.

      Yes it does, but once a criminal is incarcerated, that obligation has been fulfilled. Permanently locking someone up is equally effective as killing them, costs less, and oftentimes gives back to the state in the form of labor performed by the inmate. Do your research, and you'll find that the death penalty is just a way for angry people to try soothe their ills through the deaths of others...which in the end, is why we would be sinking to the level of the criminal.

      That was never intended to be the case in the United States:

      nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

      Exactly! DUE PROCESS. Which is why it's so expensive and makes so little sense. In order to fulfill its obligations, the state wastes so many FTEs on the criminal that it becomes inefficient. I think we can all agree that inefficiency in Government is a bad thing. So why kill 'em? Isn't forcing someone to sit in a cell making license plates for 70 years more vindictive?

    24. Re:Yeah... Ok by ccool · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I think.

      The problem with death penalty is that when the law made a mistake (or when someone was frame for all the wrong reasons), there is no going back... You're dead!

      It is bad enough when we read cases of person who spent 5, 10 or 15 years+ in prison and it was all a big mistakes. Yes, it's bad, but the person can get out, and the people who did the mistakes are liable to some extent.

      In the case of death penalty, it just goes as an "oups! is dead, soo bad" and everyone just forgets about it...

    25. Re:Yeah... Ok by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      ...as opposed to some societies which still publicly rape and stone to death

      What society, besides the Amazonians (of Amazonia, not the Amazon, of course) is known for raping people to death?!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    26. Re:Yeah... Ok by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      which would make me pretty nervous

      Well, I gotta say that I don't have a lot of sympathy for a convicted murderer feeling nervous as the hour of his execution draws near.

      The last ever pigeon on earth, roasted.

      Hmm, interesting choice. I'd probably have to go with a good New York style pizzeria pizza.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    27. Re:Yeah... Ok by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Utah still has(Had) a firing squad as method of execution until not long ago IIRC. Yeah, this is surprising /sarcasm

      I think I'd rather be executed by firing squad than lethal injection or electric chair...maybe they're onto something.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    28. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The three drug cocktail used in executions can be abused, horrifyingly, by the person administering it to cause terrible suffering. Some executions take an hour or two to complete. There certainly exist sickos who would just love to inflict this kind of horror; and then there also exists others I'd still call sickos who think engaging in an hour or two of horrible torture is something that the convicted justly deserves.

      Obviously I'm not accusing all executioners of being monsters. But I see no reason for anything that can be "played with" to be part of executions. A single drug, a highly potent long acting barbiturate, for example, that is administered in overwhelmingly large overdose and that would have the convict unconscious in seconds and dead in a very very few minutes would take away this three-drug sicko game.

      I believe that a recent US Supreme court decision said something like there was not enough proof that anything horrible was going on, and so they didn't order any change to lethal injection as a form of execution.

      How willfully blind.

      The fact that it's *possible* to turn the three-drug regimen into something horrible guarantees that the sickos will try.

      Suddenly the firing squad option seems pretty humane by comparison!

    29. Re:Yeah... Ok by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Permanently locking someone up is equally effective as killing them

      Until they kill another inmate or corrections officer. Or escape. Or get let out by some flower child judge that feels bad for them.

      costs less

      So justice is too expensive now?

      which in the end, is why we would be sinking to the level of the criminal.

      We aren't sinking to the level of the criminal because it's accepted that the state has the power to deprive individuals of life, liberty or process after according them due process of law. We have given the state a monopoly on the use of force in these situations. If you accept that we aren't sinking to the level of kidnappers by locking up convicted criminals then it seems to me that you should also accept that we aren't sinking to the level of murderers if we execute them.

      Exactly! DUE PROCESS. Which is why it's so expensive and makes so little sense. In order to fulfill its obligations, the state wastes so many FTEs on the criminal that it becomes inefficient. I think we can all agree that inefficiency in Government is a bad thing. So why kill 'em? Isn't forcing someone to sit in a cell making license plates for 70 years more vindictive?

      I don't think you actually read the text I quoted from the 5th amendment. The mere fact that you aren't executing them but instead depriving them of liberty for the rest of their life doesn't entitle them to less due process.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    30. Re:Yeah... Ok by ConanG · · Score: 1

      Criminals get many of their rights temporarily suspended because they have deprived others of their rights.

      Actually, most criminals get some of their rights permanently revoked. Like the right to vote and own guns.

    31. Re:Yeah... Ok by OnlineAlias · · Score: 1

      (spend 13 years on death row, etc)

      There, fixed that...

    32. Re:Yeah... Ok by the_womble · · Score: 1

      What about those of us who are afraid of needles. Would you execute an arachnaphope in a room full of spiders?

      I would far prefer a firing squad too - provided they were good enough to guarantee at least one bullet straight in the head.

    33. Re:Yeah... Ok by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Have you considered a job with the Supreme Court? You'd fit right in:

      STAHL: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person - if you listen to the expression "cruel and unusual punishment," doesn't that apply?

      SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think - Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.

      STAHL: Well I think if you're in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody-

      SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? - When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?"

    34. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not for long.

    35. Re:Yeah... Ok by gnick · · Score: 1

      I'm right there with you. I hate needles - When I have blood drawn, they typically ask me if I'm going to pass out because I sit there blanched and sweaty dreading the syringe. Not that I'm squeamish - I personally lanced my ear with a carpet cutter to drain pus out when it started cauliflowering from wrestling and didn't even flinch - It's just needles. Given a choice, I'd take a firing squad or hanging before lethal injection, a gas chamber, or the electric chair.

      The thing is, we're not actually trying to be merciful to the people we're killing - We're just trying to look civilized and be merciful to the witnesses and executioners. Even though lethal injection is probably much more painful than a noose or a firing squad, it's easier to watch.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    36. Re:Yeah... Ok by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      There's money to be made in expensive execution techniques.

      A second hand Renalut is cheaper, and does the job perfectly well.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    37. Re:Yeah... Ok by gnick · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as to say that there are no adults without kids or that people who decide not to breed are wrinkly Peter Pans... There are plenty of great people that have given great benefits to society that never reproduced and likely acted more mature than I do.

      That said, I personally didn't grow up until after my first child was born - It definitely changes a person. Up until that point, I was a child in a late-20's body (I still revert occasionally to the mind-set of a five year old, but that's tough to avoid when you spend an entire day on the floor playing with toddlers. Actually, I'm not even sure why I would want to avoid it...)

      Now all that said, I'm still confused by your post. How does equating reproduction to adulthood lead you to say, " legislating adulthood is easy"? Are you suggesting that we restrict adult privileges to parents or force people to breed when it's time for them to become an "adult"?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    38. Re:Yeah... Ok by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Well, kinda. Those stipulations apply to FELONS, not just criminals. Felons are not a majority of those convicted of any criminal charges.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    39. Re:Yeah... Ok by norminator · · Score: 1

      The way I understand it, the firing squad is an option. I seem to remember a couple of years ago, there were two separate death row inmates who were both opting for the firing squad instead of lethal injection. If the person condemned to death gets to choose the manner of execution and that's what they want, then I'd say you can't complain on grounds of cruel or unusual punishment. And as others have already mentioned, lethal injection has been pretty controversial lately due to the possibility of agonizing pain and a slow death. So I'm not sure why you think a firing squad is a bad idea.

      Also, according to Wikipedia, the firing squad was banned in Utah in 2004, although inmates who were on death row before that still have the option. Firing Squad is still an option in Idaho and Oklahoma.

    40. Re:Yeah... Ok by unleashedgamers · · Score: 1

      I really have to agree with your last part

      Even though lethal injection is probably much more painful than a noose or a firing squad, it's easier to watch.

      Although I'm not the slightest bit afraid of needles, nor do I try to be really "manly" I'd much rather take the firing squad than lethal injection. It's just *DEAD* rather than *oh here it comes I'm starting to feel something DEAD*

    41. Re:Yeah... Ok by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Ok, according to the science - lethal injection can be horribly agonizing - if it's done wrong. People who brought the SCOTUS case were suing Kentucky which had absurdly lax procedures, which could lead to improper administration of the drugs - which would be horribly painful.

      The thing with most modes of execution, whether hanging, beheading, firing squad, or lethal injection, is that if it's done right, you don't experience any pain. Do it wrong, and it's torturous.

      So, what happens when you flinch right before someone yells fire, and the bullet catches you in the shoulder instead of the head/chest, or for whatever reason the bullet doesn't hit the right part of the brain (people have survived being shot in the head)?

      One more question - so you're afraid of needles, but not bullets?

    42. Re:Yeah... Ok by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Now all that said, I'm still confused by your post. How does equating reproduction to adulthood lead you to say, " legislating adulthood is easy"? Are you suggesting that we restrict adult privileges to parents or force people to breed when it's time for them to become an "adult"?

      I'm suggesting that motivation is a key element to adulthood, particularly when we're talking about how a society would measure it and assign responsibility for collective power. I'm not saying we should force people to breed, but I am suggesting that we should restrict adult privileges to parents, and we should not permit the distribution of tools that facilitate continuing to remain at the emotional and mental state of a child. Birth control for people in their 30s who have families already is not the same as using birth control to neuter yourself and live a self-centered life forever.

      You know from experience how having a family to be responsible for changes your outlook. It's easy for a person who isn't taking such responsibility to amass considerable economic and political power in their career, because they've got a lot less on their plate. The question is, do you want that power concentrated in the hands of someone who is at the same level of maturity you were a decade ago? If you do, well, you're in your perfect world, and you can see the consequences littered about you in the decadence that continues to thrive amongst the wreckage that is our global economy.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    43. Re:Yeah... Ok by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Society can protect it's citizens just fine by handing out life sentences. It's cheaper, more humane, and there might even be room too if we stopped locking people up for minor drug offenses.

    44. Re:Yeah... Ok by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should reintroduce the custom of paying a gratuity to the executioner to ensure a quick and painless death...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    45. Re:Yeah... Ok by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      They built a gallows in Delaware to execute an inmate. Death by hanging was still on the books, and the inmate got to choose, he figured the state wouldn't have the stomach for such an outdated method of execution. He figured wrong.

    46. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am suggesting that we should restrict adult privileges to parents

      Good idea! Instead of getting ID'd at the strip club, they'll demand pictures of my kids. And I'm sure that my 13-year-old pregnant niece is much more qualified to own a hand gun than I am at 41. And why-oh-why would we want somebody in political off who actually focuses full-time on his job instead of splitting time between his work and his family?

      You confuse me, sir.

    47. Re:Yeah... Ok by Pope · · Score: 1

      I think I'd notice the firing squad lining up, which would make me pretty nervous.

      I thought the person getting executed wore a blindfold for that reason?

      Eh, sounds like the only sensible thing is to bring back the guillotine: instant death, none of this sloppy drug cocktail injection or electric chair frying BS to worry about. Just keep the blade sharp.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    48. Re:Yeah... Ok by digitig · · Score: 1

      The last ever pigeon on earth, roasted.

      Hmm, interesting choice.

      Have you any idea how long it would take them to prepare? ;-)

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    49. Re:Yeah... Ok by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Since I've started this morbid discussion let's take it another level: What would you want for your last meal? ;)

      The last ever pigeon on earth, roasted.

      That reminds me of a scene in "A Game of Thrones" (paraphrased):

      -"How would you like to die?" says the savage warrior, lifting his axe

      -"In my bed, with a whore, at the age of eighty!"

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    50. Re:Yeah... Ok by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      I would suspect that you could live for up to several minutes after being shot in the heart. You wouldn't even lose consciousness until your brain was sufficiently deprived of oxygen, which could take many seconds....

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    51. Re:Yeah... Ok by digitig · · Score: 1

      I thought the person getting executed wore a blindfold for that reason?

      I think I'd notice that, then!

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    52. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may not know how they do firingsquads these days. First off, I am against the death penalty mainly because juries convict far too many innocent people. However, firingsquad is about the most painless way I can think to go. Injections do hurt people, there's quite a bit of research that shows it hurts like heck. Oregon has hanging by the neck still, come on, that's worse.

      Firingsquads don't shoot in the chest, they shoot in the head, with a large calibre bullet. More precisely a bunch of them shoot at a head shaped target, the person to be executed is behind one of these. If you've never seen what large calibre bullets do to a head sized target take a 30-06 out and shoot a cantaloupe or something. The executed person will feel no pain whatsoever.

    53. Re:Yeah... Ok by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Eh, sounds like the only sensible thing is to bring back the guillotine: instant death, none of this sloppy drug cocktail injection or electric chair frying BS to worry about. Just keep the blade sharp.

      I know you're joking (at least I think you are), but that's probably not such a great idea. It's widely thought that upon decapitation you still have some period of time (certainly less than 30 seconds, but still, something more than 0) where you remain conscious before you go out. Afterall, the brain (which is effectively "you") is still intact. A shot to the head however, actually renders the brain itself inoperable, meaning instant lights out and no pain or anguish.

      I'll agree that personally, if I was guaranteed a head shot, I'd take the firing squad over any other method of execution.

      All in all though, a lot of it does have to do with the squeamishness of the onlookers, and not the pain endured by the individual.

      The same applies to some rules of war. Consider soft-tip versus FMJ bullets for example. The Hague convention legally allows only FMJ bullets for humanitarian reasons. Soft-tips or hollow points are considered too messy. Compare to most state hunting regulations: *FMJ* bullets are not allowed for . .. humanitarian reasons. They don't kill fast enough and lead to a slower death for the animal.

      So in reality, from the standpoint of the person getting hit, the SP or HP bullet is going to lead to a quicker, less painful death, while the FMJ will likely lead to a more drawn out, painful death, but given the smaller, neater hole, you'll not look as messy when they send you home. The rules of war chose the more painful but pretty approach.

      NOTE: I'm well aware that there are some other reasons why FMJ bullets would be used, such as penetration capability on armor. I'm simply covered the part REQUIRING their use for reasons that really make no sense.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    54. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could just quote this part, "those societies where the citizens stone the person to death are the civilized ones" back to you and then get into an argument about whether I am taking you out of context. But I'm not going to bother.

      I will take you to task, however, on your presumptions about the psychology behind different forms of capital punishment. You assume that because you would be disgusted/upset by having to physically kill a person (perhaps compelling you to desist), so everyone else would feel the same way.

      This is not in fact the case. From serial killers to war criminals to the participants of the famous Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments we see that people can and do harm others voluntarily and doing it "hands-on" as you suggest seems to be little disincentive.

      I'll leave you with a further question. Presumaly you only cite Sharia law as an example of a hands-on execution of the sort you suggest. Nonetheless, taking this example why not ask yourself this question: if societies that practice stoning are far enough away from the west culturally as to expect adultary to result in execution, could they not also be far enough away from the west as to be more accepting of doing brutal killing by hand than the western culture would be? Could the cultural difference be so great that they actually feel positive doing what we would find abhorrant?

      I'm not really asking a question about stoning or specific cultures per-se, I'm really asking the question: Cultural Relativism - do you apply it always, sometimes or never?

      And could it be that our desire to keep the grisly details of capital punishment out of our everyday lives represents the same set of cultural values that makes us limit the death penalty to only the most heinous crimes? Maybe both desires *are* the same cultural value?

    55. Re:Yeah... Ok by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure why this is so, given that the technique used on domestic animals pretty much Just Works; but it is.

      Because animals are usually put down with a massive overdose of pentobarbital, which effectively turns their brain off. I had to have one of our cats put down last year - she was unconscious before the vet had completed the injection and dead less than 15 seconds later, with no signs of any discomfort.

      This business of using a cocktail of drugs to paralyze and ultimately stop the heart of the condemned is just ridiculous. I don't know that pentobarbital overdose in humans works the same way as it does in animals, but there's got to be a better way. It's not pretty, but frankly a gunshot to the back of the head seems a lot more humane than most execution methods used in the US today.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    56. Re:Yeah... Ok by andereandre · · Score: 1

      Mother! So it was all a dream! No dear, this is the dream ...

    57. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though lethal injection is probably much more painful than a noose or a firing squad, it's easier to watch.

      You've got to be kidding. "Lethal injection is probably much more painful than a...firing squad" The first part of lethal injection is barbiturate sedation. You're put into a drug-induced coma before the KCl hits. It's impossible for scientists to say that this prevents you from sensing discomfort associated with the heart stopping, but it certainly puts it into a dream state. In contrast, a firing squad rends a gaping hole in your chest while you are fully conscious, and gives you plenty of time to watch you life's blood drain out of your body while your (conscious) brain slowly dies of anoxia. I suppose, if you're lucky, the trauma could shock you into a coma rather quickly, but there's no way to know that this kind of coma prevents you from sensing discomfort, either.

    58. Re:Yeah... Ok by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      After seeing the move "The Fly" I like the idea of a gigantic stamping machine coming down on convicts sentenced to death and in an instant making them as thin as a piece of paper. There would be no time for pain at all and a couple of hundred tons of flat sheet steel falling about 30 feet onto a blind folded and strapped down convict would be a lot more fool proof than an electric chair and more certain than a firing squad in providing instant death. It would also put on quite a show for onlookers.

    59. Re:Yeah... Ok by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Well, it's also a no-fail guarantee that the convict in question will never re-offend.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    60. Re:Yeah... Ok by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      There is a lot to be said for taking a young burgler to the local high school and shooting them in the head with the entire school watching.
                It sort of lets young people know that society is a bit eager to trash bad people regardless of age, beauty or social position.
                And executions should be fun for onlookers as well.

    61. Re:Yeah... Ok by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      executions that are as respectful of life as possible

      WTF?

    62. Re:Yeah... Ok by Jim+Robinson+Jr. · · Score: 1

      No, what the death penalty accomplishes - assuming that the case is correctly adjudicated - is the prevention of THAT SINGLE INDIVIDUAL from ever committing a crime again.

      Does it deter others? One would hope so, but that's not the primary goal.

    63. Re:Yeah... Ok by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Do remember, animals don't have medics and hunters are aiming to kill animals, not achieve strategic objectives.

      If you a trying to increase the number of wounded who can be saved, and reduce the amount of permanent maiming, small neat holes are substantially preferable to big messy ones. "Takes longer to die" is a vice in situations where medical care is unavailable; but it can be a feature if medical care exists.

    64. Re:Yeah... Ok by Golddess · · Score: 1
      You say that legislating adulthood is easy, because all you have to do is "restrict adult privileges to parents." But really, all you've done is shifted the problem. How do you define what an "adult privilege" is?

      Birth control for people in their 30s who have families already is not the same as using birth control to neuter yourself and live a self-centered life forever.

      I guess I've got no problem restricting certain things to those tasked with raising the next generation (we'll leave just what those things are for another day), but no one ever asked to be born. Some of us just want to live out our lives quietly without interfering in the affairs of others, and if any of these "adult privileges" of which you would have taken from people like that includes such rights as the right to decide for oneself how to treat ones body (smoking, drinking, drugs both recreational and medicinal, etc), well, that I've got a serious problem with.

      Not an attack against you personally, but you leave "adult privileges" undefined, so I can only guess what is included in such.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    65. Re:Yeah... Ok by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Consider soft-tip versus FMJ bullets for example. The Hague convention legally allows only FMJ bullets for humanitarian reasons.

      As I recall, the FMJs were specified as they give the guy getting shot a better chance at surviving. Everything else equal, SP/HP bullets cause a lot more damage (and thus kill faster), so there's less time to try to treat the victim.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    66. Re:Yeah... Ok by slapys · · Score: 1

      I've been charged with a crime I didn't commit. Mind you it wasn't a capital offense but it was a felony.

      So no, the law isn't perfect and can be wrong. But I still believe in capital punishment.

      I respect you for having the courage to say that.

    67. Re:Yeah... Ok by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      If you like that sort of thing, move to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan...

    68. Re:Yeah... Ok by slapys · · Score: 1

      Society can protect it's citizens just fine by handing out life sentences. It's cheaper, more humane, and there might even be room too if we stopped locking people up for minor drug offenses.

      I think you're being cowardly and small by trying to ignore the other side of the issue. Do you know anyone who's seen the inside of a federal prison? People start fights, and kill each other. Considering that our prisons are imperfect, I'd reconsider your policy of "put the terrible convicts somewhere where I don't have to worry about it" because someday you might find yourself on the wrong side of the law.

      Think about it - you're driving to work, a child jumps into the street to run after something, you're sending a text message on your phone, you run into the child and the child dies. You're looking at vehicular manslaughter with a plea bargain of 5-10 years in a federal prison. Think carefully about whether you'd want that 6'8" serial killer in the same yard with you when you leave your cell each day.

    69. Re:Yeah... Ok by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      One more question - so you're afraid of needles, but not bullets?

      Yes. I realize that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to most people but it is what it is and apparently I'm not alone.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    70. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we need people to start churning out kids in order to get those "adult privileges". That's clearly an optimal situation.

      Every time you post, I feel dumber.

    71. Re:Yeah... Ok by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Civilized societies have long moved towards executions that are as respectful of life as possible, as opposed to some societies which still publicly rape and stone to death.

      Actually, civilised societies have moved away from the death penalty altogether.

    72. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should check out the wiki articles on capital punishment. An interesting idea, floated by a MD who was asked to investigate it in the UK if they were to ever bring back capital punishment, was the idea of nitrogen asphyxiation. No needles, no straps, no guns, no blood. Put them in the room, they don't see the gas, they don't know unconsciousness is coming. (It's not like the nitrogen eats their lungs.) Just fade away. Ask anyone who's (accidentally) breathed excessive inerts and survived: you don't see it coming. It's because suffocation causes the CO2 sensors in your brain to go off, but you don't have corresponding sensors for lack of O2. The nitrogen prevents CO2 loading and the uncomfortable sensation accompanying suffocation.

      I understand that industrial gases (and the equivalent "confined space"/bad air problem) are some of the greatest workplace death hazards around.

      Best thing about this one is that you can't avoid it. You can get too fat to hang, but you can't really avoid breathing for too long.

    73. Re:Yeah... Ok by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Civilized societies have long moved towards executions that are as respectful of life as possible

      No, civilized societies don't execute people.

    74. Re:Yeah... Ok by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      A head shot would be even better and probably painless (the brain is destroyed faster than the pain receptors can fire)

      As thoughts and feelings are nothing more than chemical reactions, there's no surety of that. Who knows, even though it's pretty universally accepted that a corpse feels nothing, maybe a rotting corpse feels extasy, or maybe it feels agony.

      Maybe the reaction of baking soda dropped in vinegar feels something. We don't really understand thought or feeling, we only experience them and make untestable hypotheses.

    75. Re:Yeah... Ok by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If you're afraid to die, why did you let yourself be born? Didn't you read the EULA?

    76. Re:Yeah... Ok by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

      I think I'd rather be executed by firing squad than lethal injection or electric chair

      It also creates an instant organ donor, instead of lethally-injected kidneys and extra crispy livers.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    77. Re:Yeah... Ok by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      It also creates an instant organ donor, instead of lethally-injected kidneys and extra crispy livers.

      China does this, and they have a lot of executions. Not saying they have the executions for the purpose of organ harvesting, but it would be a moral hazard.

      If you really need organs, why not just remove the condemned's brain (and donate it to science), and put the body on life support until you can get the organs out. Keeps them fresher.

      Pretty morbid, and again gives rise to a moral hazard, but also practical.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    78. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! Civilized socities have long moved away form any executions at all.

      Of the OECD member states (these are the rich and mainly western democracies), only the USA, Japan and Singapore still have capital punishment on the law books. No European Union member state (nor any member of the Council of Europe, of which all EU member states are also members) may retain capital punishment.

      Even some "less civilized" countries with serious domestic terrorism problems, civil unrest, and fairly harsh laws (e.g. the Philippines, Thailand) have no capital punishment.

      The USA with its "civilized ... executions .. that are ... respectful of life" (oxymoron!) is in great company with other countries which perform judicial exeuctions:

      China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Vietnam, Yemen, Kuwait, Japan, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Egypt, Botswana, Belarus, Bangladesh and Singapore

      That list is exhaustive per Amnesty International.

      There are a hundred and twenty other countries which do not perform executions, and most of them have abolished it with an instrument of constitutional weight.

      The death penalty's existence and use are terrible, horrible embarassments on par with Guantanamo Bay.

    79. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Societies which do not impose the death penalty, ever, are the civilized ones.

    80. Re:Yeah... Ok by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      I guess I've got no problem restricting certain things to those tasked with raising the next generation (we'll leave just what those things are for another day), but no one ever asked to be born.

      Actually, they (sperm) had to voluntarily participate in a race up a vaginal canal, and they had to win if they were to have the privilege of being born.

      And after they (sperm) arrived at the finish line and met themselves (egg), they (sperm) dove into themselves (egg), and themselves (egg) took steps (hard shell) to protect themselves from all the others who didn't win the race but still wanted to be born.

      You weren't born because you asked to be born. You were born because you fought to be born and won, while the multitude who were your peers failed to be born despite their best efforts, and died in the attempt.

      If anyone is unhappy with how it turned out, no one is stopping them from taking a nap in the snow. Those who expect to lead the grasshoppers life while I lead the ants life and then compel my kid through economics to care for them in their old age in addition to caring for me, well, I WANT them to go take a nap in the snow.

      If they want to wait till their retirement age before they do, I guess that's ok...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    81. Re:Yeah... Ok by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I will believe in the death penalty when you will prove to me the infallibility of human beings. --Marquis de Lafayette Killing one innocent soul in the name of 'justice' is worse then letting 10,000 guilty people go free. If you dont beleive this, then perhaps someday it will be YOU strapped to the gurney waiting for the injection. A JUST society CANNOT allow the death penalty, for no system of justice is without error.

      --
      Good-bye
    82. Re:Yeah... Ok by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      And Washington and New Hampshire still have hanging as an option. What's your point? How is the chosen method of execution many years in the past in one state in any way related to this article? Did you just find out this bit of information recently and finally found an opportunity to show off your knowledge or what?

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    83. Re:Yeah... Ok by rastilin · · Score: 1

      Societies that have an executioner who takes them into a room where no one can see and makes the person disappear are the barbaric ones, while those societies where the citizens stone the person to death are the civilized ones. It has nothing to do with the pain suffered by the dying, and everything to do with the pain suffered by the living.

      Unfortunately your theory is contradicted by reality. See South African, South American and a couple of Middle-Eastern countries. Societies where you get into contact with humans dying often tend to be desensitized to killing whereas societies where it's done behind closed doors have people who are far less willing to actually kill others themselves.

      That being said, I'd rather be shot myself. I often wonder about the effects of seeing them check the needle in front of you, I bet more than one inmate wanted to scream "Get on with it damn you.".

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    84. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, the last firing squad execution in UT was in 1978, and the condemned man requested it.

      The protocol -- again IIRC -- was for shots to the heart, with several shooters. I suspect the idea is to kill the guy, but not force his next of kin to deal with a headless corpse. So, if you're hoping for a headshot, you'd better pray one of the shooters is a really, really bad shot.

    85. Re:Yeah... Ok by spauldo · · Score: 1

      In Oklahoma (where I live) firing squad is option #3, used if both lethal injection (the method we currently use) and electrocution are both found unconstitutional.

      It's similar in Idaho; A firing squad is used if lethal injection is "impractical". I'm not sure what that means, and I'm not curious enough to look it up.

      In Utah, if you chose to be executed by firing squad before May 3rd, 2004, you can be executed that way - otherwise, it's lethal injection. Firing squad is the backup if lethal injection is found unconstitutional.

      Personally, I'd rather get the firing squad than electrocution. Someone is bound to hit your heart, and you die pretty quickly. It's more humane than hanging (which is difficult to do - a hangman has to get it just right for it to be humane) which was legal in Delaware until 1986, can be requested in Washington, and is the backup to lethal injection in New Hampshire.

      So really, Utah isn't that backward compared to several other states when it comes to the death penalty. It's a backup method, used only if lethal injection becomes infeasible. Their primary method of execution is usually considered more humane than electrocution, which is an option in a few states.

      (data from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution)

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    86. Re:Yeah... Ok by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Those who expect to lead the grasshoppers life while I lead the ants life and then compel my kid through economics to care for them in their old age in addition to caring for me, well, I WANT them to go take a nap in the snow.

      I just want to make one thing clear. There is a huge difference between someone who wishes/expects to be pampered and coddled and sit on their lazy ass while hard-working individuals care for them, and someone who has no problem paying their way, but is not interested in playing society's little games. I agree that the former are assholes. But near as I can tell you either disagree that there is a difference and feel that both should share the same lack of rights/freedoms/privileges (which I notice you still fail to define), or I simply hadn't made myself clear enough.

      And unless you honestly believe Monty Python's sketch, you really shouldn't make the argument that a sperm and an egg are conscious individuals, and that when joined, they form a being that is equal to the sum of its parts. Since you seemed to be ok with birth control (though only under certain conditions), I figured you probably don't believe that.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    87. Re:Yeah... Ok by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I just had surgery this month, the anaesthesiologist said "here a little something to make you more comfortable while you wait" and it was like they hit a switch, out instantly. when i woke up in recovery I didn't even know they had done the surgery until the nurse told me.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    88. Re:Yeah... Ok by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I just had surgery and it was like being switched off wht the pentobarbitol hit me, no felling woosy just out instantly.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    89. Re:Yeah... Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy for a person who isn't [having children] to amass considerable economic and political power in their career, because they've got a lot less on their plate.

      If I amass more power than parents, it's because there are things I can accomplish which they have rendered themselves incapable of. Society gains by anything I alone can offer, and only loses what six billion other people can (and do) easily substitute.

      And even that's assuming a larger population is a benefit. In reality Peak Oil will bring Peak Food and Malthus' long-postponed nightmare will become more commonplace than ever. All because nearly everyone prides themselves on following blatantly inappropriate animal instincts in the face of societal and personal problems they cause. What you call maturity is shockingly poor judgment.

  3. bad title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't the story more accurately be titled "Utah stops mulling a database of bar customers"?

    1. Re:bad title by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Or, an even more technically accurate title, "Utah mulling not mulling a database...". Nauseating, but accurate.

      Or, a good flamebait title, "Utah mulling not having database...". That's in the classic pattern of "When are you going to stop <hideous vice>?"

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:bad title by n1ckml007 · · Score: 1

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mulling "Utah mulling backing down from bar customers database"

    3. Re:bad title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but then it wouldn't be /shock

  4. Holy moly... by Orleron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's really scary! Is it really true that there are no conventional bars in UT? I sincerely hope this is inaccurate. Can anyone from UT give some insight? Do Mormons in UT's gov't really control your lives in so much depth that they legislate what you are allowed to do in your own free time?
    *boggles*

    1. Re:Holy moly... by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are conventional bars in Utah, or at least there are things that look a lot like bars, they just are technically clubs and require you to fill out a form and pay a small "membership fee" to get a drink.

      I don't know whether, like Virginia, they require the bar to also serve food, but I would bet that they do, and the ones that I went to had restaurants attached. (In the 1960's, by the way, bars in Fairfax, Virginia, also required, or at least were supposed to require, membership.)

    2. Re:Holy moly... by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      They also limit the alcohol content of beer below a certain percentage. It's a rather strange state.

    3. Re:Holy moly... by peektwice · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is this news to anyone? Where I live, in a dry county, the same rules apply. Liquor in private clubs only, and you have to sign in, and pay to be a "member". There is a lot of circumvention of the rules, but to get booze, I have to drive to the state line. I agree that it's backasswards, but it's not news. In Utah it's Mormons, elsewhere, it's Baptists. These guys need to learn how to party like Lutherans.

      --
      Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
    4. Re:Holy moly... by bgray54 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Utah actually does have "bars" in addition to these private clubs. But the bars can only serve beer and wine. http://www.visitutah.org/liquorlaws.htm

    5. Re:Holy moly... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      They also limit the alcohol content of beer below a certain percentage. It's a rather strange state.

      That's not actually that uncommon. New York (hardly a red state full of religious types) does something similiar. New York also prohibits grocery stores from selling wine/spirits (they can sell beer though) and liquor stores from selling beer (they sell wine/spirits).

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Holy moly... by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      NY also has strict regulations about owners of grocery stores also owning liquor stores. It is not about morality, it is about protection of current business models.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    7. Re:Holy moly... by characterZer0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      These guys need to learn how to party like Lutherans.

      To eat casseroles, stare at their own feed, and mumble about the weather?

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    8. Re:Holy moly... by hexadevil · · Score: 1

      They also limit the alcohol content of beer below a certain percentage. It's a rather strange state.

      This is the reason that many beers (such as Guinness) made for US export is capped at 4% abv. It's the maximum potency for the most restrictive of state laws (I believe Fl. to be the same).

    9. Re:Holy moly... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Maybe it wasn't in Utah, but I recall hearing some state/county/city where if you went to a bar and ordered hard liquor, they didn't have regular (fifth) bottles -- they had to open up one of those hotel/airport shot-size bottles and serve that.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    10. Re:Holy moly... by funkify · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are conventional bars in Utah, or at least there are things that look a lot like bars, they just are technically clubs and require you to fill out a form and pay a small "membership fee" to get a drink.

      This is only true if either A) the "club" is otherwise totally empty, or B) you are such a complete and total douchebag that nobody would want you to come into the bar. The reason is because there is a provision in this stupid law that allows any club member to sponsor you as a guest, apparently for free. And while I am not a member of any such clubs so I don't know exactly how small the "membership fee" is, I am told that at many such clubs the fee is laughably small. The more exclusive ones (the fun clubs in Park City, for example) charge a higher fee because they can.

      I live in Utah, and while I am not a frequent bar patron, I do go on occasion. The first time I went out to a bar after moving here, I was shocked to find out that I would not be allowed to enter without a membership or being sponsored by a member. Then the door girl explained that you just ask anybody to sponsor you, and they will. She asked the next guy in for me. "Hey, will you sponsor this guy?" He replied, yeah sure, like it was an everyday thing.

      There are social benefits to this. Since frequent bar patrons have an incentive to become members of their favorite "club", the clubs seem to gravitate a certain type of person far more than in other places I have lived or visited. In other words, the cool clubs really are cool, and are often completely lacking in douchebags which is a welcome change from just about anywhere else in the world.

      I may be wrong on this, but I believe if there is an event at the club on any given night, the membership requirement is waived. The dance clubs capitalize on this by hosting "events" every night of the week with a cover charge, so they essentially circumvent the law.

      It's unfortunate that the Utah state legislosers play such a tremendous role in perpetuating oddball stereotypes about this state. In reality, most Mormons are very nice people, and most non-Mormon Utahns, in their ever-increasing numbers, do a great job of being non-Mormons.

    11. Re:Holy moly... by marbike · · Score: 5, Informative

      Utahn here. Here is a brief synopsis of what you can expect about drinking in Utah.

      Taverns are bars that sell beer only. They do not require memberships, can only sell 3.2% alcohol content beer. Food is not required to be served. Pitchers of beer must be shared between at least two people.

      Private Clubs are bars that can sell stronger beer and spirits. A membership is required, or to be the guest of a member. In practice many places don't pay a lot of attention to this requirement. Many offer a temporary membership for around $5. The average price for a year membership is $12. Only one mixed drink per person at a time can be served. Pitchers of beer must be shared between at least two people.

      Restaurants. If a restaurant has a liquor license they can sell spirits and beer without requiring memberships. However, you have to purchase food at the same time. Some restaurants only have a tavern license and only offer beer pr wine.

      Liquor stores are a state run monopoly. You have to go to the state package store in order to purchase wine, beer stronger than 3.2% or spirits. This is the only way to purchase these products.

      I wrote this article years ago regarding drinking in Utah. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A279731

      --
      it is better to light a flame thrower than curse the darkness. -Terry Pratchett Men at Arms
    12. Re:Holy moly... by flitty · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Liquor Laws require that any Restauraunt serve a higher percentage of food than Liquor. If you buy a drink from a restaurant, they often require you get an entree too for this reason. If they sell more drinks than food, their liquor license gets changed to a private club, and then they have to charge the private club fee.

      Social gatherings in any place outside homes and bars (say, an art show) is limited to ONE glass of Wine per person, only 3x a year. We have something called the gallery stroll (through the downtown art galleries) and they cannot serve alcohol other than those 3x a year.

      Bars and clubs also MUST buy liquor from the state, too. So bars cannot get a volume discount from say, jack daniels, and they pay the same price that any local pays for alcohol, with the high taxes and all.

      Then, we have the limit on the amount of alcohol in a drink. you can only have 1 oz of hard liquor in a drink, mixed with 1.5 oz of non-alcoholic flavoring. As far as I know (I don't go out to drink here, it's too expensive/hard) you cannot mix alcohol types, so essentially, no Long Island Ice Teas or any other multiple spirit drinks.

      The most frustrating thing about the database was reported in the news as "The Latter day saints church has no problem with changing the laws to make a database". That's not news! It's an incidental, not the reason, but it's well known that state legislators always meet with Church leaders before making changes like this.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    13. Re:Holy moly... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Funny

      They also limit the alcohol content of beer below a certain percentage. It's a rather strange state.

      This is the reason that many beers (such as Guinness) made for US export is capped at 4% abv. It's the maximum potency for the most restrictive of state laws (I believe Fl. to be the same).

      I'll see your 4% Florida, and raise you 3.2% Kansas!

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    14. Re:Holy moly... by cashman73 · · Score: 1
      And I thought Pennsylvania had archaic and outdated alcohol laws! We're about 200 years in the future compared to Utah!

      p.

    15. Re:Holy moly... by snarfies · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hell, that's nothing. In Pennsylvania you cannot buy ANY form of alcoholic beverage in a grocery store, drug store, or convenience store. ALL non malt-based liquor (vodka, whiskey, etc) is sold exclusively at state-owned liquor stores. All malt-based liquor (beer, wine coolers, etc) must be purchased at a beverage distributor - though if you just want a six pack or a 40, you can get them at the local deli, but NOT a convenience store, a bit of an odd exception.

      The PA liquor stores do swipe your ID through a reader if they choose to card you (the clerks are trained to use their best judgement - I used to be one in college), and I've seen a few Philadelphia-area bars do the same.

    16. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just to keep people from mixing, with its well known adversary effects. New York really cares for its alcoholics.

    17. Re:Holy moly... by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      That's not actually that uncommon. New York (hardly a red state full of religious types) does something similiar. New York also prohibits grocery stores from selling wine/spirits (they can sell beer though) and liquor stores from selling beer (they sell wine/spirits).

      I agree that that is stupid, but that's not what the GP was referring to. In Utah, the maximum alcohol content of beer, ANY beer, is capped at 3.2%, which New York (thank the Gods) does not do. For example, I was able to pick up a bottle of Le Terrible (10.5%) at Wegmans last night. I would not have been able to do that in Utah.

    18. Re:Holy moly... by Alinabi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      New York (hardly a red state full of religious types) does something similar.

      I lived in upstate NY for 6 long years and I can attest to the fact that, apart from NYC, it is basically a red state full of religious types.

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    19. Re:Holy moly... by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      can only sell 3.2% alcohol content beer.

      <= 3.2% ABV is NOT beer.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    20. Re:Holy moly... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I lived in upstate NY for 6 long years and I can attest to the fact that, apart from NYC, it is basically a red state full of religious types.

      Which Upstate are you living in? I've lived here my whole life and I've never had that observation. Upstate is definitely more conservative than NYC (thank god) but it tends to be the fiscally minded small-government conservatives and not the religious types.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:Holy moly... by krull · · Score: 1

      This isn't true. Bottled beer from out of state (which can be purchased at bars or state liquor stores, but not at supermarkets or on draft) is not restricted to 3.2% One can buy plenty of high alcohol beers... (Barley Wines and such)

      People who want beer that isn't watered down simply buy it at those locations... Home-brewing is also a very popular pastime there...

    22. Re:Holy moly... by digitrev · · Score: 1

      And then there's Ontario. At the Beer Store, you can buy beer, and nothing else. The provincial government can set the minimum price on beer. Oh, and it's owned by some American beer companies. Then there's the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario). There you can buy wine and liquors, including some beer (generally imports and rarer stuff). Other than maybe getting wine from one of the big box grocery stores, that's all you can buy. Of course we do have bars and clubs, but still... Oh, and drinking age is 19.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    23. Re:Holy moly... by krull · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, I mean that is manufactured out of state, which of course is most beers...

    24. Re:Holy moly... by darjen · · Score: 1

      Every time I go over to PA, I try to get a case of Yuengling, and it really sucks because I never know where any distributors are. It would be so much better if I could just go to a grocery store like in Ohio. These moronic laws really don't make Utah look all that bad. Seems like it's all about using the State to enrich the owners of these few distributors at the people's expense. I have a hard time seeing how a market for beer distributors could exist without the government's heavy handed intervention.

    25. Re:Holy moly... by gripen40k · · Score: 1

      Particularly when you come from Canada :/

      --
      Har?
    26. Re:Holy moly... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Has someone tried to tell them that Jesus' first recorded miracle was turning water into wine so that the party wouldn't stop?

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    27. Re:Holy moly... by s3pt1k · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true. I purchase eight-point beer at "The Beer Store" in SLC, which is run by a brewers co-op, every Friday.

    28. Re:Holy moly... by 2short · · Score: 1


      When I went to such a "club" (some years ago), there were a couple of drunks sitting at the end of the bar near the door so that when a non-member came in they could be the first to claim "He's with me!", so their new found friend would buy them a drink. Other than that, it was like any other seedy bar.

      So it worked out about as well as most attempts to legislate morality. A law intended to mean "No Bars" wound up meaning "Bums drink free".

    29. Re:Holy moly... by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      In reality, most Mormons are very nice people...

      Except towards gays and lesbians.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    30. Re:Holy moly... by chamont · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there are bars, but nowhere near the numbers in the real world. When you go to a bar, the lady at the front door asks if you have a "sponsor". You say "oh, that guy is sponsoring me". And they let you in. People mostly roll their eyes at the silly, inane law, but it makes the good little Mormons happy. And, it only makes the Mormons happy because for the most part they don't socialize at bars (that's what church is for). If they realized how stupid and backwards the whole process is, and how it makes Utah (continue to) look like a bunch of 19th century Puritans, they might get rid of this sillyness.

      Couldn't help but rant for a second.

      Incidentally, at restaurants you can order drinks but only as long as you order food.

    31. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In practice, any convenience store that sells any form of unpackaged food counts as a deli.

    32. Re:Holy moly... by LordKaT · · Score: 1

      NY hardly a red state? What in the fuck are you talking about?

      Outside of Albany and New York City, New York is VERY red.

    33. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's not news! It's an incidental, not the reason, but it's well known that state legislators always meet with Church leaders before making changes like this."

      I'm going to have to call BS on this one. Utah's state legislature is comprised of both Mormon and non-Mormons. Stating that they always meet with church leaders before deciding on legislation like this is ridiculous.

    34. Re:Holy moly... by wclacy · · Score: 1

      There are some cities that are completely dry, and do not allow any alcoholic beverage to be sold within city limits.

    35. Re:Holy moly... by EL_mal0 · · Score: 1

      In Utah, the maximum alcohol content of beer, ANY beer, is capped at 3.2%

      Not entirely true. You can get "real" beer at the liquor store.

    36. Re:Holy moly... by courtjester801 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not entirely accurate. The law was changed last year so that the primary alcohol in a drink (say vodka in a long island, or a single shot of anything) can contain up to 1.5 ounces of a certain alcohol. The most any drink can contain is 2.5 ounces. Previously, it was a max of 1 ounce of primary, and a total of 2.75 ounces. You can get long islands (or any of it's billion other varieties such as long beach, etc), but the flavor will probably be off due to anywhere from 1 ounce to 1.5 ounces of primary, and anywhere from 1 ounce to 1.5 ounces of other liquors (rum, tequilla, triple sec, etc). You can mix alcohol types. You can't do sidecars, however, because that would be more than 1.5 ounces of the same primary alcohol. It's confusing, and it really sucks explaining to patrons on a busy night.

    37. Re:Holy moly... by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to call BS on this one. Utah's state legislature is comprised of both Mormon and non-Mormons. Stating that they always meet with church leaders before deciding on legislation like this is ridiculous.

      It's not that they always meet with church leaders. It's that they already are church leaders. Utah may only have a 50% mormon population, but the legislature is more than 90% mormon, and the vast majority are church leaders, either Bishop level, Stake President level, or above. Many are "quorum of the 70" which are the 70 top leadership officials in the church.

      It would be the equivalent of having a catholic state where 90% of the government is run by Bishops and Cardinals. Sure, they might not directly consult the Pope every time they pass a law, but chances are the law will look and sound an awful lot like the church policy.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    38. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In Utah, it's measured by weight, not volume, so it comes out to about 4% ABV. Still low for some beers, sure, but I really doubt you are going to notice a difference if you are buying a case of bud lite at the supermarket. Beer lovers here in Utah buy beer brewed by the many local breweries that do really good things with that "limitation" or they just get "heavy" beers at the state liquor store or in a restaurant or brewpub that is allowed to sell them. Or they just brew their own.

    39. Re:Holy moly... by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

      So since when is it against the law for The People to pass laws that represent their interests?

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    40. Re:Holy moly... by somenickname · · Score: 1

      Yes, if drinking is a priority for you, you are living in the wrong country. In Argentina (specifically Buenos Aires), you are very rarely more than a block away from a store that will sell you any type of alcohol between 8am and 10pm. If it's later than that, you just need to have built some creds with the people that illegally sell it after 10pm or know the phone number/web address of one of the many places that will deliver it to you in 15 minutes with a 10% markup (these places are legal).

      In the U.S. I am always carded for my drinks. In Argentina they just don't care. I'm not even sure at what age you can buy smokes/drinks here is. It's probably socially not acceptable to sell to people over 12 and under 18 because it's perfectly reasonable to send your kid to buy smokes or beer here.

      My point is that U.S. liquor laws are insane. Making alcohol taboo contributes to alcoholism. In a country where there are essentially no real alcohol laws, the number of alcoholics is very, very small.

    41. Re:Holy moly... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Who gets the money from the "membership fee" -- the club or the state gov't??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    42. Re:Holy moly... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. To eat casseroles and lutefisk, mumble about the weather, and sing at the top of their collective lungs at the slightest excuse!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    43. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, how nice... There are ways around stupid laws, so they aren't that oppressive.

      Only they are, because the law shouldn't be there in the first place. It's meant to deter the religious majority, based on their religious laws. It's a political enforcement of religion, which wouldn't fly for a moment in most other other states (Texas being an apparent exception).

      By that argument, we should just adopt Sharia law, because it wouldn't really be an inconvenience to non-Islamic people.

    44. Re:Holy moly... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      In Utah, the maximum alcohol content of beer, ANY beer, is capped at 3.2%

      Actually, that is not strictly true. Beer that you can buy in a convenience store is 3.2%, as is beer served in taverns. Beer that is bought in a liquor store or private club can be at whatever alcohol content. You can get your bottle of Le Terrible, you just have to go to a liquor store to do it.

      --

      Enigma

    45. Re:Holy moly... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Outside of Albany, New York City, Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester, Binghamton, Utica, Ithaca and Long Island, New York is kind of red.

      Fixed that for you. It may surprise you to learn that Upstate NY is almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans with a slight edge to the Democrats the last time I checked.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    46. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this guy up! He is correct, its by weight not by volume.

    47. Re:Holy moly... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, many states have the state owned liquor distributors. COSTCO is currently suing the states of Washington and Oregon over it. California does not have such a law, and it was awesome to see half gallons of Smirnoff for much less than what a 5th of smirnoff costs in Oregon. Good luck in Oregon trying to find liquor after 9pm! Or on a Sunday!

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    48. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and hispanic immigrants (illegal or not).

    49. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LDS Church officials, GOP leaders discuss upcoming legislative session

      Hmm...???

      How about...

      Lawmakers, LDS Church brainstorm

      ...that?

      There's more... and it has occurred at the beginning of every legislative session for decades, regardless of the demographic of the state legislature. Do your research.

    50. Re:Holy moly... by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I think those pushing for the legalization of marijuana and prostitution (two separate, though sometimes overlapping groups) may not like what they get if it ever came to pass.

    51. Re:Holy moly... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There are counties and municipalities here in Illinois where sale of alcoholic beverages is illegal. If I visit my old friend Tom down south in Mount Vernon I have to bring beer, because Mt Vernon is in a dry county.

      Rochester, just outside Springfield, is a dry municipality.

      IMO the people outlawing liquor sales are stupid and dangerous. I want bars and liquor stores on every corner so some drunk doesn't run over me driving to the next county or town for another fifth.

    52. Re:Holy moly... by Alinabi · · Score: 1

      Rochester

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    53. Re:Holy moly... by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "though if you just want a six pack or a 40, you can get them at the local deli"

      A quibble - you can't get alcohol at a "deli"; you can get it at a "bar" or a "restaurant that serves alcohol". And you are limited to a maximum of 2 six packs.

      On the bright side, when you go to a distributor, you MUST buy by the case.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    54. Re:Holy moly... by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Just like most political leaders in most states meet regularly with representatives from any number of organizations, including religions. It's no big deal.

      The LDS Church does not tell the legislators how to vote, even if the legislators ask directly.

    55. Re:Holy moly... by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      There are a number of states and/or counties throughout the U.S. who have tougher liquor laws than Utah.

    56. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes I think it's be freakin' awesome to drop like a thousand bouncy balls off a three story building. Your point?

    57. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These guys need to learn how to party like Lutherans.

      To eat casseroles, stare at their own feed, and mumble about the weather?

      You must be from Minnesota. But we do drink and if you have been to a "dry" college campus like Mankato State you will see some parties.

    58. Re:Holy moly... by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      At first, I thought prohibition was a good thing. People were drinking more and having a lot more fun. Without beer, prohibition doesn't work! -- The Simpsons, "Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment"

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    59. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of the private clubs will charge the cost of a pitcher of beer for the membership fee, and they include a free pitcher of beer. So even if you show up as a tourist with 3 friends, the first person joins, sponsors the others, and you are sitting down with a pitcher in no time.

      There are also beer bars in Utah. They cannot serve anything with more than 3.2% alcohol by volume, but maybe you don't know that most major beer brands are 3.2%. There are no memberships required for beer bars.

    60. Re:Holy moly... by djp928 · · Score: 1

      When their interests are against the Constitution, for one. You're supposed to amend it first, although nobody bothers anymore.

    61. Re:Holy moly... by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Pitchers of beer must be shared between at least two people.

      What if two people share four pitchers of beer? Does that count?

    62. Re:Holy moly... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      There are conventional bars in Utah, or at least there are things that look a lot like bars, they just are technically clubs and require you to fill out a form and pay a small "membership fee" to get a drink.

      Makes me wonder what you have to do there to get into a brothel...

    63. Re:Holy moly... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are conventional bars in Utah. Most of the information you read about private bars written by somebody not from Utah is wildly inaccurate (or even written about by the Utah news media).

      You can read up on the private club laws elsewhere, but it isn't as bizarre as it sounds. It is intended primarily for "civic clubs" like the VFW, Elks, Moose Lodge, etc. The law is vague enough that anybody can start a club that qualifies... including a for-profit business, which is why you see so many private clubs that pretty much what would be considered a bar in most other cities. But not all bars or taverns are private clubs.

    64. Re:Holy moly... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The reason why you don't see the number of bars in Utah as you do elsewhere is two-fold:

      1) Some local communities (not the state itself) have anal liquor licensing laws that heavily restrict how many licenses they permit in the community. They have to allow at least one establishment, but it doesn't have to get beyond that. This you can blame on overzealous members of the predominant religion of that local community, and I would have to agree it is stupid. Some successful lawsuits have happened when a misguided Mormon Bishop or some other hyperactive community member (more likely a PTA president than a bishop to be honest) buys the license and then sits on it hoping to keep adult beverage businesses from being built.

      2) There really aren't the customers to support the bars. This isn't entirely true everywhere, but except for mostly non-Mormon towns like Park City, Salt Lake, or Price there simply aren't patrons to keep these sort of businesses in the black in large numbers. Believe it or not, Mormons really don't drink liquor or adult beverages, even when the choice is presented to them. I'm not talking specific individuals, but as a group, they do tend to avoid those kind of purchases. Without a market or customer base, these taverns simply can't operate. The couple of pubs in Provo is about all that town can support, and the owners are struggling just to stay in business. The gay/alternative lifestyle club of Orem did shut down for a lack of business, not because of stupid laws and citizens driving it out of town with torches and pitchforks. Most citizens of Utah county (not the state of Utah... a different entity and some say a different country) don't even know about the liquor establishments in their communities.

    65. Re:Holy moly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get Long Islands all the time. the 1.5 OZ is of Alcoholic Flavorings, meaning the 1.5 OZ has to come from a bottle labeled with "Flavoring"- so the bar takes a bottle of Vodka and puts a sticker on it. Order a Long Island and watch the bartender make it. You'll see the alcohol bottles marked with the stickers. I've gone to bars that won't do sidecars- The Westerner, for instance, and I've gone to Chili's (the chain restaurant)or Red Lobster and have gotten sidecars.
      The laws seem randomly enforced or they are always changing.
      At Art Walk, most people bring bottles of liquor and store them in purses, cars, or behind counters, therefore circumventing or violating laws.
      When people go to clubs or bars, it is for socializing- not getting drunk, unless you have a good chunk of cash to blow. (Jack and coke: 1oz liquor, $3-$6. Long Island is the better deal, at $7.50 with 2.5oz liquor. Don't forget to tip.) If you want to be drunk, most Utahns I know binge drink before leaving home. (Or in the car)
      This is the dangerous part of Utah's laws. Young Utahns who were raised in alcohol-free environments are binge-drinking before driving to clubs.

      But, that is Utah, with some of the highest teen suicide rates, highest meth abuse rates (housewives who want to stay skinny and take care of 8 kids are prime targets for dealers) and the highest antidepressant rate in the country.

      And I am too lazy to go find my password, so I'm an Anonymous Coward.

  5. Wait... by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tourism? In Utah?

    1. Re:Wait... by marbike · · Score: 1

      Tourism is one of the largest industries in the state. Utah is home to many world class ski resorts. There are 7 of the top resorts in the world within an hour's drive of Salt Lake International Airport. Southern Utah brings many visitors from around the world to it's canyons and parks.

      --
      it is better to light a flame thrower than curse the darkness. -Terry Pratchett Men at Arms
    2. Re:Wait... by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Greatest Snow On Earth" and they're right.

      I'd gladly pay double (and generally do!) to ski Deer Valley than most crowded places in Colorado.

      I love the LDSers -- they run a clean operation and they don't let their religion get in the way of fun for tourists (I've NEVER had a problem drinking in Park City or SLC).

    3. Re:Wait... by deanoaz · · Score: 1

      Never heard of Moab? Among other things it is a mecca for four wheel drive adventure travel.

      --
      If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
    4. Re:Wait... by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Muslims got to pilgrimage somewhere.

    5. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was born in Utah. Went to school in San Fran, but came back for some crazy reason. Here's as much info as I can provide.

      Bars are currently private clubs in Utah. The definition of a bar is a place that you want to drink and dance at without ordering food. Restaurants all over town can offer a full range of alcohol and normal alcohol percentage as the rest of the country, you just have to order food.

      Our grocery stores can only sell beer. No wine or spirits. If you want real beer, wine or spirits, you can go to government owned liquor stores where you can pay outrageous prices on these items and their hours of operation suck. Another option, and one many a Utahns participate in is a quick commute to Evanston, Wyoming or the fun bus to Wendover, Nevada. It's technically illegal to do, but it doesn't stop the crowds.

      This database idea is ludicrous. Every person I've spoken too here in Salt Lake is absolutely outraged at the idea. If the mormon politicians pass something as crazy as this a couple of us will be moving out of the state. With the response from the people, they have definitely backed off this idea, since we don't trust our government to promise they won't use it for Orwellian purposes.

      Utah has amazing tourism. There's Lake Powell, Arches, Moab, the Grand Canyon, and Zions National Park. We also have some of the best rock climbing and skiing in the U.S. People come here every winter from all over the world just to hit the powder of our slopes.

      If you come here, it's not just to go see a Mormon Temple. The fact is, there is most likely a temple within 100 miles of you that you can go see, there scattered throughout the world. In San Fran, you could see their temple in Oakland. The one bright white glowing building over there. If you want outdoors activities, Utah has it.

      Salt Lake City for the last couple of years has been predominately non-mormon. Unfortunately, the government for the state as a whole averages out to be 80+% mormon.

      Another big thing in Utah are Raves. We have a very large Rave scene. There have also been some busts here that have gone national in the media. This makes sense to me, since the government is so controlling, there is a lot of effort in the underground.

      So basically, if you think that Utah doesn't have anything and is nothing more than some state in the middle, don't knock it till you try it. I've been all over the country and over half the world. Everywhere I've been, has it own quirks. The fact that people think mormon's have multiple wives is only proof of your ignorance. Polygamists, known as the FLDS, have many wives and many of them live in Arizona and Texas.

      My two cents, enjoy.

    6. Re:Wait... by Neoprofin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As someone who travels constantly, I've never been unimpressed by the price, cleanliness, or quality, of hotels in the SLC/Provo area.

    7. Re:Wait... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Well considering most of the laws in that place, it DOES have an appeal to some people. It's just like those Colonial re-enactment towns, except its more like going back in time to the Roaring 20s!

    8. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tourism? In Utah?

      Zion Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Arches, Badlands, tons of open desert and forests to explore....

      Some of the best skiing in the world in Park City and other resorts and also taking place in Park City a little film festival known as Sundance.

    9. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      God - finally someone who knows a bit about Utah tourism.

      I've lived in SLC for years and years - you can't beat the terrain parks at Brighton, the trees at Snowbird, the open runs of Solitude, the pretentiousness of Alta (heheh), the catered to feeling you get from Park City, The Canyons, or Deer Valley...

      The list goes on and on.

      As for the summer months - every ski resort I just listed has mountain biking trails - lifts make all the pesky uphill pedaling a thing of the past.

      And - I can do it all drunk if I want to. You can ski right up to the damn bar a lot of the time! Visitors simply need to pay a one-time fee of a few dollars, which often comes with a free shot or a beer anyway. Or, since I live here, my visitors get in free because I'm a member anyway - and a year membership is typically $10 to $15, again, often with a free pitcher at renewal time. It's not that bad - though I'd still welcome anything to make it easier.

      And to comment on the LDS side of things - I grew up Mormon. Wanna see my horns? Geez people - grow up. Anybody doing any slight comparative research into the faith will find that the beliefs aren't all that far off of any other "Christian" faith. We still celebrated Christmas, Easter, and all the other holidays Christianity stole from pagans - the same as the rest of the country.

      I'll never understand why everyone thinks Mormons are crazier than any other religious person. It's still the same zombie Jesus rhetoric.

    10. Re:Wait... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Absolutely: My sister is an EMT out in Utah, and spends a lot of time scraping up skiers, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, ATVers, etc as well as the usual assortment of accidents. So for people into "action sports", it's a top destination.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    11. Re:Wait... by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      I haven't visited SLC in a few years, but last time I was there I found a couple of pretty ridiculous laws. #1, I had an inch of beer left in my glass when the waitress brought me another. "Just put it down", I said. She said, "I can't. State law says you have to finish one drink before I can give you another." #2, I tried to order a medium-rare hamburger. Nope. State law doesn't let them serve ground beef cooked less than medium.

      Bunch of killjoys.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    12. Re:Wait... by wclacy · · Score: 1

      I think Moab is more famous for it's Biking than for it's four wheel driving.

    13. Re:Wait... by blueskies · · Score: 1

      I guess you don't drink very many mixed drinks? How's your 1.5 ounce of scotch treating you? Still costs $12-18 though, right?

      And god forbid if you ask a waitress if it is "real beer" or 3.2 beer they serve. You might as well shit in the middle of the floor because they'll be less insulted. (some places can serve full strength beer for some reason)

      I mean, srsly, I'm not the one that lives in the state with backwards laws. Don't get pissed at me for asking. Locals have been around it so long they STICK UP for the stupid laws.

    14. Re:Wait... by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      the beliefs aren't all that far off of any other "Christian" faith

      Except for the whole "One God" thing.

      (For those who don't get the reference. Mormons believe that "God" wasn't born god but rather ascended (like they claim we will) to become god and that there are thus many gods.)

    15. Re:Wait... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      #1 I think the waitress was just mistaken on the law. I don't know of anything specific to that, other than dram shop liability that would keep them from serving additional beers. If you are intoxicated (legally unable to operate vehicles or equipment) and the shop/restaurant/pub sells you another drink, they are legally liable for anything that happens afterward, including alcohol poisoning and your actions as a drunk.

      #2 Several restaurants have been sued into oblivion throughout the USA (not just Utah) for under-cooking ground beef (aka a "hamburger") due to E. Coli and other microbial life contaminating the meat. I know for a fact that there is no state law that prohibits the sale of rare or medium-rare hamburgers, but most restaurants wouldn't dare sell them for fear of a lawsuit if a customer got sick afterward. Steaks can be cooked as rare without as much fear of contamination, but ground beef is more of a problem.

      In both cases, blame lawyers and not the predominant religion of Utah. In fact, this is common law and not something as a result of a statute or legislation. I also don't think this is something restricted to just Utah either.

    16. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Park City and SLC are about as Mormon-Utah as the Grand Canyon. Go to Ogden or Logan and walk down the street drinking a 40. You'll be treated about as well as a negro eating a stolen watermelon in public in Clusterfuck, Mississippi in 1937. Idaho has a half-dozen cities of 20,000 people or more with a greater population density of Mormons than Salt Lake City. That's why Idahoans can't buy liquor on Sunday or at any time between 7 PM and 9 AM, games of chance involving dice, cards or balls are illegal, and Larry Craig couldn't say he was actually looking for blow.

      I guess the only difference between a cult and a mainstream religion is 150 years. After all, the Book of Mormon can be scientifically disproved using the same genetic science we use to execute criminals in this country.

    17. Re:Wait... by zummit · · Score: 1

      > I'd gladly pay double (and generally do!) to ski Deer Valley than most crowded places in Colorado.

      You've got to quit skiing Summit County and Vail if you want to avoid the crowds on the hills in Colorado. [I skied Mary Jane yesterday and only about every fourth chair had butts in it ... at most!]

    18. Re:Wait... by swb · · Score: 1

      Even Steamboat was kind of crowded. I never have been to Vail for that reason, and Summit County is kind of the strip mall of skiing.

      I live in MN and we have no real skiing here. Once in a blue moon I go hit the local ski "mounds" (call 'em hills is an insult to hills), but the ice and the 30 second runs usually spoil it for me. Lutsen north of Duluth can be halfway reasonable, but about half the time its -10F and ALL of the lifts, even on the Moose "Mountain" side are like 1940s speed.

      Deer Valley is nirvana because I'm now an old fart (over 40) and I don't have the legs or skills for powder or bumps, there's no snowboarders, and the food is really good.

      About the only Colorado place that interests me anymore is Snowmass.

  6. Bad for what tourism? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I honestly don't mean this as a troll, but seriously, how much non-Mormon tourism is there in Utah? The only place I can think of (of the top of my head) there that might attract tourists is Arches National Park (made somewhat famous in environmentalist circles by Edward Abbey's book "Desert Solitaire"), and it mostly attracts hikers not partiers. But, aside from that, how many non-Mormons actually come to Utah as tourists? And even if you were such a tourist, who the hell goes to Utah to drink?!? Isn't that what Nevada is for?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skiing.

    2. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't mean this as a troll, but seriously, how much non-Mormon tourism is there in Utah?

      There's Antelope Island, and actually as a non-Mormon I thoroughly enjoyed the architecture, the cleanness and the visitor centre tour of Salt Lake City. Oh, and they have a world-class Ski resort! And coming from the UK seeing a city centre at night that is not full of drunken yobs puking in the gutter was a novelty.

      I do agree though, nine out of ten visitors seemed to be Mormons.

    3. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      In Utah there are lots of National Parks there (Zion, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Arches, Capitol Reef), National Monuments, and a National Recreation Area. Between them, they draw in something over five million visitors per year, IIRC. All are big with hikers and nature enthusiasts. Canyonlands and Grand Staircase-Escalante are also big with the mountain biking and off-road vehicle crowd.

    4. Re:Bad for what tourism? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Come on, Colorado's right next door.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      off the top of my head:
      - some of the best skiing in North America (skiers like to drink)
      - Sundance Film Festival (people in the film industry like to drink)
      - Other national parks, and outdoor areas like Moab (mountain bikers like to drink)

    6. Re:Bad for what tourism? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      and it mostly attracts hikers not partiers

      You've never been to Moab, have you? Hikers and partiers are one and the same there.

      Beyond Arches, there's also Canyonlands, Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, and Zion. Aside from national parks, there is also some killer skiing up in the mountains, and rivers to run. There's plenty of outdoorsy stuff to do in Utah. And while I'm sure people don't go to Utah specifically to drink, it is a nice thing to do after a long day enjoying the world, and the less hassle involved, the better.

    7. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Sundance Film Festival.

      A dozen ski resorts.

      Capitol reef.

      Bryce Canyon.

      Arches natl. park.

      Zions natl. park.

      Lake Powell.

      Goblin valley.

      The Great Salt Lake.

      Moab.

      Canyonlands.

      The largest dinosaur museum in the world in Utah county.

      The Bonneville salt flats.

      Timpanogos cave.

      Miles and miles of alpine trails and hundreds of campgrounds.

    8. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are multiple resorts:
      Alta, Beaver Mtn, Brian Head, Brighton, The Canyons, Deer Valley, Park City Mtn, Powder Mtn,Snowbasin, Snowbird,Solitude, Sundance, Wolf Creek.

      There's also multiple National Parks, Sundance Film Festival, 2002 Olympics Parks, etc. Lots of movies and TV shows are shot there (including High School Musical). Lots of info here: http://www.utah.com/

      Only 70% of the population is Mormon. Not all Mormons are alike.

    9. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A quick search shows that Utah gets about 4 million skier visits a year - a lot less than Colorado, but still nothing to sneeze at.

    10. Re:Bad for what tourism? by CheddarHead · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know Slashdot geeks have a rep for not getting out much, but *you* really do need to get out more. :)

      Utah has a huge tourist industry. Zion National Park is one of coolest places I've every been, and Bryce Canyon, Capital Reef, Canyonlands, Arches are very nice as well. The skiing in the Wasatch mountains east of Salt Lake City is some of the best in the world. There's nothing like gliding through knee deep "champagne" powder. In short the state in an incredible location for scenic beauty and outdoor activities. It's a pity that there's so many bigots there, but it's still a pretty nice place to visit.

      Also, regarding your "hikers not partiers" comment - personally I like to relax with a couple beers after a hard day of hiking, so the groups are not mutually exclusive. Also a lot of the people who visit these areas never stray more than a 1/2 mile from their cars; there's still plenty to see. Then in the winter, skiers are famous (notorious?) for their drinking. So, I think that plenty of the Utah tourist are affected by these kind of rules.

    11. Re:Bad for what tourism? by zindorsky · · Score: 3, Funny

      I honestly don't mean this as a troll, but seriously, how much non-Mormon tourism is there in Utah?

      Apparently a lot of people like to strap long slats to their feet and then hurtle down snow covered mountains at high speeds. Some say Utah is a good place to do this.

      Also, every January thousands of black-clad posers come and put on some kind of film festival. Something about dancing on the sun.

      --
      If the geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is not thick.
    12. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Olympics, etc.

    13. Re:Bad for what tourism? by grapeape · · Score: 1

      Park City has some of the best slopes in the US. The salt flats are rather interesting. Then there is zion national park, monument valley, the cleveland-loyd dinosaur quarry, Herritage Village, goblin valley, various canyons, etc. Utah is actually a great place to visit.

    14. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Sundance film festival at Park city? Or skiing at Park city? Not to mention all the state and national parks.

    15. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tourism is a major part of Utah's economy ($6 billion/year), and little of that is LDS-related. Here are a few examples of why people visit:

      1. Skiing - 4 million people ski/year in Utah, some of which is local traffic certainly, but a lot from out of state.

      2. National Parks - we have 5 national parks in Utah, which attract a lot more than a few hikers wandering around. Think huge bus caravans of U.S. and international visitors.

      3. Mountain biking - the Moab area is a renowned mountain bike area. The numbers don't compare to skiers, but there are a lot.

      4. Other outdoor activites - hiking, fishing, hunting, photography, lakes, etc.

      So a lot of it is outdoors oriented, but that sort of activity must be off of your radar. Enjoy your staycation playing Xbox, or whatever it is you consider fun.

    16. Re:Bad for what tourism? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The parks you mentioned, camping, and the Genealogy archives.
      And of course Utah's number one thing done by tourist:
      Passing through on there way to someplace fun.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The skiing in Utah is some of the best in the world. That's one reason why these proposed changes came about. Utah loses a lot of skiing revenue to Colorado, where there is something to do after you're done on the slopes for the day.

    18. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Utah Tourism = Skiing. Anyone remember the 2002 winter olympics?

    19. Re:Bad for what tourism? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      In Utah is Moab. Near Moab is Slickrock. If you're a mountain biker, that's Mecca. A hajj is required of all mountain bikers: if you don't go, they take away your bike and make you ride a balloon-tire cruiser.

      More seriously, Utah's a beautiful state in a parched way. (Well, obviously, multiple parched ways.) It gets a lot of money from tourism.
      You may have heard of the Sundance film festival. That's in Utah.
      You may have heard of the Bonneville Salt Flats where people race and set world land speed records. Utah.
      You may have heard of the Great Salt Lake, the largest salt lake in this half of the world.
      Or Bryce Canyon National Park or Zion National Park or the weirdness that is Natural Bridges National Monument. Or Lake Powell. Or even people going to see that weird Mormon Tabernacle and its choir, or hang out near the Hill Air Force Base and take pictures of the strange undocumented experimental military aircraft flying out of it. And that's not to mention the best skiing in the US.

      Utah's tourism industry is huge.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    20. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of good skiing in Utah. If you're into the outdoors it's a good state.

    21. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skiing. Lots and lots of excellent skiing. And skiers/boarders are not known for their teetotaling ways.

    22. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, have you ever been skiing?

    23. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm leaving in a few days for 8 days of snowboarding in Utah. They have some great mountains there.

    24. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus 13 ski resorts with "greatest snow on Earth". A lot of folks like a drink after a day on the slopes.

    25. Re:Bad for what tourism? by GiovanniZero · · Score: 1

      I'm from colorado and live in utah and while Utah doesn't get as much skier tourism as Colorado its still significant. Also, you may have heard of the Sundance film festival? There were also some Olympics in utah not too long ago? That being said I do think the liquor laws are retarded. I don't drink (nor do I endorse drinking) but I do absolutely recognize and defend the right of others to drink. Having half the alcohol level just makes people drink more (so now they're fat AND drunk). And private clubs? This is a huge turn off to tourists. Thank goodness we have Governor Huntsman...

      --
      Mod me up, mod me down, do your worst you modding clown.
    26. Re:Bad for what tourism? by killigan2 · · Score: 1

      You only named one National Park. There are several in Southern Utah, not to mention Lake Powell and Moab (huge slick rock mountain bike crowd). Plus all of the world class ski resorts. Oh, and of course there is the little film festival called Sundance... There is plenty for non-mormon tourists to do. Not all of us in Utah drink the Kool-Aid. In fact, this db has caused quite the backlash among residents. Even the governor is speaking out against the idea.

    27. Re:Bad for what tourism? by k31bang · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't mean this as a troll, but seriously, how much non-Mormon tourism is there in Utah?

      SLC hosted a World Cup Qualifier(USA vs Costa Rica)that I attended in 2005. That counts,I believe, as tourism. I didn't make it to one of the private clubs. I did however drink some "lovely" stout at some family friendly sports bar type of place.

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    28. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowboarding/Skiing are HUGE in Utah. Their license plates still say "The Best Snow on Earth". People come from all over for the snow.

    29. Re:Bad for what tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh BOY, Utah gets a ton of money from tourism. There are at least 6 national parks of surpassing beauty. Huge tracts of land that would probably be national parks if they weren't being compared to parks themselves. There are dozens of State Parks. There are mountains, deserts, high plains, the Salt Flats. Utah has the best skiing on the planet, with 7 resorts within 1 hour of the airport and about 5 more within 2 hours. Utah host the Sundance Film Festival every January. People come from nations all over the world to visit. Tourism is huge. Just because you have a bit of a bigoted concept of Utah in your head doesn't mean that it's a Mormon only club.

    30. Re:Bad for what tourism? by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    31. Re:Bad for what tourism? by starfishsystems · · Score: 1

      It's a gorgeous part of the planet. I live in coastal British Columbia - certainly favored as a tourist destination for its natural beauty - and I've made several long and delightful road trips down to Utah and vicinity because it offers a completely different sort of magic.

      My understanding is that you can camp pretty much anywhere you like off road in Utah, except in the fire season. Yet much of the landscape seems quite pristine, and I hope we'll keep it that way.

      It's a very cool place. Now the people, well, there are all kinds of people, just like anywhere. All of the United States seems insanely religious to me, so Utah doesn't really rise much against the background signal. The only really weird thing I found was when I would go into town to buy beer or wine. The liquor store staff seem to have wandered out of some time tunnel from the 1050s. They give out the same weird attitude, as if I was buying lice shampoo or something. But to me, it's the variety of cultural experience that I look forward to as a traveller. It would be dull if everyone in the world had the same mannerisms.

      --
      Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
    32. Re:Bad for what tourism? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Umm Ever hear of Slick Rock? Moab? What the huge number of Ski Resorts?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  7. This is one thing I won't do by zappepcs · · Score: 1

    Where I live they like to only license them as 'private clubs' and often need you to 'join' by letting them swipe your driver's license. I walk out when they ask for that. I walk out if they want my driver's license and credit card to open a tab. I walk out if I have to do anything more than someone sitting at a restaurant who has a couple of beers with dinner. So far, I've not suffered for it. But if anyone from Utah is listening, I won't visit Utah if I have to become a club member to have a drink at the hotel bar. If I've been fine not going to a few establishments near my home, I'm pretty damn certain I won't miss anything in Utah. Good luck with attracting tourists.

    1. Re:This is one thing I won't do by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 1

      so wait, you don't live in Utah but bars near you try to do the same (or similar) membership song and dance? so where do you live, so i can avoid there too?

    2. Re:This is one thing I won't do by yincrash · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure most tourists aren't like you.

    3. Re:This is one thing I won't do by kevinT · · Score: 1

      Hmmm - so here we are on a geek web site and you are worried about the stuff in the mag stripe on you license???

      So replace it with "Mickey Mouse" born -- whenever you feel like (as long as its 21 years ago or more).

      With people sliding their cards, the bouncers are going to be less likely to actually look at the license!

      (Just don't pass it to the police officer that pulls you over with the reader in his car!)

    4. Re:This is one thing I won't do by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      shhhhhhh damnit! You'll give the secret away. So far, in Texas, they haven't figured it out yet.

    5. Re:This is one thing I won't do by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough I experienced the same sort of private club deal in Raleigh NC. I was down there to take a cert test, and visit a friend.

      I don't recall having to swipe my ID though.
      The private club wasn't a sign up at the door deal, you had to sign up via their website.

      According to John, my guide through Raleigh, there were also regulations saying you couldn't serve food and alcohol, or some percentage of food to alcohol to be a restaurant vs. club.

  8. Religion, not adulthood by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not about legislating adulthood, it is about legislating religion. There is a difference.

    1. Re:Religion, not adulthood by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      This is not about legislating adulthood, it is about legislating religion. There is a difference.

      Well, love it or hate it it's perfectly constitutional:

      The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

      The states are free to regulate liquor as they see fit. If you don't like how Utah does it then convince enough like minded people to move to Utah to change the state political balance. Personally I'll take this system over the Federal Government any day of the week -- imagine if we had something similiar for cannabis?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Religion, not adulthood by nevillethedevil · · Score: 1

      Well, love it or hate it it's perfectly constitutional

      Until you realize that the state government is in the pocket of the LDS church. I seem to recall something about separation of church and state.....

      --
      Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
    3. Re:Religion, not adulthood by fermion · · Score: 1
      This is kind of interesting, because christian religions tend to minimize what we call adulthood, and maximize survival of even the weakest beings. For instance, the idea that priests don't have children. Priests are pretty smart guys, yet the religion takes all those good genes out of the pool? Ludicrous. How about polygamy in a society that is pretty equally male and female. You reduce our survival by creating what is ultimately a weak inbred population.

      A lot of the anti drinking people say what of the children, what of the family life. Again, if a child is not smart enough to not get itself killed before adulthood, well, what did I say above. It is not hard to not to stay off the hard stuff. I grew up around, and I did. My friends of all background and races did the same. Even those who did not were smart enough to manage and off themselves. If a bunch of kids want to party after cheerleading, and go off and off themselves several other people, and an unborn child, I might say there is benefit to that happening sooner rather than later, and it might be an indication that the parents might want to reconsider their family values. There have always been test for kids who want to make it into adulthood. Now the test is not offing yourself in a traffic accident or an overdose. Most of us pass these tests. I live in fear of those who are so protected that they never have to pass these trials and tribulations, yet still get to call themselves adults.

      It seems that religion is about killing those we don't like, keeping those we do, no matter how suited,and damning the world to a lame existence that is indistinguishable from hell.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:Religion, not adulthood by sircastor · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between a government's strings being pulled by a church and a government made up of a large number of people who share the same beliefs. One's a violation of principal, the other is legal, legitimate government established by the people. The Utah state government is FAR from being in the pocket of the church.

    5. Re:Religion, not adulthood by nevillethedevil · · Score: 1

      You obviously not aware of the consultations that take place behind closed doors between the church leaders and the legislature. When I have a bit more time I will track down the links. And you do also realize where this idea that this article speaks about came from correct?

      --
      Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
    6. Re:Religion, not adulthood by nevillethedevil · · Score: 1

      Okay replying to myself here. Here is something for starters from a person that I very rarely agree with, Rebecca Walsh.

      --
      Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
    7. Re:Religion, not adulthood by sircastor · · Score: 1

      Obviously I'm not aware of the "consultations". My opinion is, and continues to be that members of the state government hold personal convictions, and those convictions can influence their decisions. Having lived in Utah for several years, I think that the government is under great pressure to show that it is not directly influenced by the church. For every claim that it is influenced/controlled by the church, I have never seen anything definitive.

      The source of this legislation is a man, Michael Waddoups, not the LDS church.

    8. Re:Religion, not adulthood by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      No, if it was legislating religion then there'd be no drinking allowed at all. Period. Even then, that's not really true. Legislating religion is simply saying, "This is the state church. We don't really recognize any other churches." Now that's legislating religion.

    9. Re:Religion, not adulthood by blueskies · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously a Utah apologist? I mean i get your point though. One of the 50 states has to have the stupidest laws...but it's better to have stupid laws in one state versus 50.

    10. Re:Religion, not adulthood by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Until you realize that the state government is in the pocket of the LDS church. I seem to recall something about separation of church and state.....

      Utah: where the separation between church and state is precisely four blocks. (aka the distance between the LDS Church Office Building and the Utah State Capitol)

      I'd like to disagree with you, but it is hard to argue with statistics like this.

    11. Re:Religion, not adulthood by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I'm more worried about the tobacco lobby groups than the LDS Church... or groups like Energy Solutions trying to import nuclear waste from Italy and buying off legislators.

      There are open meeting laws that keep most of these "consultations" from happening as any gathering of more than a couple legislators in any circumstance (even a backyard bar-b-que) is considered a "meeting" and has to be reported, notification made to the "press", and made open for public participation. The only exception is when in "executive session" for reasons of privacy (discussing the termination of an employee... to give an example) or for reasons of state security.... similar to national security or intelligence purposes of "classified" information.

      Meeting with a representative of the LDS Church does not qualify for any private meeting to happen other than on a one to one basis.... just as any citizen can do on their own as well. The LDS Church does openly operate lobbying efforts for things that it considers to impact morality (aka like Prop. 8 in California.... to cite an example even if not in Utah) but other groups do similar kinds of activities and the LDS Church is required to register officially as a lobbying group with reporting of expenditures and other sorts of oversight in the process.

      I will admit, however, that liquor laws are something the LDS Church does get involved with in terms of lobbying efforts.

  9. meanwhile in London, UK.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something we have to do in the city of London, well if visiting Shuntz anyway.

  10. welcome to the year 2009 by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Redundant

    theocracy is alive and well

    alcohol and marijuana are viewed as evil demonic scourges

    being gay is seen as a moral disease

    no, we're not in tehran

    we're in utah

    fucking pathetic

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:welcome to the year 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello there Rev. Phelps! i am surprised to see you here

    2. Re:welcome to the year 2009 by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

      Homosexuality actually used to be classified as a mental illness in earlier revisions of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which is *the* resource that is used by physicians, psychiatrists, and psychologists as a reference for diagnosing mental illness. If I remember correctly it had been removed by 1980 in the third revision (DSM-III) and is most certainly not present in the latest revision (DSM-IV, Text Revision, 2000.)

      So apparently it used to be a mental illness but I don't recall any treatments for it ever being mentioned.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    3. Re:welcome to the year 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but alcohol is still available. and you'll please note in the future that the price for homosexuality in tehran is a bit more radical than that of salt lake city.

    4. Re:welcome to the year 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29049101/

      care to make more of your reactionary comparisons again?

      you're a known blowhard around here. hopefully more of your swill gets modded down in the future.

    5. Re:welcome to the year 2009 by geekoid · · Score: 1

      His point is valid.
      how about this:
      http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general188.html

      try doing something that causes the church to loose revenue.
      It's a money scheme, and it's about men controlling women. nothing more.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:welcome to the year 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is about a religious government.

      i never said that there isn't barbarism in the name of god in the u.s. but to compare utah to the theocracies of the middle east? please, go read a little about what's happening in the world today.

  11. Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not being an American, I had to visit the US for the first time a few years back on a work trip. Texas to be exact. I could not believe that I had to show photo ID/fill out a form every time I wanted a beer, no matter what kind of establishment or time of day it was. Asking why, I was told it was to track drink drivers or some such tripe. For sure it all went into some database somewhere...

    1. Re:Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're either making that up or went to the most bizarre place in Texas ever. Its practically the capital of cheap beer consumption in the US.

    2. Re:Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not making it up: I was in Amarillo, Texas... maybe that was the only city that did it . I don't know was there for work and did not have time to visit other cities...

    3. Re:Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's regulated at the local level. generally by county, but sometimes a neighborhood will have different rules than the rest of the city (i.e. Houston Heights vs the rest of Houston). Most of the major cities are "normal", but I guess Amarillo isn't (haven't stopped for a drink when driving through).

    4. Re:Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not Texas; THIS is Texas.

  12. Out of curiosity by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I checked out a database on violent crime broken down by state. Utah's overall violent crime rate is less than half that of the nation, and murder rate 1/3 of that of the nation as a whole.

    So while I don't like the "big brother" mentality, the moral code does have concrete benefits.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be nice if correlation implied causality, wouldn't it?

    2. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correlation is not causation.

    3. Re:Out of curiosity by rmadmin · · Score: 4, Funny

      I disagree. They obviously don't have time to commit crimes when they have 20 wives nagging at them.

    4. Re:Out of curiosity by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      So while I don't like the "big brother" mentality, the moral code does have concrete benefits.

      Living in a sparsely populated large western state tends to have that effect as well. No need to be a Mormon or view alcohol as 'sinful'.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    5. Re:Out of curiosity by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if correlation implied causality, wouldn't it?

      I think in this case it does. If you look at Geography, Utah is far below its neighbors. There may be other factors, but I'd be willing to bet that Mormonism plays a big part on this.

      In fact, if you look, rape is actually above the national average. I'd bet this has something to do with Mormonism's views toward woman as well.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    6. Re:Out of curiosity by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Well, who is there to kill in Utah? You have basically groups of mormons - 50% of the population - who (when living in religious communities) like to keep that type of things under covers among their elders or are told not to report so no official reports exist of rapes and abuse unless somebody finds (or is honest enough to report) a body much like the Amish. There is otherwise nothing or nobody in Utah to commit crimes for (it's mostly empty).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re:Out of curiosity by kae_verens · · Score: 1

      I think crime would be much lower if people were required to fill in a registration every time they left their houses.

      This whole thing is stupid. let adults do what adults do.

      If they hurt someone, then punish them. Otherwise, leave the hell alone.

    8. Re:Out of curiosity by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nevada is less dense population wise yet has twice the murder rate of the nation and violent crime as well.

      http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0297.pdf

      (And in its infinite wisdom, Slashdot is now making me wait at least five minutes between posts. in my prior experience, this will become ten and then fifteen. It happens as soon as I get one downmod. I love Slashdot where the GNAA can post as much as they want, but with positive karma, I get effectively censored.)

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    9. Re:Out of curiosity by the_humeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean this site? Overall, murders are very rare.

      USA: 5/100,000 people
      Utah: 2/100,000 people
      Iowa: 1/100,000 people

      Iowa has more people than Utah and doesn't have such draconian moral restrictions. In fact, they're much more liberal than Utah. Does that mean liberalism has concrete benefits in terms of murder rates?

    10. Re:Out of curiosity by mbone · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmm. I was curious too. From the most recent data I could find :

      Murder rate, 2007, Utah, per 100,000 : 2.2
      Murder rate, 2004, Germany, per 100,000 : 0.98
      Murder rate, 2002, Saudi Arabia, per 100,000 : 0.92

      So, clearly Utah is either too religious, or not religious enough. Or something.

    11. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So while I don't like the "big brother" mentality, the moral code does have concrete benefits.

      And yet the murder rate in state of Utah is still almost twice that of say, the province of Quebec in Canada, which has one of the most liberal societies in North America

      In 2007 the murder rate in Utah was 2.2 per 100K people in Utah versus 1.2 per 100K in Quebec. For comparison, Quebec has three times the population of Utah.

    12. Re:Out of curiosity by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And in its infinite wisdom, Slashdot is now making me wait at least five minutes between posts. in my prior experience, this will become ten and then fifteen. It happens as soon as I get one downmod. I love Slashdot where the GNAA can post as much as they want, but with positive karma, I get effectively censored.

      What's your karma at? I've never run into that problem and I've collected my fair share of troll/flamebait mods (as tends to happen with opinionated assholes like myself). My karma has always been at 'excellent' though and I've never had to wait more than the standard two minutes (less under the new system) to make posts.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Out of curiosity by Zenaku · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nevada is only less-dense population-wise when you are looking at everything from a statewide level. Nevada is essentially one very densely populated urban area, surrounded by abandoned desert. I'm sure Utah's population isn't evenly spread out either, but this sort of crime-per capita statistic is really only valuable if you break it down by county or township.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    14. Re:Out of curiosity by FredFredrickson · · Score: 3, Funny

      Here's one that gets thrown around alot on /. - Correlation does not imply causation.

      The legislated morality may have very little to do with the crime rate. I mean, it's not a coincidence that Utah's overall violent crime rate is low- AND there's a ton of salt in their lake!

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    15. Re:Out of curiosity by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Does that mean liberalism has concrete benefits in terms of murder rates?

      Not if you look at New Orleans or Baltimore.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Click on his id yourself and find out: excellent karma.

    17. Re:Out of curiosity by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      Wow. I had a lot of unnecessary hyphens in that post. I don't know what came over me. I'd like to apologize to any grammar Nazis who were offended.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    18. Re:Out of curiosity by jandoedel · · Score: 0

      yeah, but on the other hand: correlation is correlated to causation

    19. Re:Out of curiosity by wastedlife · · Score: 1

      But he has statistics to prove his case!

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    20. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be nice if correlation implying causality were true on a case-by-case basis, wouldn't it?

    21. Re:Out of curiosity by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Violent crimes are rare enough that I don't think it's anywhere near worth living your entire life such an atmosphere in exchange for cutting it in half. I certainly don't think it's worth legislating religious views into the society.

      Then there's the possibility that they're just keeping things quiet, raised by a poster above, something that can happen in tight-knit communities. It's already known that there are minor sects in remote parts of Utah where polygamy is secretly practiced, nobody talks about it and nobody reports that. I can easily imagine that violent crime in those parts may well go unreported just because they don't want the state discovering how they live.

    22. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics: they're usually wrong and always capable of being misleading.

    23. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Try living here. I'm born and bread as a Utahn, albeit non-Mormon. The military and another opportunity has led me away, but I'm back again. Each time I have returned, it becomes more difficult. Adults here are treated like children and although on the surface it seams a "Clean" and "Moral" place, much is not published or is covered as to not tarnish the "Faith's" reputation. If you do live here and DON'T belong to "The Club", you are surely a cast out as are your children. And by creating this division, the rebellion is abnormally strong and over the top. Do a little research on "Straight Edgers" and then quote your databases.

    24. Re:Out of curiosity by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pork, corn, and bad driving: The secrets to a murder free lifestyle.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    25. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I disagree. They obviously don't have time to commit crimes when they have 20 wives nagging at them.

      If that were the case, you'd expect the murder rate to be much higher though, wouldn't you?

    26. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, you really know nothing about Utah.

      I haven't known a single mormon in Utah that lives in a "religious community" (they don't). Watch the news or read a local paper and you'll hear about rapes and murders just like everywhere else (perhaps to a smaller degree). If you are mormon and confess to such a crime to the Bishop (local religious leader) he will either attempt to convince you to turn yourself in or call the police himself. Mormons are nothing like the Amish, but that is not an uncommon claim from people who don't know any better.

      Perhaps what you may be thinking of is some of the wacky religious cults that live in communities out in the desert. You know, the whole Warren Jeffs guy that was running the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ. All those kids in Texas that were taken in to custody, and the media brouhaha that surrounded it: Not mormons.

      And yes, Utah has a lot of wide open spaces but most of Utah's population is densely situated along the "Wasatch Front": Provo to Ogden. Nearly 1/2 of the population of the state lives in the Salt Lake valley.

      Not that you really care, since you were just trolling...

    27. Re:Out of curiosity by deanoaz · · Score: 1

      Is there a correlation with fewer boys raised by single mothers in these low crime states compared to higher crime states?

      --
      If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
    28. Re:Out of curiosity by Kozz · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I was curious too. From the most recent data I could find :

      Murder rate, 2007, Utah, per 100,000 : 2.2
      Murder rate, 2004, Germany, per 100,000 : 0.98
      Murder rate, 2002, Saudi Arabia, per 100,000 : 0.92

      So, clearly Utah is either too religious, or not religious enough. Or something.

      And clearly they're all using the same reporting methods, so those numbers speak volumes... right?

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    29. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, 20 wives nagging

    30. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Pork, corn, and bad driving: The secrets to a murder free lifestyle.

      You ain't kidding about the bad driving; IOWA on a license plate stands for "Idiots Out Wandering Around".

    31. Re:Out of curiosity by caluml · · Score: 1

      And clearly they're all using the same reporting methods, so those numbers speak volumes... right?

      Murders, per 100,000 population, per year. Seems fairly hard to fuck that up. How are you suggesting they're different?

    32. Re:Out of curiosity by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps cities, ie. living in close quarters, gives rise to both liberalism and murder separately.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    33. Re:Out of curiosity by freakmn · · Score: 1

      Is there a correlation with fewer boys raised by single mothers in these low crime states compared to higher crime states?

      I'm curious about not only single mothers, but double, triple, and quadruple mothers, too. Seems like we're looking in the right area...

      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
    34. Re:Out of curiosity by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What's a murder? Is it all murders? 1st degree? 2nd degree? is manslaughter in one country murder in another?

      Do they take population density into account(Cities vs. Urban)

      You used different years. was there anything happening that year that was unusually? the olympics, a bombing?

      Are any other the years anomalous? meaning unusually high or low.

      So yeah, it can be "fucked up".

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    35. Re:Out of curiosity by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Utah is also 41st in population density. (Wow, Wikipedia really DOES have a list for everything.)

      Crime is often hard to come by when there aren't many people around. This just in, undersea crime reduced by 1000% in the last ten years!

    36. Re:Out of curiosity by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Thankfully they don't seem to have figured out how to use the bridge into Wisconsin yet. Let's pray they never do.

    37. Re:Out of curiosity by box4831 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the town from the Hot Fuzz movie... where troublemakers are "taken care of"

      --
      Miller Lite tastes like water that's somehow managed to rot.
    38. Re:Out of curiosity by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're too German (or not German enough)?

    39. Re:Out of curiosity by Abreu · · Score: 1

      See also Singapore, which also has very low crime rates, but I wouldn't want to live there...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    40. Re:Out of curiosity by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      You'd think "infant mortality rate" would be pretty straight forward too, but if you look it seems like every single country has different standards, and the laxer they are the lower the mortality rate is, imagine that.

    41. Re:Out of curiosity by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Define 'murder'

      Do you include drunk driving incidents? People who later die of their injuries? Assisted suicide? What if a murder gets classified as an accidental death, due to corruption or incompetence?

      There was a big hullabaloo in the UK a few years back that got picked up by the gun-rights crowd.

      In the 90s, London enacted significantly stricter rules and restrictions regarding knives and firearms. Around the same time, they also changed their definition of 'Violent Crime' to be more inclusive of minor incidents.

      Unsurprisingly, the violent crime rate skyrocketed, and the 2nd Ammendment proponents felt vindicated, even though the reality was somewhat different.

      The knife crime "epidemic" in Britain was only notable, because violent crimes in the UK are so few and far between. The total number of violent crimes per year in the entire UK is comparable to the number of fatal shootings in Detroit per month.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    42. Re:Out of curiosity by mangu · · Score: 1

      if you look it seems like every single country has different standards, and the laxer they are the lower the mortality rate is

      What you are saying is that Iceland (3.25), Hong Kong (2.93), Japan (2.80), Sweden (2.75), and Singapore (2.30) have laxer standards for accounting infant mortality than Angola (182.31), Sierra Leone (156.48), Afghanistan (154.67), Liberia (143.89), and Niger (115.42)?

         

    43. Re:Out of curiosity by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      I don't know about this. It seems like prison would be a good way to get out of the house.

    44. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that the minor sects in remote parts of Utah may be underreporting their murders, and therefore making the murder stats for the whole state appear inordinately low?

      If, for the sake of argument, we excluded these minor remote sects from the murder and population count, would you expect that Utah's murder rate would rise to the national average?

    45. Re:Out of curiosity by GiovanniZero · · Score: 1

      Rape being above the national average probably has more to do with reporting. The Mormon church has a lot of safe guards and members of the church have interviews with their Bishop. Bishops are required to report cases of rape etc so it makes sense because there is a better system for reporting.

      Also, before you assume Mormons have bad attitudes towards women consider that Utah was one of the first states to allow women to vote and sponsors the largest Women's service organization in the world.

      It isn't all gravy of course. There are polygamist groups (no longer associated with the Mormon mainstream see LDS) that live in Utah and have very different ideas. However these groups also live in Colorado, Idaho, Texas and elsewhere (lots in Mexico).

      --
      Mod me up, mod me down, do your worst you modding clown.
    46. Re:Out of curiosity by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Pardon my poor wording. The point I was trying to get across is that there are a lot of countries that look better than they should because they discount babies born under a certain weight, outside of certain time frames, or under similar conditions that they choose not to count against their infant mortality rate. Other countries look much worse, as is the case with the U.S., because they count deaths across the board, even if their was little to nothing that could have changed the outcome. Just a note on how seemingly straight forward statistics are dangerous to compare.

      Of course some countries simply aren't the best place to have a baby.

    47. Re:Out of curiosity by drsquare · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, Utah is much more ethnically homogeneous than its neighbours. It also has a low population density. These two factors usually correlate with low crime.

    48. Re:Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Utah state capitol building you are allowed to openly carry firearms, but you're not allowed to wear a hat.

      The rest of the nation doesn't think of Mormons as particularly gun-freakish people, but the gun laws in this state are some of the most liberal (if not THE most liberal) in the country, and the legislators are adamant about never amending them. We will even issue gun permits to other states' felons (though not our own, oddly enough).

      The observed murder rate depends on more factors than just religious morality.

    49. Re:Out of curiosity by Kozz · · Score: 1

      Thanks for spelling it out for the rest of the readers.

      It's the same sort of question I ask myself when you hear that "a new report shows a dramatic 35% increase in [disorder/disease] in the last 20 years". You wonder if it's increased incidence, more accurate diagnosis, expanded diagnostic criteria, or how many other things might affect this number. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" they say. ;)

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    50. Re:Out of curiosity by caluml · · Score: 1

      Define 'murder'

      Do you include drunk driving incidents? People who later die of their injuries? Assisted suicide? What if a murder gets classified as an accidental death, due to corruption or incompetence?

      Good point. I hadn't thought of those. However, drunk driving AFAICSeeIt is not murder. Murder has to be premeditated, with deliberate intent. De la Wiki:

      Murder as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide.

      So no, drink-driving isn't murder. In my eyes, anyway. And I'd hope that most sane people would agree that helping someone who really wanted to end their life end their life wouldn't be included as murder either. Of course, that's a whole 'nother discussion. :)

    51. Re:Out of curiosity by aduzik · · Score: 1

      I blame the cold. When it's like 20 below in January, it's too damn cold to do anything. Including murder, I guess.

      --
      If it's not one thing it's your mother.
  13. Combine with RealID and... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "The idea of requiring bar patrons to swipe their drivers licenses as proof of age is still on the table, though. "

    Say what?!?!?

    Ok...this is really getting scary. Why should I have to swipe my drivers license (remenber, it was given as proof of driving certification, tax..etc) to get a drink? And why the hell should anyone know when I go to a bar (or anywhere else for that matter)?

    Now...I'm thinking...if the RealID thing does finally come to fruition, well now...this national database would have some good data to throw in it. Let's cut benefits on (possibly coming) your national healthcare. Since you drink, and are exposed to smoke (well, you still can at most bars I go to)...you are a health risk and we the govt. won't pay as much for you. Or even with private insurance, I'm sure they'll get ahold of this sooner or later.

    Amd..once the populace accepts swiping for bar entry...well, I'm sure they won't mind swiping for entry into drug stores, that would help gather your meds usage. How about grocery store for purchases, that way we can track your unhealthy eating habits.

    And then of course...no need for EZPass...your nifty new drivers license will have RFID...so, that will make it easier for you....we can track your travels.

    Ok, some of this sound far fetched? It might not be....the govt. lawnakers start small enough, but, pretty much every law passed has been expanded or abused.

    In discussions yesterday, I recalled that when they first started passing seatbelt laws, they stated emphatically that the cops could NOT pull you over for not wearing one, but, if they pulled you over for something else, like running a stop sign, and saw you weren't wearing one....they could cite you.

    Well, a few years later, once that was agreeable....they changed it, to being able to pull you over if they see you without one.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Now...I'm thinking...if the RealID thing does finally come to fruition, well now...this national database would have some good data to throw in it. Let's cut benefits on (possibly coming) your national healthcare. Since you drink, and are exposed to smoke (well, you still can at most bars I go to)...you are a health risk and we the govt. won't pay as much for you.

      Go ahead and laugh but this is one of the reasons that I'm leery of UHC. You just know that some jackass is going to use it to expand the war on vice. They started with cigarettes and alcohol -- next it will be soda or fast food. Sure am glad that we have a nanny state to fret about us though -- otherwise we could get hurt.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Anybody know the technical side of RealID enough to know if a single scanner for "all RealID compliant licenses" is available?

      Looking at my Oregon ID, I see the following items that could be used: bar code of license number, 2D dot code of all information. But no mag strip....and I've got to think that 2D dot code may be unique to the state.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Rycross · · Score: 1

      How is swiping your license different than them carding you? I Mean, I suppose they could add you to their private database, but I'm not really seeing the risk here.

    4. Re:Combine with RealID and... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Anybody know the technical side of RealID enough to know if a single scanner for "all RealID compliant licenses" is available?"

      I'm not so sure about the tech on RealID, but, if they use the same stuff they are using on Passports, and I'd guess that would be a realistic thought...then you can be scanned at distance. This guy made a rig where he could go wardriving and gather RFID found on passports.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vancouver BC has something like this called BarWatch. The police and bar owners are behind it for obvious reasons (jackboot thug power and advertising profiles, respectively), and they sell it to the public by claiming they need it to cut down on thuggery and gang violence. It's currently before the Privacy Commissioner.

    6. Re:Combine with RealID and... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "How is swiping your license different than them carding you? I Mean, I suppose they could add you to their private database, but I'm not really seeing the risk here."

      Well, for one thing...I've gotten to the age where I rarely if ever get carded anymore. But, if they put in this swiping to get in thing...EVERY time I go to a bar, it will be noted.

      Also, what about those that don't have a drivers license. And, if you're not driving (and so many people on here bitch about drinking and driving) why should you be forced to carry a drivers license. I mean, it isn't like you're required to carry ID on you everywhere you go.

      But the basic big deal is yes....if you do the required swipe thing...you go into a database. And I think we all know the creative things we can do and information we can gleen by doing some data mining from lots of sources of information gathered on a person. One piece of info may not be a big deal, but, put a bunch of them together, and it can mean something. I figure the less you have to put in, the better. If I'm not breaking a law...no one needs to know anything about me.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Combine with RealID and... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Vancouver BC has something like this called BarWatch. The police and bar owners are behind it for obvious reasons (jackboot thug power and advertising profiles, respectively), and they sell it to the public by claiming they need it to cut down on thuggery and gang violence. It's currently before the Privacy Commissioner."

      You know...I never thought that once I made it past the age of 21.....that I'd want or need a fake ID for the purpose of buying alcohol again....

      *SIGH*

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is swiping your license different than them carding you?

      The bouncer at the door has better things to do than memorize every license that he comes across. The computer has nothing better to do.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    9. Re:Combine with RealID and... by flitty · · Score: 1

      This is why the database is so stupid. They claim it's to catch fake i.d.'s by minors, but honestly, what Moron minor makes an in-state fake ID? Everyone knows to make an out of state ID so the fake is harder to spot. So, "scanning" an out of state ID wouldn't be any more effective than a bouncer staring at it.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    10. Re:Combine with RealID and... by pavon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They started with cigarettes and alcohol -- next it will be soda or fast food.

      Amen. I already hear folks using the argument that people with bad diets harm them by increasing emergency room visits that they have to pay for. This sort of reasoning will only get worse when we are paying for healthcare directly. I'm sorry liberals, but I don't want your charity if you think it entitles you to dictate the way I live my life.

    11. Re:Combine with RealID and... by pisces22 · · Score: 1

      Hell, we have to let the pharmacy log our driver's license just to by cold medicine here(*).

      (*) Here = North Carolina

    12. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, I know enough about the RealID act to know that it contained an interstate EDI specification. So no, "scanning" an out of state ID (assuming the scanner could actually read it) would be much better than a bouncer staring at it- potentially it would link to the main state database, which would then issue a stored procedure EDI request to the issuing state's database, and assuming everything had been set up correctly (big assumption dealing with state bureaucrats, but there you go) a little light would be glowing red on your fake ID in 30 seconds or so. Same if the fake ID couldn't be read by the scanner. The only way to get a green light would be if the out-of-state EDI transaction actually came back with a record.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    13. Re:Combine with RealID and... by barzok · · Score: 1

      I think that's the case in most states now. Combination of kids getting high on various OTC medications and original recipe Sudafed being a key ingredient in making crystal meth. "They" think that keeping track of who's got the sniffles will somehow stop people from getting high.

    14. Re:Combine with RealID and... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Calm down Francis.

      First of all, they require proof of age. You don't want to use your DL? fine, go to the DMV and get an ID card.

      Two, You can create a machine that verifies, but doesn't keep the data. It's trivially easy. I could build one in a day and for less then 100 bucks.
      You can inact a law that says if they keep the data, they loose there Liquor Lisence.

      Well the change the damn law back. Oh right, complaining is easy, doing is hard.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Combine with RealID and... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So your complaint isn't about swiping, it's about storage.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Credit card and cell phone records are accessible to the government already, so much of what you fear is already happening. While the police usually would just track suspects in crimes, tracking terrorists means that right now your movements and activities could well be monitored. Real ID will not really be needed since cameras with facial-recognition will be able to match faces to Drivers License photos.

    17. Re:Combine with RealID and... by jcgf · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sorry liberals, but I don't want your charity if you think it entitles you to dictate the way I live my life.

      ...

      Liberalism: a political ideology that seeks to maximize individual liberties.

      If they are telling you what to do, they ain't liberal.

    18. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Jim+Robinson+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Taking your arguments to the logical (and religiously zealot) extreme, let's just tattoo your national ID number onto the back of your hand - or forehead - and implant a chip. That way you won't be able to do ANYTHING unless the government knows about it and approves.

      Dumb? Yep. Impossible? Unfortunately not. We're already heading this direction.

      I'm not in favor of breaking laws, but at some point our country has gotten off track. We're no longer about liberty first. The only destination that road leads to is total communism.

      Does anyone - government or otherwise - need to know when you have a drink? Not unless they plan to use that information at a later date... and we have too many clear example of how this is abused.

    19. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if your bouncer is Kim Peek...

    20. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And why the hell should anyone know when I go to a bar (or anywhere else for that matter)?"
      Your girl friend might care...oh wait, this is /. so we don't have to worry about that happening.

    21. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Vancouver your ID is scanned & sent to the VPD and your picture is taken to enter a night club.

    22. Re:Combine with RealID and... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "So your complaint isn't about swiping, it's about storage."

      Well, you can't have one without the other.

      You might argue you 'can' swipe with no storage, but, that won't settle well with the govt. Even if they start without collecting the info, at a later date, they'll find a reason to start storing it. So, in light of that...one requires the other.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your complaint isn't about swiping, it's about storage.

      Yes, because time and time again, anytime something formerly legal becomes illegal, the first thing the government does is hunt down every database involving that and arrest everyone on the list, whether it's guns in Germany, tax stamps for marijuana or child porn mag subscriptions in the US (which, by the way, is what you can thank for rulings against entrapment).

      As it stands, drinking beer in Utah is barely legal, and the government would be more than happy to have a ready-made list of people to punish on a whim.

    24. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Which liberals would those be, exactly.

    25. Re:Combine with RealID and... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      America has much, much stricter alcohol regulations than the UK which has UHC. These are just two data, but I think it makes the point. In the UK I don't need to present a driving licence to buy alcohol, I can buy it from a supermarket 24/7 rather than from a state monopoly liquor store, I can drink legally from the age of 5 rather than 21. We only have one 'dry country' in the entire country, and that's basically a throwback.

      The US also led the UK in banning smoking in bars.

      If government wants to run a nanny state, they will do so. UHC is just a convenient excuse.

    26. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet, they have the same IQ...

    27. Re:Combine with RealID and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing is, reading the cards magnetically in no way insures that the ID is real. The data stored on the cards is usually rather basic stuff and unencrypted. It would be so easy to make a fake ID with "valid" magnetic data.

    28. Re:Combine with RealID and... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "makes the point. In the UK I don't need to present a driving licence to buy alcohol, I can buy it from a supermarket 24/7 rather than from a state monopoly liquor store...The US also led the UK in banning smoking in bars."

      The drinking laws there sound like the ones in New Orleans. And you can still smoke in most bars in the US. They've banned it in lots of places...and amazingly enough they passed bans in southern LA, but, for the most part...if it is a real bar..you can smoke, but, if it is a restaurant with a bar, and they make more $$ from food than drinks...you can't smoke there. Strange I know....but, at least we're still trying to hold onto letting Adults act like adults down here, and make their own choices...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  14. A serious question... by east+coast · · Score: 1

    If you have to belong to a private club to drink outside of your home how does this cause a problem for tourism? What tourists are joining these clubs just to have a few drinks during their visits to the state? Maybe the "private club" concept is different in Utah than PA but around here if you had to join a private club to get a drink it just wouldn't happen in the matter of a week or two.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:A serious question... by WamBam · · Score: 1

      I believe that a lot of the so called 'private clubs' in Utah allow you to purchase temporary or short term memberships. So, when I was out there last I had to pay a couple dollars to become a 'member' which wasn't any more then most bars elsewhere charge for a cover. It's not as bad as people make it out to be but I do wonder if it hurts revenue in that there are tourists that are too intimidated by Utah's laws to go to a bar in the first place.

      I also live in PA and I love our private club system. I have memberships to clubs all over Philly! But don't get me started on our draconion State Stores or our inability to purchase wine and beer in the super market.

    2. Re:A serious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If you have to belong to a private club to drink outside of your home how does this cause a problem for tourism?

      Clearly it would reduce tourism from tourists that expect that their fine hotel will have a bar that they can "just order" a gin and tonic from.

      People who expect that on their holidays are actually quite common, explaining exactly why most high-end hotels have a bar.

      I suppose you could make membership to the hotel's "club" part of renting the room, beats me, I just know I won't bother going to Utah and dealing with such stupidity.

    3. Re:A serious question... by Brentyl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can address the "which tourists would join a club" question. I used to be a sales rep in the outdoor industry, for tents, backpacks, boots, whatnot. The industry's twice-yearly trade show was in Salt Lake City, so I would spend the greater part of a week in SLC twice a year. During that time, it's really nice to be able to grab a beer with your partners, or your clients, or your friends from the other side of the country you only see twice a year...

      fwiw, we rarely got hassled to "join" a club. I don't know if they relaxed the rules during those weeks in the face of thousands of heathens coming in from the outside, or if they tired of hearing each of those heathens saying, "Private membership club wot wot?" but only once that I recall did we have to sign up as members. And that was actually pretty funny - my buddy is a smartass, and went on a riff about what benefits we could expect, when do they mail the newsletter, is there a profit-sharing option, and so on - the waitress was lost.

      Some oddities did exist, though: iirc, you could not order pitchers of anything, only individual drinks. You could only have one drink at a time, so if you ordered "another round", the server could not set the new drink down in front of you until you drained the first one or gave it to the server. And all the beer was 3.2, which is basically beer for people who like to pee a lot.

    4. Re:A serious question... by xant · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the whole, entire problem? You can't get a drink in a bar unless you join a club and wait a week or two. So your options are 1) don't go to any bars while a tourist, or 2) don't go to fucking Utah.

      I like (2), myself, and I doubt relaxing the bar regulation will change my opinion, but ymmv :-)

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  15. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I like shaved pussy.

    I believe Utah requires a permit for that too.

  16. Now Utah's govenor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "has called that idea "almost Orwellian," adding that "it's very difficult to legislate adulthood,""

    Tell that to the people who have been running the war on (some) drugs for the last 70 years. Oh wait, we already know they won't listen to reason and logic.

  17. A funny story about private bars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This story is at least 3rd-hand...

    Back in the mid-20th-century, Houston, Texas, was dry. Hotels could have "members only" bars for their guests.

    Well, a Baptist preacher was staying at a hotel with a bar. Back in those days Baptist preachers were anti-alcohol, and this preacher was no exeption.

    For reasons I don't remember, another person, let's call him Joe, asked him why he was a member of a private bar.

    Well, the preacher was incensed. He would never do something so un-Christian as to join a private booze club.

    Joe said "I'll prove it" and had the hotel bar show the preacher the membership list. His name was on it.

    The Reverend was fit to be tied. He demanded that his name be stricken from the book immediately.

    There was one slight problem:

    By law, the bar membership list included everyone on the hotel registry. He was a guest at the hotel.

    I heard this story decades after it happened. It's still funny.

    1. Re:A funny story about private bars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard this story decades after it happened. It's still funny

      No it's not.

  18. Some counties in Texas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    already require this. In Denton, Texas (at least between 2000 & 2005 when I was there), you had to swipe your driver's license at every bar you entered. After signing a receipt your first visit, you were then a member of the private club.

  19. But... by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 1

    Who wants to bet that somehow there is some club owners association that oversees the "clubs" and the association has to pay a fee or percentage to someone somewhere in government there. It's always about the damn money and/or control people! I'm just a disappointed idealist, you can call me a cynic.

    --
    "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    1. Re:But... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There probably is becasue there is a cost associated with tracking the legal aspects.
      You can blame the citizens for allowing this to happen, and continue to happen, not the government.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  20. DB Bar u say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll have a Martini....truncated not deleted!!!...damn watermarks...

  21. Phelps poll by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I saw an amusing poll on ESPN about Michael Phelps, who recently admitted to using pot.

    Across the country about 75%-90% said they thought no less of the best swimmer in the world for using a recreational drug.

    Except in Utah where almost 50% said they thought less of him. They are very detached from the mainstream.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:Phelps poll by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought less of him. But just for being stupid enough to let his picture get taken with a drug when he has tens of millions of endorsements that could go down the drain. Crap, if I had that much money in endorsements just for being the best at moving my arms back and forth really fast (oversimplification, but the point is that it is not a real social benefit to be able to swim fast), I sure as hell wouldn't do anything to risk it.

      So while smoking a joint doesn't shock me, his stupidity does. He went through this before with a DUI, he should be smarter than that.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "They are very detached from the mainstream."

      So they are indie, non-conformists. I thought that was a good thing.

    3. Re:Phelps poll by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think much less of Michael Phelps for apologizing. He did absolutely nothing wrong.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Phelps poll by thebheffect · · Score: 1

      Not to be a nitpicker, but he was 'hittin dat bong', not a joint.

    5. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever consider that perhaps they don't want to partake in the mainstream? What is popular is not always what is right.

    6. Re:Phelps poll by Gleapsite · · Score: 1

      the point is that it is not a real social benefit to be able to swim fast

      Entertainment has immense social benefit. The lives of everyone that enjoyed watching Phelps swim were made better.

      --
      face the world with eyes of fire.
    7. Re:Phelps poll by edmicman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who are you to care about what someone else does in their own privacy? The world needs a lot more MYOB and STFU....if we each worried more about how we lived our own lives, and less about how others lived theirs, it would be a lot better place.

    8. Re:Phelps poll by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      The lives of everyone that enjoyed watching Phelps swim were made better.

      Wow.

      You don't think that statement is even a little bit strong. Do you.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    9. Re:Phelps poll by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought less of him. But just for being stupid enough to let his picture get taken with a drug

      Well, that was pretty stupid of him but in the day and age of the camera phone it's pretty hard to avoid having your picture taken. I think a lot less of the dipshit that took the picture and opted to give/sell it to a tabloid. Anybody with a half a brain could realize the likely outcome of that to a person like Phelps. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I wouldn't sell such a picture if I knew it was likely to ruin someones life/career.

      not a real social benefit to be able to swim fast

      Eh, it's a benefit to society in that it provides entertainment which provides rest and relaxation.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Phelps poll by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think much less of Michael Phelps for apologizing. He did absolutely nothing wrong.

      You'd suck it up and apologize too if your livelihood was on the line....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:Phelps poll by edmicman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, with global warming causing icecaps to melt and whatnot, his crazy swimming abilities might actually have an evolutionary benefit! I, for one, welcome our half-fish super-fast-swimming overlords.

    12. Re:Phelps poll by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our half-fish super-fast-swimming overlords.

      Kevin Costner?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's bad for his performance! He should go back to other kinds of dope.

    14. Re:Phelps poll by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      They are very detached from the mainstream.

      In Utah they are the mainstream, that is why they all packed up and moved there from the east coast during the 19th century.

    15. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the guy is a rich mo-fo, and not one of us pathetic geeks that have to get high or drunk to try to blend in with the hotties and the jocks.
      He could get any girl he wanted just waving his credit cards and the Ferrari keys, but instead he tried to play cool and become "one of them".
      Looks like me at College. Only if I knew at that time that the only thing that really matters is cash, loads and loads of cash, that would've saved me so much coughing and asthma...

    16. Re:Phelps poll by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      So while smoking a joint doesn't shock me, his stupidity does.

      Why does it shock you that one of our species' greatest living physical specimens is not also among our most intelligent? For my own part, I had the distinct impression that his magnificent physique was not accompanied by an equally fit mind during the Olympics when he gave interviews to the press. Phelps is probably of average intelligence and has clearly lived a sheltered life of training and singular focus which has obviously, as this incident proves, left him lacking in social wisdom and street smarts. All of us have our strengths and weaknesses; it is no different for the greatest modern Olympian of all time.

    17. Re:Phelps poll by ThinkTwicePostOnce · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes.

      I too would like the identity of the "squealer" to be exposed.

      It's at least as valid a news story as printing the photo was.

      It has the feel of a real pipsqueak seeking disproportionate revenge.

      Hey, isn't that the same psychology that those Virgina Tech/Columbine etc.
      tragedies have in common?

      Maybe the school where this photo was taken really DOES need to investigate.

      --
      Hide all sigs: Click HELP+Prefs (top), VIEWING (last on right), DISABLE SIGS (3rd on left) and SAVE (hidden at bottom).
    18. Re:Phelps poll by Facetious · · Score: 1

      You do realize that there are as many non-Mormons in Utah as Mormons, right?

      Anyway, I think less of Phelps in terms of his financial acumen. His "recreational" drug use cost him millions in endorsements. That's one expensive bong hit.

      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    19. Re:Phelps poll by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      His livelihood is most certainly not on the line. He already has millions, and is either a graduate of or close to a degree at Michigan. Even if he quit swimming and dropped all his endorsements, starting a "normal" life at 23 with that backing you up is a recipe to live *extremely* well.

    20. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, inspiring others to sport and thus keeping fit.

    21. Re:Phelps poll by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What he really should do is grow a pair, and use his position as an incredible athlete to speak out against the persecution of pot smokers.

      His performance in Beijing totally DESTROYS all the standard "potheads are losers who will never amount to anything" line of bullshit that we have been spoonfed for years.

      He should also tell Kellogg's cereal to go fuck themselves, and seek sponsorship deals from EZ-Wider and Dominos Pizza. :)

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    22. Re:Phelps poll by Praxx · · Score: 1

      You'd suck it up and apologize too if your livelihood was on the line....

      ...and, that's exactly why laws against drugs like marijuana are still on the books. If people like Phelps had the balls to say stand up for themselves and say "it's none of your business", life would be a much better place.

      --
      http://www.policystew.com/
    23. Re:Phelps poll by darjen · · Score: 1

      Well, that was pretty stupid of him but in the day and age of the camera phone it's pretty hard to avoid having your picture taken. I think a lot less of the dipshit that took the picture and opted to give/sell it to a tabloid. Anybody with a half a brain could realize the likely outcome of that to a person like Phelps. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I wouldn't sell such a picture if I knew it was likely to ruin someones life/career.

      Still, he should have been smart enough to realize that it's hard to avoid having your picture taken. He could have easily avoided doing the activity in that kind of environment to begin with. I have no problem with smoking pot, and I think it should be legal. But Phelps really was stupid about it in this case.

    24. Re:Phelps poll by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, "14 time Olympic gold medalist" does tend to add a bit of pop to the ol' resume/CV.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    25. Re:Phelps poll by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      He's human though. Society is filled with people that should know better and do better, but don't, often repeat mistakes. For one, I would be surprised if there was a prominent politician that didn't either break serious laws or got in trouble for breaking them, and these are the people that should know the laws. We should have known from the late 70's how much of a possible time bomb that adjustable rate mortgages can be, but people still sign those papers for them. It's known at least anecdotally that the time a religious minister's convention comes to a city is when the prostitutes have the most clients.

      Puffing on a bong isn't something that hurts other people, at least it's not common. As far as I can tell, it's equally or less damaging to his own health than drinking alcohol, and less damaging to others because of how alcohol is so easily intertwined with violent crime, including domestic abuse.

      I thought columnist Kathleen Parker's take on this issue was pretty insightful, that the laws and public social attitudes regarding pot smoking don't line up with reality, a survey showed that probably 42% of Americans have smoked pot at least once. When this form of contraband is so pervasive and ingrained into the culture, then maybe it's time to really examine whether the laws are just and truly reflect the society in question.

      I've never lit one up, have no interest in it, but I think it's time we as a society took another inch away from the dark ages, have a frank, open discussion that reflects reality rather than deal with the one-sided propaganda from both sides of the issue.

    26. Re:Phelps poll by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      I think a lot less of the dipshit that took the picture and opted to give/sell it to a tabloid. Anybody with a half a brain could realize he could have blackmailed Phelps for a lot more money, and for a lot longer than the tabloid would pay. What a maroon.

      heh. I fixed it for you.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    27. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a lot less of the dipshit that took the picture and opted to give/sell it to a tabloid.

      What do you think of the people that exposed George W Bush as a drug user? Or Obama? Or Clinton? We have a war that leads to upwards of 50% of criminal population (depending on how much of the 'violent' category is drug related). But noooooooooooooooo don't take a picture of your precious swimmer using illegal drugs! I applaud this photog and hope he got good $$$$ for it. He/She deserves it.

      Expose the hypocrisy. Don't just punish poor minorities.

    28. Re:Phelps poll by b4upoo · · Score: 0, Troll

      How healthy is the main stream? What kind of social nonsense is it to indicate that a person can get high at times without being outcast? One of our nations greatest problems is that we are not applying severe social penalties for alcohol and illegal drug use. Social discrimination can be used to absolutely demand only the highest level of function and morality for all people at all times. The Victorian model has much to be said for its qualities.

    29. Re:Phelps poll by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      Of course he just might be able to claim that it was a simulation and that no illegal drugs were in that bong and start filing very lucrative law suits at every corner. Can anyone prove that it was not a jest or gag? Can Kellog's defend itself against breach of contract if no immoral action can be proven?

    30. Re:Phelps poll by 2short · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Not to be a nitpicker"

      To be a nitpicker, this is an odd way to begin a sentence that is entirely being a nitpicker.

    31. Re:Phelps poll by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      His performance in Beijing totally DESTROYS all the standard "potheads are losers who will never amount to anything" line of bullshit that we have been spoonfed for years.

      Who says he was using when he did that? If nothing else, there's a high probability they test for pot along with all the dozens of other performance enhancing drugs they check for in the Olympics and other high level sporting events.

      Given how long THC can be detected after use, he'd of had to stop months before any competition.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    32. Re:Phelps poll by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "(oversimplification, but the point is that it is not a real social benefit to be able to swim fast)"
      Not true.
      It's another vector to get people interested in a physical activity; which benefits society.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    33. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They are very detached from the mainstream.

      Is that always a bad thing, really?

    34. Re:Phelps poll by geekoid · · Score: 1

      heh..Kellog's make smore stoner food then any one else.

      Of course it's hypocritical to shove unhelathy food at us on every turn, and then drop Phelps.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    35. Re:Phelps poll by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pot uses isn't against the rules of the swimming organization. SO I don't know if he was tested.

      Doesn't matter becasue the image that is shoved down our throats is that pot smokers are lazy do nothings. Considering the amount of training it takes to become a world class athlete it blows that picture away.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re:Phelps poll by u38cg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More to the point, if he inspires a bunch of youngsters to do some exercise once in a while then there is a very real benefit to society.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    37. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But *right now* it is not legal. Don't like the law? Think it is a bad law? Fine. Work to change it. But in the mean time, don't get busted smoking it and expect any sympathy for you or your cause from me.

      .

      Obvious troll is obvious. I imagine you probably chuckle every time someone gets arrested or assaulted by the cops for civil disobedience.

    38. Re:Phelps poll by wclacy · · Score: 1

      How can you say he did absolutely nothing wrong? What he did is illegal.

      In many places even possession of drug paraphernalia is illegal.

      You may disagree with the law, but you cannot disagree that he broke the law.

    39. Re:Phelps poll by rthille · · Score: 1

      My thought was, the picture doesn't prove anything about what was in the pipe...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    40. Re:Phelps poll by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      You'd suck it up and apologize too if your livelihood was on the line....

      And this is why you should never accept any job or position that requires you to conform to someone elses morals.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    41. Re:Phelps poll by witherstaff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kids don't do drugs, or you may grow up to have more gold medals then anyone else, or even the President of the United States.

      Hopefully Obama follows through with his view that "we need to...decriminalize our marijuana laws". While I'm not a user I'm all for clearing our jails/prisons from harmless offenders, or saving billions from a failed 'drug war'.

    42. Re:Phelps poll by The+Breeze · · Score: 3, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our STONED half-fish super-fast-swimming overlords.

      There, fixed that for you.

    43. Re:Phelps poll by billcopc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You say he was stupid to get a picture taken while holding a joint, but really what is stupider ?

      A. Smoking marijuana recreationally with friends, on private time ?

      B. Believing that a photo of a harmless victimless act represents a big heinous crime punishable by shame and shunning ?

      If you're desperate to fight drugs, at least fight the invariably evil ones like backyard meth and crack. Those drugs actually destroy people, but with pot, the drug itself is mostly harmless, it's the naysayers who are the ones destroying lives with their near-religious bigotry.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    44. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point. He's not smarter than that. He seems like a jock that has been pampered most of his life and thinks he can get away with anything. I do think though that it's not that big of a deal - heck our 42nd president did it (though he didn't "inhale").

    45. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the non-conformity.

      Cannibalism would be considered non-conformist.

    46. Re:Phelps poll by Mr.+Jaggers · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he's happy with the millions he's already made, happy with his skill at swimming (thusly has a hobby he loves and can do for most of the rest of his life) and keeping his sponsors happy with with a squeaky clean image is less important to him than living his life how he wishes.

      Should wealthy athletes strive to maintain branding so as not to dilute their advertising image, or should they live as they wish, within the bounds of morality? Since (apparently) you already disregard marijuana as a moral issue, then your value judgement on intelligence is a very commercial one. Your mega-corp overlords are pleased...

      What sort of life is it when one can't express one's true personality, and must live in a hermetically sealed jar, under a big fat microscope? I say fuck that and stay true to yourself. And if that someone that you are is a laid back, smoking, olympic superswimmer, then you might lose fifty of your sixty-five million dollars (???? guess pulled out of ass), then at least you're no longer living a lie.

      Or (quickly, don hats of foil...) was this a lack of intelligence in spooking endorsement deals, or rather, an experiment in survival-of-the-fittest to "weed" out crappy sponsors?

      --

      When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
    47. Re:Phelps poll by Mr.+Jaggers · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you that's not what happened, and Phelps gave them the finger?

      It's what I would do if random drug smoking pictures of me existed and were floated by a blackmailer.

      --

      When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
    48. Re:Phelps poll by csartanis · · Score: 1

      Somehow I think he could survive without millions of dollars in sponserships.

    49. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but fundies seem to have detached at the ass rather than at the head.

      (don't make me explain that, please)

    50. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nope, at least 58% self-identify LDS.

      One of Utah's local papers did some research into LDS demographics (unfortunately, the article's only available from a pay archive, but the abstract in the search results contains the meat of the article).

      The church itself claims 72% (certainly some of this claim is showmanship, but still...).

      So, no. There are not as many non-members as there are members.

    51. Re:Phelps poll by Hatta · · Score: 1

      As St. Augustine said, "an unjust law is no law at all." Those who enforce this law are the doers of evil deeds.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    52. Re:Phelps poll by wclacy · · Score: 1

      There may be unjust laws, but this is not one of them.

      And even if you disagree with the law, blame those that made the law, not those who enforce the law.

    53. Re:Phelps poll by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Since when was marijuana a performance enhancing drug?

    54. Re:Phelps poll by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Legalization is legalization. What "hypocrisy" are you talking about, exactly.

    55. Re:Phelps poll by lessthan · · Score: 1

      It is kind of a bullet-proof statement. If watching someone makes you happy, your life is better, right? even if that someone is beating children.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    56. Re:Phelps poll by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      "They are very detached from the mainstream."

      Yet we criticize the mainstream all the time for being stupid/uninformed/etc. Does that make Utahns less stupid and more informed? ;)

    57. Re:Phelps poll by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Maybe he/she was just engaging in a little rhetorical paraleipsis. :)

    58. Re:Phelps poll by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 2, Informative

      You'll find that Mormons in general are not "fundies." Actually, the "fundies" generally dislike Mormons. Yes, we tend to be conservative but not "fundamentalists" in the sense that it's commonly used.

    59. Re:Phelps poll by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 2, Informative

      "certainly some of this claim is showmanship, but still...)"

      No, the claim is based on membership records. If people do not ask for their names to be removed from church records, they are still considered LDS, even if they don't go to church. There's nothing "showy" about that. It's a bit like being an American expatriate who retains U.S. citizenship. So not all of the 70% are active, but they are still members.

    60. Re:Phelps poll by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Hopefully Obama follows through with his view that "we need to...decriminalize our marijuana laws".

      Link please? I have a feeling this is quite out of context.

    61. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lives of everyone that enjoyed watching Phelps swim were made better.

      Wow.

      You don't think that statement is even a little bit strong. Do you.

      and you don't really understand comparatives do you? He never said how much better.

    62. Re:Phelps poll by Hatta · · Score: 1

      There may be unjust laws, but this is not one of them.

      Tell me then, what gives anyone the right to dictate what goes into my body? My body, my choice. Smoking pot is a truly benign activity. For the state to retaliate with violence against people who have committed no violence, nor taken anything from anyone, or harmed anyone in any way, that is not just unjust, it is a travesty. Jailing people for marijuana use is barbaric. It's no different then when the Taleban prohibits dancing, or other harmless recreational activities.

      And even if you disagree with the law, blame those that made the law, not those who enforce the law.

      It takes two to tango. The law would be toothless if those responsible for enforcing it would exercise their consciences and refuse to enforce it. So they are just as bad as those who passed the law. "I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg, and it doesn't excuse the actions of drug warriors either.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    63. Re:Phelps poll by insllvn · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that explains the 50% with reasonable views on Phelps' smoking habits.

    64. Re:Phelps poll by Facetious · · Score: 1

      Only if 100% of non-Mormons are cool with it. Or did you mean Mormons have the reasonable view?

      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    65. Re:Phelps poll by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Barack Obama has made it clear that he believes the war on drugs has failed. Yet he calls for decriminalization, not legalization.

      If you believe that the war on drugs has failed, you believe that no amount of force can eliminate the market for marijuana. So the choice you have then is whether you want a legal, regulated market, or a black market for marijuana. For some reason Barack Obama seems to prefer having a black market.

      Decriminalization is a bad idea. It will only lead to a flourishing black market. The black market doesn't care whether you're 18 or 21. The black market doesn't pay taxes. The black market has no quality control. The black market exposes nice people to the criminal element. Decriminalization will INCREASE the negative effects of marijuana use, not decrease them.

      The ONLY sensible way to handle marijuana is to legalize it. Regulate it as if it were alcohol, or coffee, or somewhere in between, I don't care. Just let people buy it in a safe environment, from people who pay taxes and have an incentive to be good citizens. I can't possibly imagine what would make someone advocate for an unrestrained black market for marijuana.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    66. Re:Phelps poll by maxume · · Score: 1

      You think it is immoral to break the law? 'Wrong' carries at least slight moral connotations. People who break the law should certainly expect to deal with the consequences of their actions, but arguing that it is immoral to break a law is a path to insanity.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    67. Re:Phelps poll by blueskies · · Score: 1

      And it's not his fault that he got triple-dog-dared that he couldn't clear 3 bong hits with one inhale.

      That's the curse of having superhuman lungs!

    68. Re:Phelps poll by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8UeA

      Not out of context, just not part of the 2008 election campaign.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    69. Re:Phelps poll by fotbr · · Score: 1

      I DON'T care what you do.

      But if you get busted, I won't have sympathy for you. That is all.

    70. Re:Phelps poll by fotbr · · Score: 1

      I'm a troll because I don't care if you enjoy pot, and advocate working to change the law instead of breaking it?

      Assaulted by cops? Jail the cop. Period. Every time. There is no justification for violence by thugs with badges, ever.

      Arrested, without violence? Let the system work. Most of the time it does.

      And "civil disobedience" is simply breaking the law to draw attention to yourselves and whatever cause you think you're standing for. That doesn't generate any sympathy from me (unless you manage to get a cop to assault you...in which case my interest ends only in jailing the cop). There are better ways to draw attention and gather support for your cause.

      I want marijuana to be legalized. The whole war-on-drugs is a load of bullshit clogging the justice system. I just don't think that breaking the law and then crying about it is the best way to accomplish that goal.

      But hey, I don't toke up with you, so I must be against you, right?

    71. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully Obama follows through with his view that "we need to...decriminalize our marijuana laws". While I'm not a user I'm all for clearing our jails/prisons from harmless offenders, or saving billions from a failed 'drug war'.

      Won't happen. Too much money is funneled directly into the pockets of our gov't from property seizures and the like for them to even consider dropping the "war on drugs".
      Furthermore, the recent trend of the privatization of our prison systems and the lobbying power they have in congress will stop the introduction of any bill meant to reduce that population. These companies get paid per bed filled, not for operating an empty prison.

    72. Re:Phelps poll by wclacy · · Score: 1

      Lay off the pot, your logic and reasoning skills have obviously been impaired.

      I know people who have been hurt and killed by others impaired by pot. It is dangerous even if you are too impaired to wrap your brain around it!

      As for your second argument, I will say nothing more than refer you to my first argument.

    73. Re:Phelps poll by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      Civil disobedience is one thing, hiding in your room smoking pot, then apologizing once people find out is a completely different thing. If all the pot smokers want to show civil disobedience, then by all means get a group together at 4:20pm on April 20 on the steps to the Capitol building and smoke congress out. What Phelps did was not civil disobedience. Had he said he wasn't sorry for what took place then maybe he could qualify.

      Disclaimers: I'm not the grandparent poster, I'm mostly for the legalization of drugs, I'm 100% against using "under the influence" as any kind of excuse for crimes committed, and I don't like pickles at all.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    74. Re:Phelps poll by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Its called political compromise. For now, ill take decriminalization

      --
      Good-bye
    75. Re:Phelps poll by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      He should also tell Kellogg's cereal to go fuck themselves, and seek sponsorship deals from EZ-Wider and Dominos Pizza. :)

      Kellogg's screwed the pooch on this one. Have you ever seen how a stoner's eyes light up when he sees a box of Frosted Flakes?

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    76. Re:Phelps poll by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I know people who were hurt or impaired after drinking alcohol, your logic stops there.

      --
      Good-bye
    77. Re:Phelps poll by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Obviously you do care, you support a system that rapes and pillages the populace for gain.

      --
      Good-bye
    78. Re:Phelps poll by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Decriminalization is a bad idea. It will only lead to a flourishing black market. The black market doesn't care whether you're 18 or 21. The black market doesn't pay taxes. The black market has no quality control. The black market exposes nice people to the criminal element. Decriminalization will INCREASE the negative effects of marijuana use, not decrease them.

      No, decriminalizing it would mean that people would be able to grow their own without fear of hard time for "possession with intent to distribute".

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    79. Re:Phelps poll by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      I know people who have been hurt and killed by others impaired by pot.

      I bet for every one person you name, I can name twenty that have been hurt or killed by people impaired by alcohol.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    80. Re:Phelps poll by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Growing pot will generally result in a charge of "manufacturing a controlled substance", which is much more serious than possession with intent. Same charges as if you were running a meth lab.

      In most states, having a stash of more than an ounce, or keeping it in more than one baggie, is enough for a "Possession with Intent to Distribute" charge.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    81. Re:Phelps poll by wclacy · · Score: 1

      Where I live the sale of Alcohol is prohibited. I have no problem with that.

    82. Re:Phelps poll by wclacy · · Score: 1

      And for every 1 pot user there are more than 20 alcohol users.

    83. Re:Phelps poll by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Pot uses isn't against the rules of the swimming organization. SO I don't know if he was tested.

      I think I didn't make myself quite clear enough.

      Given the dozens/hundreds of drugs tested for in professional competitions today, I figure it'd take more work to avoid testing for THC than to test for it.

      Considering the amount of training it takes to become a world class athlete it blows that picture away.

      That and that the last 3 POTUSs sorta/kinda admitted to using the stuff also says that. Of course, I'm in the legalization camp, because I think it's silly to criminalize over half the population.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    84. Re:Phelps poll by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      >I sure as hell wouldn't do anything to risk it

      While I'm sure he now regrets smoking pot (that one time...) he may just have different priorities. The man is 23 years old, has millions of dollars, and has won more Olympic golds than any other athlete has ever won in their entire lifetime. If the man wants to relax and have a joint, he will. He'll be fine with this thing just as he was with his DUI.

      Sure, he just got suspended for 3 months from USA Swimming. And he obviously loves to swim and compete. But from here on out, he can continue to go out and party (he lives in a bar-packed yuppie area) or he can train and train and train and put nothing but protein bars into his body. I know what I'd do if I had millions of dollars.

    85. Re:Phelps poll by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Must be a very sad place indeed. No wine with dinner, really? Savages.

      --
      Good-bye
    86. Re:Phelps poll by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Depends on the child, most of the Disney kids could use a good whack with the clue stick.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    87. Re:Phelps poll by budgenator · · Score: 1

      He also got a blowjob but didn't have "sex", but somehow I don't believe either. I'd rather have a president that either didn't smoke pot at all or inhaled deeply, none of this half-stepping bullshit.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    88. Re:Phelps poll by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I thought that THC detection was more on the order of days than months, especially if they just use the simpler screening test rather than the more expensive gas-chromatography/mass spectroscopy method.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    89. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off

    90. Re:Phelps poll by swarsron · · Score: 1

      I thought less of him.

      i pretty much admire him more now. Being able to smoke pot and doing all this awfull tiring swimming ...

    91. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a moron. do your homework on "harmless" marijuana before making such ridiculous statements. i know of many people whose lives are ruined due do alcohol, drugs and, yes, pot. you are obviously a pot head and have no ground making a statement as such.

    92. Re:Phelps poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our STONED half-fish super-fast-swimming overlords.

      Kevin Costner?

  22. Ontario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I thought Ontario was bad, with the LCBO having a monopoly over liquor sales in the province; and our provincial legislators all too willing to buy into MADD's hysterics every time someone dares to suggest that maybe, just maybe, grocery stores should be able to sell beer and wine.

  23. actually by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lethal injection is considered humane because no pain is felt.

    There's a fair bit of debate in this point, leading to a Supreme Court case. Lethal Injection Potentially Not Painless

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:actually by eth1 · · Score: 1

      That's cause they're doing it wrong...

      Inject them with a massive overdose of heroin, or something instead of poison. They'll at least have fun on the way out.

  24. Some Texas cities already have this by BlueNoteMKVI · · Score: 5, Informative

    In Texas, cities can decide to be wet or dry. In a "dry" city, a restaurant that serves alcohol must be a "private club." It's not so much a "private club" in that there are significant membership requirements, anyone can join if they're of age and there's no membership fee or ongoing responsibilities. I'm sure it's just another way for the city to tax the restaurant - how much does it cost to get a "private club" permit?

    So if you're eating out and you want to have a beer, you must present a club membership card. Most restaurants have signed up with a company called Unicard. If you sign up at one Unicard restaurant...er..."private club" then you are automatically a member everywhere that takes Unicard. Years ago you actually got a separate membership card. Now it's associated with your driver's license number. When I was waiting tables the computer would refuse to let me input a drink order until I swiped a customer's Unicard (or driver's license). I'm sure that the computer was checking with the Unicard database to make sure that the person was actually a member. Was it tracking them? I have no idea. Probably so, in case the restaurant needed to look back and prove that a certain customer was in fact a member of the club when they bought that drink. Aside from the inherent lawsuit risks of serving alcohol, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is known for being ruthless and handing down VERY expensive fines to the restaurant and the waiter for any infraction.

    A significant difference here is that Unicard is a private company, not a government entity. I'm sure they'll be quick to share their database if asked by a court, especially if it involves "terrists" or kiddie porn.

    Disclaimer: IANAW (any more). I haven't waited tables for several years and I rarely drink when I'm out. Things may be different now.

    1. Re:Some Texas cities already have this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, as of two weeks ago Denton County, TX required DL swipes just to enter bars, regardless of whether you order alcohol. The funny thing is that they also make you fill out a paper receipt with the info. I had just moved and they told me to put the new address on the paper, even though I had my out of state license.

    2. Re:Some Texas cities already have this by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      There are dry counties in Alabama and probably other southern bible-thumping states.

      Back in the 1950's, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario was the only seller of alcohol in the province (i.e. bars buy from the LCBO), and required its customers to sign for every alcohol purchase.

      The LCBO is still the governing body and only source of alcohol for consumers or resellers, but they're quite hip with the times now, i.e. no signatures required. Their selection is excellent and they can get most anything in on order, since they're the biggest single buyer of alcohol in the world. Every alcohol producer wants the LCBO to buy their products. About 10 years ago the government was considering privatizing the LCBO, and the backlash from the public was overwhelmingly against it.

      But in areas that never heard that prohibition was appealed, if things haven't changed much by now, they probably never will.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    3. Re:Some Texas cities already have this by BlueNoteMKVI · · Score: 1

      Theoretically once you fill out the paper at one bar you're good to go anywhere that takes Unicard. Unfortunately lots of places don't upload their data in a timely manner (or sometimes not at all) so you may have to do it several times before you're in the system. FWIW, most of my table-waiting experience was also in Denton County. I also spent some time working in nearby cities Arlington and Dallas (Tarrant and Dallas counties, respectively), neither of which had the Unicard hassle at the time.

  25. Solutions by CompMD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Got an RFID tag in your drivers license? Throw it in the microwave for 2 seconds.

    Got a magstripe on your drivers license? Rub it with a magnet a few times.

    Got a barcode on your drivers license? Use a little fine grit sandpaper on a few blocks.

    Oh, that's funny, I wonder why your reader can't read my license. Must not be working right.

    1. Re:Solutions by shock1970 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is all fine and dandy until you can't get served at a bar because of it!

    2. Re:Solutions by swillden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If smart card chips (not RFIDs, per se) were less reliable that might work. The reality is that they're highly reliable and durable, so just about the only way to make one cease functioning is to deliberately destroy it.

      That being the case, if they decide to require chip-based age verification, the law will just state that allowing an individual to drink in a bar without having electronically-verified his age is an infraction -- one that might result in withdrawal of the establishment's liquor license.

      A related anecdote: About 10 years ago I attended the CardTech SecurTech conference, where the attendee badges were smart cards that were used for various purposes. Among them, if you'd paid for the full conference and were entitled a copy of the conference proceedings, that information was stored in your chip. When you retrieved your copy, that fact was also stored, so you could only get one (yeah, it was mostly a gimmick). Well, I decided to test the system. After having gotten my copy of the conference proceedings, I planted both thumbnails in the center of the chip contact and bent sharply to break the chip underneath (not hard to do, but there's really no way to do it unintentionally). Sure enough, they apologetically gave me another copy of the proceedings.

      A couple years later, I tried the same thing, but they had been clued in. The guy just looked at me and said "Busted your chip, huh? Sorry, only one copy per person."

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Solutions by Moebius+Loop · · Score: 1

      Our reader always works. You must have a counterfeit license.

      Spread your legs and place your hands in the yellow circles, please.

      --
      have you been seen on slash?
    4. Re:Solutions by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The difference between those two incidents is not technology, it's customer service.

      I did smartcard development work in 95. At that time, Bill Gates was pushing to get card readers into PCs.
      The other big deal was getting them to people who get government checks.Insert your card and then the money is put on your card instead of sending a check.
      It would save billions in paper and mailing costs. Smart card technology caries a big risk for the banks. It is possible to create an economy with the bank mostly out of the loop.
      You could get paid, and pay for things with the card, just like cash. IN fact we did just that in our roll out. The bank was not amused. So we had to change it so money could only put on a card at the bank.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Solutions by CompMD · · Score: 1

      The scary thing is that assumes 100% perfect products released to market, that QA never makes a mistake, and that no faulty product fails prematurely. None of those are realistic, no matter how hard legislators or people demanding your ID want them to be.

    6. Re:Solutions by swillden · · Score: 1

      The scary thing is that assumes 100% perfect products released to market, that QA never makes a mistake, and that no faulty product fails prematurely. None of those are realistic, no matter how hard legislators or people demanding your ID want them to be.

      No, it doesn't. It just means that if you DO get a bad card (which is rare, but happens), you go to the DMV and show them, and they make you a new one that works.

      Worst case is that you notice your card doesn't work on Thursday night, and have to wait until the DMV is open on Monday to get it fixed (Utah state offices are open Mon-Thu, 8-7).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its actually against the law to tamper with a license.

    8. Re:Solutions by swillden · · Score: 1

      The difference between those two incidents is not technology, it's customer service.

      You're right that the technology hadn't changed. The second guy just had a realistic appreciation of the likelihood that my chip had spontaneously broken -- since everyone had to use their chips during registration and any problems would have been fixed then.

      Smart card technology caries a big risk for the banks. It is possible to create an economy with the bank mostly out of the loop.

      That's a nice theory, but it doesn't really work in practice. The problem with stored value schemes like that is that it's too hard to know if the system is broken. The Mondex scheme was pure stored value and allowed card-to-card value transfers, keeping a bank out of the loop, and their theory was that a statistical analysis of the amount of money moving around would let them know if the scheme had been broken.

      I asked the Mondex representative "So, if you decide there's fraud going on, then what?" Obviously, there is no answer because there is no audit trail. The ONLY thing that can be done is to shut the whole thing down and issue new cards with new keys.

      In practice, stored value systems need to be auditable, which means that someone must play the role of the bank and if you look at what that party must do, it's pretty hard to argue from a regulatory perspective that they are NOT a bank. A fully-audited stored value system looks a lot like a demand-deposit account, once you get down in the details.

      As it turns out, stored value has pretty much failed as a smart card application. It's used for transit and other closed systems that manage low balances. Now the battle is between the mobile network operators and the banks. NFC (smart card chip in your cellphone) threatens to allow the MNOs to supplant the banks, and the MNOs obviously like the idea. Again, what they're going to find is that if the MNOs want to act like banks, regulatory compliance will require them to become banks, and then they'll realize that it makes more sense to partner with banks.

      Bottom line: Nobody is going to displace the banks. The governments will make sure of that. You can argue about whether it's just reasonable banking regulation, or industry lock-in bought and paid for, but it's reality.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Solutions by adolf · · Score: 1

      I've had cards erased before.

      It's never been clear to me if it was occupational (working with loudspeakers, power supplies, and radio transmitters) or if they've worn out over time from normal use, but I've certainly had the magstripe on my bank card fail. Not a big deal, usually -- merchants can still key in the numbers manually, and some still have the old-school carbon paper credit card machines as backup.

      So my fear (which doesn't even matter since I'm not in Utah) is that folks would find, one day, that their perfectly working card doesn't function anymore. And if it's required to work, then that presents a problem when people can't buy the things which they'd otherwise be legally entitled to have.

      On the other hand, I make a point of erasing my Ohio license with a strong neodymium magnet whenever I get a new one. I can't stand it when merchants scan my license as proof that I'm old enough to be buying whatever it is that I'm buying. The reason is simple: I'm paying cash, and there's nothing that they need other than proof that I'm old enough. I don't trust them to dispose of my drivers license number properly, or to not feed a demographics database with it.

    10. Re:Solutions by swillden · · Score: 1

      Chips don't lose their data by wearing out, or from strong magnetic fields. They're extremely durable and long-lived. Not that your fear would never happen, but it would be very rare.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:Solutions by chris.evans · · Score: 1

      that'll just make your life miserable when the cretins in charge decide to detain you for not cooperating in the process of tracking "the terrorists". Instead just let them scan you in the database and make sure you are not drinking-emass to arose suspicion.

  26. Alcohol vs other light drugs by jbssm · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I don't think there is so much tourism in Utah, the idea is bad cause it's an offence to civil liberties.

    Still, by an academic point of view, it's strikes to me so strange on why do you accept the sale and consumption of alcohol, but you don't accept of other light drugs (cannabis for instance).

    Most countries, with the notable exception of Holland (where both sale and consumption is legal) and some other European countries were consumption is legal, allow alcohol while they don't allow other light drugs.
    Now my question is, have you ever seen a drunk guy in comparison to a guy that smoke some joints? Or what do you think it's the percentage of heavy alcohol consumers that destroy their life vs heavy cannabis smokers that destroy their lives? Or worst, have you noticed how violent some people that drink alcohol get vs cannabis smokers?

    It's somewhat hypocrite that we accept alcohol consumption for cultural reasons, but that we don't accept cannabis (as an example). Why can understand that people drink wine or even beer as an acquired taste, but when you drink vodka or rum, well, you do it to get drunk.

    I just think that we are all adults and so we can choose what to do or not with our lives. Just ban any publicity to light drugs but allow people to make their own choice about consuming then or not.

    1. Re:Alcohol vs other light drugs by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is one spin that can be put on all of this... You can drink without getting to the point of getting drunk.

      And don't get me wrong, I'm all for legalization of marijuana but it's simply not the same as alcohol in that aspect.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Alcohol vs other light drugs by jbssm · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is one spin that can be put on all of this... You can drink without getting to the point of getting drunk.

      Well, I don't know if you ever smoked marijuana or other cannabinoids, but you don't get high from a smoke. Besides you normally roll it together with tobacco so you can choose how strong it will be. I mean, it the same analogy of drinking a glass of wine vs drinking a glass of vodka. You may drink the wine to get more sociable and loose but not to get drunk ... but when you drink a glass of vodka (pure vodka) you will get drunk. So you can do the same about cannabis, you can smoke it strong to get high, or a light one just to get more sociable.

    3. Re:Alcohol vs other light drugs by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      You can also smoke without getting to the point of being absolutely baked. There are varying degrees of marijuana intoxication, just like there are varying degrees of alcohol intoxication.

      Example:

      • I burn one bowl. I am pleasantly buzzed. I have deep thoughts and giggle occasionally.
      • I burn a joint. I am stoned, but still able to function. I think things are funny that really are not. I get better at Quake.
      • I take bong hits. I am quite baked and probably unable to move. I get worse at Quake.
      • I eat space brownies. I pass out and have interesting dreams.
    4. Re:Alcohol vs other light drugs by east+coast · · Score: 1

      But at the same time I can drink a beer and get no real effect from it. It comes down to a matter of tolerences.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  27. a drivers license in a wallet will be very hard to by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    a drivers license in a wallet will be very hard to read like a I-pass / EZ-pass that can be blocked by some types windshields and needs to be mounted in the right place.

  28. Sorry, "feet", not "feed". by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

    ssia

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  29. Not new by Hadlock · · Score: 1

    The idea of requiring bar patrons to swipe their drivers licenses as proof of age is still on the table, though.

    Google "unicard plano". The city of Plano (1/3rd of a million, one of the 50 largest cities in the US) requires any group of 4 or less people swipe their card (done by the server out of the sight of the patron, but they still sign a reciept/"membership card"). This is to get around some equally orwellian Texas liquor law.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  30. It'll never happen by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

    I live in Utah and these sorts of rumblings are a mainstay. They never pass because they're stupid, and everyone knows they're stupid, but they're a way for pols to get their name in the paper in a way they think will appeal to their constituency.

    In this case, though, it appears to be backfiring. Even Waddoups' heavily-LDS district is largely rolling their eyes at this one. It probably won't damage him, though.

    I DO, however, expect that if Utah deploys REAL ID driver's licenses -- the kind with chips in them -- that they'll start to require electronic age verification just because it's so much harder to forge than a driver's license. Assuming no databases are built, that's a reasonable approach to limiting under-age drinking.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:It'll never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Harder to forge? Electronic reading makes people lazy about the rest of the card, because their little machine told them it was legit.
      Give me $50 and I'll clone you any passport chip that you could put in a piece of cardboard and still get through TSA. If you can get a good fake today (which you can) adding this chip is trivial.

    2. Re:It'll never happen by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Swiping a DL to verify Age is ok, as long as the information isn't stored.
      Of course, many false ID's involve getting a licensee of someone who looks like you. SO Swiping will make it easier since most card checks will just swipe the card and look at the number on the read out, instead of comparing the person to the picture.

      Actually, I would prefer a red/green light system instead of the actual age being displayed.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:It'll never happen by swillden · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would prefer a red/green light system instead of the actual age being displayed.

      I think the ideal is that if you're old enough, it displays your photo on the reader's screen. If not, it just says no.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:It'll never happen by swillden · · Score: 1

      Give me $50 and I'll clone you any passport chip that you could put in a piece of cardboard

      Cloning is trivial. Alteration of the clone is essentially impossible, unless you can forge 2048-bit RSA signatures.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  31. memberships = cover by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The last time I visited I didnt have to fill anything out - just pay a small cover to "join the club".

  32. "almost Orwellian" by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

    Dude, you passed "almost" back at "there are no bars in Utah".

    1. Re:"almost Orwellian" by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Informative

      Please don't talk about what Orwellian means when you clearly have never read any of his books. To say that having no bars is Orwellian is to dilute the word from it's true meaning.

      In 1984, every movement of every citizen is tracked, not just in public but even in their own home. Children are bribed into spying on and turning in their parents. People are tortured for the slightest sign of dissent. Records of the past are continuously 'corrected' at the whim of the government. The nation is at constant war (which may, or may not be really happening) to keep the population in fear. Sex is stigmatized and strictly for procreation (and remember, they're constantly watching you so they'll know if you appear to enjoy it and will punish you accordingly). The very language is controlled and managed to eliminate as many words as possible, for the expressed purpose of limiting people's thoughts to what they have the words to express.

      So no, having no bars is not Orwellian, even forcing people to swipe the their ID before they can drink is not 'almost Orwellian'. You could argue that it is a step in that direction, but that is a totally different statement.

    2. Re:"almost Orwellian" by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're Orwellian.

  33. it is a mental condition by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    but its not a disease

    unless you also want to consider liking doritos, or going skiing, or other perfectly harmless pursuits to be diseases too

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  34. What's this club talk? by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 1

    I was in Utah a year ago and got a beer at Applebee's in a suburb of Salt Lake City. I was carded (per Applebee's policy) but I was never asked about joining a club or anything. What's all this about joining a club to drink?

  35. My experience in Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I spent a summer in rural Utah back in the '80s. The local "bar" didn't sell alcohol. You had to buy beer at the grocery store (don't know where they bought liquor) and bring it with you. The bar provided mixers and a local band that consisted of 2 teenagers playing guitar with drum tracks from a portable tape player with a microphone shoved up against the speaker. They actually did a pretty good version of Freebird. Very Napoleon Dynamite-ish.

  36. I travelled from europe.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I travelled from Europe to raft down the Colorado. Along the way we stopped in to Arches. Nice Spot.
     
    Truthfully, as a couple, my wife and I generally were eating when we were drinking, so we didn't really notice anything different
     
    If I'd gone there 20 years earlier as a Single Guy, beer may have been a higher priority.
     
    There's a lot of Mountain Biking there.
     
    Go visit Saudi and then moan about your licker laws.

  37. Ever bought a drink in Utah? by beadfulthings · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have, and it's a puzzling experience. I was there on IT business for a week, about a year before they hosted the Olympics.

    In the area around Park City, you didn't need to join the "private club." At a casual Italian place, we all wanted to order a beer. You couldn't say to the server, "What do you have on tap?" She replied by bringing a beer menu because it wasn't appropriate (perhaps illegal?) for her to actually discuss the alcoholic beverages with us.

    We did the "private club" thing at a very good steakhouse in Salt Lake City. I believe it was $10 for the "membership." If you ordered a mixed drink--any mixed drink--the server automatically said, "Would you like a sidecar with that?" (A sidecar being an additional measured shot of whatever booze was involved.) Martinis arrived in glasses only 3/4 full because the hooch was so precisely measured.

    The freakish thing about it was that, because it was a "private club," it was perfectly OK to smoke anywhere--right at the table, right next to a table that might or might not have been hosting smokers. No problem. So the other big Mormon no-no, tobacco, is apparently not quite as regulated.

    My observation over the week were that the Mormons among our hosts had no problems at all with our ordering a drink, beer, or wine at dinner. The company hosted us at a very nice private dinner party on our last evening, and alcohol was readily available. I chose not to drink that evening to conform to their sensibilities, then screwed up by ordering an iced tea.

    --
    "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    1. Re:Ever bought a drink in Utah? by thefinite · · Score: 1

      Hehe. This is a great story, especially the bit about the iced tea. I am sure the Mormons in your group appreciated the sentiment, but the vast majority of Mormons wouldn't have held it against you.

      What people don't get is that within Mormonism there are mostly mainstream Mormons and then a handful of dogmatic Mormons. Just like in the Catholic church, in Judaism, in Islam, etc. Utah's legislature gets populated with these kinds of people for the same reason Congress does.

      --
      Boom Shanka
    2. Re:Ever bought a drink in Utah? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >then screwed up by ordering an iced tea.

      So very complicated.
      Iced tea isn't okay because it's still tea. But Doctrine & Covenants 89:9 specifically says "And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly." Cold tea isn't listed: it's been included by association with hot tea. But at the same time, Doctrine & Covenants 89:12 says "Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly" -- and you try and find a vegetarian Mormon movement, or even a leaning that way in Utah.

      I guess all religions are masses of selective enforcement (look at mainstream Christianity's dismissal of homosexuality, while they ignore similar prohibitions against cutting their hair) but the Latter Day Saints have some particularly odd-looking bits of rulemaking, at least to my eyes.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    3. Re:Ever bought a drink in Utah? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I am a Mormon. Just so you know I doubt that you offended anybody. Mormons don't expect you to live by the same rules they do. Now if you where a guess in someones home and demanded alcohol to tea then yes they would offended. But that would be a bit like demanding a burger and a Hindu's home or a ham sandwich at a Jewish person home.
      Now if you had Mormons with you drinking beer and wine then they are not active in the church or are hypocrites.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Ever bought a drink in Utah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The smoking laws changed recently (this year?), so it's no longer possible to smoke in the "private clubs".

  38. Mormons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Utah is a very Mormon State. Keep that in mind as the Mormons spread their influence across the world.

    1. Re:Mormons by WhiplashII · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um - you're a little late there. "Mormons" are in pretty much every country on Earth. In the US, there are 6 million LDS church members - so one out of 50 people in the US is a "Mormon". Utah has 1.5 million LDS church members in it - so excluding Utah it is 1 out of 60.

      There are 7 million members in the rest of the world - so there are actually more "Mormons" that live outside the United States than that live inside. The church is growing at 3% per year - doubling every 15 years or so.

      For fun facts, the country of Tonga is 46% Mormon. The country of Samoa is 36%. Utah is 72%. Hawaii is 5%.

      What rock have you been under?

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    2. Re:Mormons by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      Yeah - the provision to store a year's worth of supplies for your family, that's a very bad thing to have. And the prohibition against caffeine - wicked.

      And the lack of swears - man what will we do when the e-vil Mormans join up with the Zionist Conspiracy to rule the world?

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    3. Re:Mormons by geekoid · · Score: 0, Troll

      Mormons have a history of trying to control everything and tell people how to believe.
      There ruining the BSA, they spend millions to tell force you how to live, they will use the legal system, they try to only hire people of the same belief, they make efforts to ensnare children into there system, the oppress women.
      That's just a start.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Mormons by Praxx · · Score: 1

      Um - you're a little late there. "Mormons" are in pretty much every country on Earth. In the US, there are 6 million LDS church members - so one out of 50 people in the US is a "Mormon". Utah has 1.5 million LDS church members in it - so excluding Utah it is 1 out of 60.

      The Mormon church ridiculously inflates its membership. I left the Mormon church over 10 years ago, and yet they still have me on their "inactive member" list. I know several other people in the same boat.

      --
      http://www.policystew.com/
    5. Re:Mormons by bb84 · · Score: 1

      Nice stats. Now, for even better clarification: how many of those millions of mormons actually go to church and believe in it? I spent my two year mission for the LDS church in Brazil, and all I saw were other missionaries baptizing random poor people (who are usually baptized in 6 or so different religions) and little kids. Most people never went to church again after their baptism. Tonga may be 46% Mormon (nowhere to run from it on such a small island), but that doesn't mean 46% are true Mormons at heart.

    6. Re:Mormons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mormons have a history of trying to control everything and tell people how to believe."

      Like just about every other religious or political organization. Do you think your local Republican office is going to hire Democrats?

      Your Mormon bashing phails. Try again.

    7. Re:Mormons by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Well, OK, so not everyone in the stats is a "true Mormon", whatever that is. Not everyone counted as Baptist is a "true Baptist" either...

      But anyway, if you look at self-reported "Mormons" from surveys not related to the church, Utah has 1.2 million or so - so worst case number inflation is on the order of 20%... that is actually pretty good, for a church with no official procedures for leaving it. (You can ask for your name to be stricken from the records, but I mean really, who is up-tight enough to do that. Besides you, I mean ;} )

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    8. Re:Mormons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are the numbers promoted by the LDS missionaries. Over 50% of the converts leave the LDS within 1 year (usually after they start attending meetings-- they are not informed of the LDS teachings and doctrines until AFTER they convert.)

      CAPTCHA: condom

  39. If I had mod points... by TravisO · · Score: 1

    I'd so vote you +insightful. My only guess is that the picture is older than his Olympic escapades, because any sane person should have dropped the bong and destroyed the camera.

    PS: Kellogg's already dropped him as a sponsor

  40. Evolution in Action by thethibs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From a Canadian viewpoint, one of the fascinating things about the U.S. is that, in many ways, it's composed of a few dozen political experiments, all going on at once. Each succeeds to the extent that people choose to live in a particular state and thrive there.

    Utah is not New York. They could be on different planets, and yet they are both populated by people who call themselves Americans. The opportunities for comparative anthropology are immense.

    --
    I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    1. Re:Evolution in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quebec, Nunavat, and Newfoundland are still part of Canada, right? I'd say you've got your own social experiments going on as well.

    2. Re:Evolution in Action by thethibs · · Score: 1

      Actually, Quebec, Nunavut and Newfoundland are politically identical: left-wing, strong central governments, and living on subsidies.

      --
      I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    3. Re:Evolution in Action by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'd say the same about ... oh, say Quebec and Alberta, which apparently come from different planets.

      Doubtless Moscow and Siberia have rarely met, either. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Evolution in Action by thethibs · · Score: 1

      Quebecois and Albertans are very different people but they live in identical political contexts. Except for right turn on red, if you can behave legally in one, that same behaviour will keep you out of trouble in the other.

      The same can't be said of very many pairs of states. Consider how many different sets of laws I would have to be familiar with if I travelled around the US with a handgun, a girl, or a hash pipe.

      --
      I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    5. Re:Evolution in Action by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      Well put and this is exactly why more laws should be state level and not federal level.

  41. Ah...Utah by techoi · · Score: 5, Funny

    You are still the only state that can, at times, makes us in Idaho feel a little less backwards. Thanks.

  42. I've had my licence swiped at a bar before. by pavon · · Score: 1

    Our mayor would just as soon shutdown all the bars in the city if it weren't for the tax revenue they generate. He is constantly grumbling about the problems that the downtown bars cause and blaming it on the mixing of alcohol and underage kids despite the fact that nearly all of the problems are occurring at underage clubs that serve no alcohol, while the all-ages music venues that he hates so much (because they have drinking and non-drinking sections in the same venue), are the source of very little crime.

    Anyway, all that is to say that they keep bumping the requirements and liabilities that bar tenders have to verify their patrons' ages. They have been known to send barely under-age moles around to bars with fake ID's and fine bars if the bouncers didn't notice that the ID was fake. They also made it against the law to serve alcohol to people with vertical licenses (under-age folks have their licenses printed vertically rather than horizontally in NM), even if it says that they are over 21. Makes celebrating your 21st birthday at a bar difficult.

    A while back a friend of mine was playing a show at a bar I hadn't been to before. I got to the door and the bouncer asked for my ID, so I handed it to him like normal. Before I even noticed what he was doing he swiped it through some machine mounted on the other side of the wall. I was pissed. If I'd known he was going to do that I would have turned around and left. Seeing as how the damage was already done I stayed for the show, but I told the bouncer that I would never be returning to this bar again. I didn't think to ask for the manager, I should have.

    Anyway, given the pressure on them by the city, I can understand why the bars would want to protect themselves by doing this, but I don't know what that machines is doing with my information. It could just be reading the magstripe and displaying the info on it (nevermind that magstripes are easier and cheaper to fake that the visual aspects of the license), but it could also very well be checking with some database to verify that the license is valid, especially being mounted on the wall where you can't see if there is a telephone wire running to it. I'm not going to submit to that garbage.

    1. Re:I've had my licence swiped at a bar before. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Wow!!

      Where the hell do you live where it is so strict and stringent?

      I live in New Orleans, where we are the complete opposite....very relaxed laws: alcohol sales pretty much 24/7, no special alcohol shops (wine, beer, booze sold in grocery stores, convenience stores, drug stores, etc), the to-go cup (yes, you are allowed to leave your establishment WITH your drink in tact, they just give you a plastic cup to carry it out with), drive through daquiri shops (yes, they really put booze in them), if you are under age, you can drink still in a bar/restaurant if you parent is with you...etc.

      And heck, go to the quarter...if you are old enough to reach up to the bar and have cash, they'll server you.

      If you feel too oppressed, then c'mon down here for a vist. Don't forget, Mardi Gras is Feb.24th this year, we're partying fully 2 weeks before that with parades and the like. Temps this weekend are sunny and in the low 70's.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  43. Re: should be smarter than that by macraig · · Score: 1

    Not necessarily: as you hinted, what he's done for a living ain't exactly rocket science, and in fact the two are probably exclusive most of the time (targeted best use of limited genetic resources, ya know).

    As the Darwin Awards remind us, just because there's a lot riding on people making intelligent choices - like staying alive - doesn't mean they actually will make them.

  44. Swipe your Drivers License - Increase the Database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being in the verification industry...

    A few years ago, I became aware of one company which manufactures yellow colored "swipe" products for ID Age Verification, and it no only captures the date of birth, but everything on the license, such as your home address etc.

    They even go as far as providing software that stores this information locally on a computer database, with the intention that the business owner can have this information available in case they want to send you (cough) "promotional mail", such as a sale on a bottle of wine at a liquor store......

    I don't know if this is the case today, but it was certainly something that raised a brow with me a few years ago regarding customers privacy.

  45. You're All Detached from the Mainstream by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've yet to come across any youthful geek-goth-emo-indy-gamer-progressive-wirehead-gearhead whatever who views him or herself as "the mainstream." Everybody is just too cool for the room, proud to be part of that hip 10% who think or do something a different way. To criticize the people of Utah for being "detached from the mainstream" is the height of hypocrisy.

    In fact, in a nation of talkers, nobody walks the walk like the Utah folk. You may not agree with the way they live their lives -- in fact, that's kinda the point, ennit? -- but you gotta respect their capacity for shaping their world into their worldview. I mean, they carved out a goddam state for themselves, they make the laws, and if you don't like it, stay the fuck out. Let's see the Gays, Catholics, Muslims, Libertarians, Han-Shot-Firsters try that and succeed.

    I may not agree with every aspect of their lifestyle or beliefs, but I do like the way they get things done.

    1. Re:You're All Detached from the Mainstream by Tiger4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      proud to be part of that hip 10% who think or do something a different way

      Include me in. I too am part of the 90% that thinks they are in the top 10%.

      The rest of you losers are in the 10% that knows they are in the bottom 90%.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    2. Re:You're All Detached from the Mainstream by WiiVault · · Score: 1
      Sometimes it takes a spade to call a spade. He is only hypocritical if he doesn't realize he is not in the mainstream either. I see no indication one way or the other on his part, so you are just jumping to conclusions.

      It is also troubling how you think that their self isolation is admirable. I hope you do realize insulated societies have a pretty bad track record with personal freedom, which by choosing to live in this country they must abide by. The same is true if it was a state of Catholics, Gays/Lesbians, or Muslims. Diversity of many types is a staple of our society.

  46. No problem there by blair1q · · Score: 1

    the government-tracking idea is a bad one

    but the ID-swipe idea is a good one

    it could even result in an intelligent bar system where your "usual" orders are automatically created as buttons on the order-entry console

    streamline ordering and reduce errors and eliminate having to explain things to the new kid

    1. Re:No problem there by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I don't want to go to a bar where the ordering a drink is the same experience as ordering a Big Mac.
      Bar's are social, and should remain so. I don't have anything against a non-storage id checker.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:No problem there by blair1q · · Score: 1

      And I'd rather socialize than have to explain a recipe to someone whose only addition to the system is that they can insert mistakes between me and the order-taking computer.

  47. ID scans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certain gas stations, bars and clubs and such in California have scanners already and I am sure other states have them also. I see no reason at all not to have them so long as they at most keep a local list of the nights party goers and wipe each morning and as long as there was a fair notice that your information would be held in case of an incident.

    Making a bar transmit my data across the net to a state database each time I stop by the watering hole after work is just ludicrous IMO.

    The only uses I can see for this information are to hold a bar responsible for DUI's (Already done in California) and to violate people who might be on probation and are not allowed to go to bars or buy booze. Neither should be automated.(again IMO)

    So as an exercise to the reader, what other uses could there be?

    P.S. when I went to post the CAPTCHA word was "unfair" lol

  48. Enough with a law for everything! by ImRoadKill2 · · Score: 1

    Utah has become the joking state of the country. They have become so obsessed with babying every citizen there. Look at their video game laws they are trying to pass. They just believe that they have a better understanding on everything and need to control everyones lives. About time you back-hand a politician and tell them they aren't the masters but the slaves to the people.

  49. Why Do You Always Take Two Mormons Fishing? by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    So they'll keep an eye on each other and stay out of your beer cooler.

    (As told by my grandfather, RIP 1970)

    --
    What?
  50. Dallas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A few days ago I walked into a sport bar in Dallas. I was asked to show my driver license at the entrance, which seemed reasonable. Then the guy swiped my card, without asking permission. Then he handed me a print-out with my name and address and asked me to sign that I promise to be well behaved while inside the bar, or something of the sort.

    We walked out and found a more reasonable bar.

  51. Are you nuts? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 0

    "Greatest Snow On Earth" and they're right.

    I'd gladly pay double (and generally do!) to ski Deer Valley than...

    Why, for the love of god, would you want to ski the greatest snow on earth after a snowcat has ruined it? Have you lost your mind?

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  52. It's his JOB! by mangu · · Score: 2

    Anybody with a half a brain could realize the likely outcome of that to a person like Phelps.

    So you are saying that Phelps has less than half a brain? When he decided to become a professional athlete, whose income depends on (a) his athletic performance and (b) his public image, he should have been aware that his public life is exactly that, public.

    When someone's career is selling an image, his life should be what the image portrays, or he would be a fraud.

    Maybe I'm old fashioned but I wouldn't sell such a picture if I knew it was likely to ruin someones life/career.

    Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think laws were made to be obeyed. If you think some drugs shouldn't be prohibited, you should campaign to have those laws rescinded. As the ancient Romans said, "dura lex sed lex", the law may be hard but it's still the law.

    1. Re:It's his JOB! by Mr.+Jaggers · · Score: 0

      Wow, common sense in a Slashdot comment thread! I suppose my post (saying exactly the same thing) should be marked redundant. That makes me happy.

      --

      When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
    2. Re:It's his JOB! by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 0

      Why should we feel compelled to obey unjust laws? Gandhi and King would like to have a word with you.

      "People who enjoy eating sausage and obeying the law should not watch either being made" - Otto von Bismarck

      The idea that laws must be obeyed is farcical. To surrender your judgment to that of the lawmaker is to be sooner or later crushed by the bootheels of the tyrant. Suffice to say that the founders of this country had greater sense.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    3. Re:It's his JOB! by mangu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why should we feel compelled to obey unjust laws? Gandhi and King would like to have a word with you

      Gandhi was fighting against laws made in England that were imposed on people in India. King was fighting for a people whose ancestors were forcefully taken from their land to be enslaved in another continent. Against which laws is Phelps fighting?

      The idea that laws must be obeyed is farcical

      The alternative to obeying laws is the law of the jungle, the strongest will prevail.

      To surrender your judgment to that of the lawmaker is to be sooner or later crushed by the bootheels of the tyrant

      Only if the lawmaker is a tyrant. You should use the ballot box before using the ammo box.

      Suffice to say that the founders of this country had greater sense.

      Yes, they had great sense

    4. Re:It's his JOB! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Gandhi was fighting against laws made in England that were imposed on people in India. King was fighting for a people whose ancestors were forcefully taken from their land to be enslaved in another continent. Against which laws is Phelps fighting?

      Thoreau:

      As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way; its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it.

      In short, he's not fighting laws. He's living his life, which he has every right to do.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:It's his JOB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gandhi was fighting against laws made in England that were imposed on people in India. King was fighting for a people whose ancestors were forcefully taken from their land to be enslaved in another continent. Against which laws is Phelps fighting?

      MLK was not fighting for African Americans. He was fighting against the injustice of Jim Crow laws and segregationist policies and culture.

      No, Phelps is not like King or Gandhi, but he is nevertheless yet another victim of the unjust and nonsensical "War on Drugs" and hypocritical baby-boomer-dominated society which demonizes things which they classify as "youthful indiscretions" for themselves.

      The alternative to obeying laws is the law of the jungle, the strongest will prevail.

      This is a false dichotomy. There's quite a bit of room between blind acceptance of unjust laws and complete anarchy. To make a slashdot car analogy, most people knowingly break posted speed limits (i.e. "the law") but that doesn't mean that there's chaos on the streets as a result.

  53. you don't want to say "blowhard" by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    under a comment about homosexuality

    unless you are offering your services

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you don't want to say "blowhard" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a little bitch you are. keep it up. hopefully someday you'll be forced to pray to allah at gunpoint and we'll see how fast you are to bitch about the laws of utah. you're a disrespectful little prick towards those who really have paid the price of theocratic tyranny.

      fucking bitch.

  54. Building a Database either way. by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    If the system for electronic verification (and you don't think "the kids" can forge a bar code ?) collects info then you do have a database of all drinkers. You can't order a "double" in Utah, even in the nicest steakhouses. Since "no alcohol" is a rule of the LDS church, I think this has great potential for embarrassment of folks who may otherwise have their "temple recommend" . I'd think hardcore drinkers could find someplace else "out west" to live. Montana and Washington come to mind.

  55. It's a disease by mangu · · Score: 0, Troll

    Liking doritos or going skiing do not cause sterility. To determine whether something is a disease or not one can try to think of what would happen if everybody had that same condition. If everybody had the condition of homosexuality, humankind would have become extinct by now, so it is a disease, mortal to the species although it may not seem to cause too much harm to the individual.

    1. Re:It's a disease by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should understand what a disease is before bending it to fit your bigotry?

      a disease is a functional disorder.

      Homosexuality has been part of human nature for as long as there has been people.
      If everyone only ate Doritos's, we would be extinct in 3 months.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  56. Should Executions be Like Jury Duty, Rotating? by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    You made me think of an interesting way to solve the "death penalty question" once and for all. Have the execution be a rotating responsibility, similar to jury duty. If we as a society deem it to be worthy we should have a shared responsibility to do it. If people don't have it in them to pull the lever, then perhaps it should be abolished. Conversely if we really feel strongly enough in the concept of the penalty then it should be no problem, since we agree that the person in the chair is deserving of the punishment.

    1. Re:Should Executions be Like Jury Duty, Rotating? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting concept, but not everyone does agree with the existence of the death penalty.

      "Then it should be abolished."
      I'm sure there are plenty of people who do not agree with jury duty, but that doesn't mean it should be abolished.

      Perhaps.. to expand upon the idea, if the randomly chosen citizen can't pull the lever, that inmate gets life in prison? Sounds kinda unfair though.

      Just to be clear, I agree with the concept of the death penalty, but I believe in the old saying "better a hundred criminals go free, than one innocent person be put away", and am not confident that the government hasn't ever accidentally executed anyone, and am not confident that it won't happen in the future.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    2. Re:Should Executions be Like Jury Duty, Rotating? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      We've already tried this. It's called the "lynch mob". The main result seems to be that we decided round-robin executioners were not such a good idea.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Should Executions be Like Jury Duty, Rotating? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      We've already tried this. It's called the "lynch mob". The main result seems to be that we decided round-robin executioners were not such a good idea.

      Looking at how it all turned out, seems to me that the royal we were wrong, and the idea might need to be revisited.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:Should Executions be Like Jury Duty, Rotating? by rastilin · · Score: 1

      Of course the gaping flaw in that theory is that you could wind up with a guy who used a spiked condom to sodomize three children to death and have him get off because you had a hippy on call that day. On the other hand people could well get the bullet for shoplifting.

      Or take another example, if I were on call and couldn't pull the lever, allowing the person to get off; after being later released, he rapes and murders a woman, does that make me responsible? I would say yes it does. So if you don't hold me accountable, you're letting people play with stranger's lives; if you DO hold me accountable, you're teaching others in society to kill in order to save themselves. Would anyone risk not pulling the switch anymore?



      Therefore, your idea is flawed because....

      [x] It relies upon random people off the street to perform critical administrative tasks of the government.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    5. Re:Should Executions be Like Jury Duty, Rotating? by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      I didn't say abolish the trial. That is what a lynch mob did.

    6. Re:Should Executions be Like Jury Duty, Rotating? by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Of course the gaping flaw in that theory is that you could wind up with a guy who used a spiked condom to sodomize three children to death and have him get off because you had a hippy on call that day.

      Just to play devil's advocate I would argue the same situation applies to jurors.

    7. Re:Should Executions be Like Jury Duty, Rotating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A return to lynching? Let's start with you first. Troll.

    8. Re:Should Executions be Like Jury Duty, Rotating? by rastilin · · Score: 1

      Yes it does, and that's always been the biggest flaw of the jury system. The mitigating factor is that there's more than one of them and you need all or nearly all of them to agree for a "death" verdict.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    9. Re:Should Executions be Like Jury Duty, Rotating? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      But sometimes the lynch mob operated AFTER the trial... having disagreed with the verdict.

      If we had executioner-by-lot, how many would disagree with the verdict today? remember that can go both ways!

      It's an interesting concept, regardless -- akin to someone's suggestion hereabouts a while back, that ALL public offices should be filled by rotation (or even by lot) rather than by election. One suspects at the very least it would improve most people's sense of responsibility to and involvement in running their communities, since at any time they might be called upon to serve.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    10. Re:Should Executions be Like Jury Duty, Rotating? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Heh... having come to believe democracy is fundamentally flawed, largely because the unRoyal We IS so often wrong and so often rules by some form of mob ... methinks a good many "outmoded" ideas may deserve to be revisted.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  57. Cat had my tongue indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is necessary in Utah. This makes it impossible to get drunk and hook up with anyone other than a relative.

  58. One thing about those Mormons... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
    They really know how to party!

    (Yes, I've actually been to Mormon parties, and yes, I'm being sarcastic. I've had great friends who were Mormon, they make absolutely wonderful neighbors and are very dedicated family people. However, their adult "parties" tend to be quiet, depressing affairs where everyone appears to be afraid to have any fun. My daughter also dropped in on a church picnic the local Mormon church was having in the park; despite the emphasis on scripture, she enjoyed the children's activities.)

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  59. Plus a few national parks by weston · · Score: 1

    There's also Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon, Arches, the Grand Staircase National Monument, a couple of state parks of near stature, a bunch of national forests... if you like outdoor recreation, Utah's a pretty fine place to visit or live.

  60. Unrepresentative representatives by sighted · · Score: 1

    I am both a Utahn and a Mormon. Please understand that the Utah legislature frequently does a poor job of representing either group. While I can't claim to speak for everyone, almost all the Mormons I know think this proposal is stupid, and as the governor (also a Mormon) said, Orwellian. The state legislature is well-known for being right-of-center even for here, and like all legislatures everywhere, for proposing its share of dumb ideas.

    --
    Saddle up: Riding with Robots
  61. Visited once, had no problems drinking by beerdini · · Score: 2, Informative

    I spent a week in UT a couple of years ago and I am from MI, where most people take up drinking in the winter months. I was aware of the odd drinking laws going in to the bars, they just carded me, saw that I was from out of state and waved me on through. I can't really say that the beer was any weaker than back home, drank both bottled and draft. It might just be the places that I went, but it seemed like the local businesses knew how to cater to patrons from out of state like a normal state would instead of making visitors jump through all of the hoops that locals need to go through. Then again, that was a few years ago so things might be different now.

  62. Utah & Real ID by weston · · Score: 1

    I DO, however, expect that if Utah deploys REAL ID driver's licenses -- the kind with chips in them -- that they'll start to require electronic age verification just because it's so much harder to forge than a driver's license. Assuming no databases are built, that's a reasonable approach to limiting under-age drinking.

    I agree, but I wonder if Utah will go for REAL ID. They're one of several states who've expressed opposition to the idea:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#State_adoption_and_non-compliance

    1. Re:Utah & Real ID by swillden · · Score: 1

      I agree, but I wonder if Utah will go for REAL ID. They're one of several states who've expressed opposition to the idea

      You're right. Although I make my living doing smart card technology and the REAL ID stuff is therefore good for business, I'm actually opposed to it, and quite happy that my state opposes it. One of the good things about Sen Waddoups, is that he's violently opposed to it (which is just further evidence that this is a political stunt, not a serious proposal).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  63. nope by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    Heroin ODs cause seizures and stuff if it's a newbie user. You have to have built up a bit of a tolerance to slide into oblivion instead of shaking your way out.

    I know this because my "if I ever get AIDS" plan (prior to marriage) was to go out via heroin. Yes, I am an idiot. Thanks for asking

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:nope by somenickname · · Score: 1

      That doesn't really preclude heroin though. Just give them a good dose of it and then do whatever you were going to do to them. They probably won't notice.

  64. Further Proof by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    every 'religion' is merely a cult that reached critical mass.

  65. Non-drinkers? by bb84 · · Score: 1

    In Utah many drinkers and non-drinkers will go to clubs with their friends. A non-drinker may even be at a restaurant or bar with friends (BTW, under the proposed law, if you went to a place like Chili's, decided the wait was too long, sat at the bar dining area, you would probably have to swipe your id to get in). Now, let's say you swiped your id but didn't drink (or only had 1 or 2 drinks, and are still quite sober). You then drive home. On the way, you get into a car accident. The police then check this wonderful database and see that you were just at a bar. You get a DUI. Sound fair? Part of the database usage has been proposed to check if DUI incidents are valid. So, you could easily be assumed DUI because you were recently scanned in at a bar or club somewhere. This law is awful, and will only give the police more power to be stupid.

  66. Excellent troll, but because it got +1'd... by weston · · Score: 1

    ... someone probably ought to say something.

    Want to do anything, anything at all and not get busted? Say: my religion says I must do it...

    There are some quite ready and obvious counterexamples. You can't get away with relatively harmless things like prayer in public schools or religious drug use (unless you're an American Indian). In general, religious defenses against U.S. and state statutes are rare, and even more rarely successful.

    If you're saying that on a social level, some people will extend approval to even some illegal actions, your statement is somewhat defensible, although this isn't particularly a unique feature of religion. But if you're saying that religion is actually a functional defense against criminal behavior (included in "anything, anything at all") then congratulations, you've made your very own contribution to a divorce of rationalism and anti-religion axe grinding.

  67. homosexuality is completely natural by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Redundant

    it has been observed extensively in hundreds of other animals, has been part of human behavior since before we even evolved to become humans- it occurs in all of our simian relatives, and is mentioned in historical texts from every culture that ever existed

    it is a sexual behavior. no worse than any heterosexual behavior or kink

    and yes, if everyone only engaged in homosexual behavior, humanity would go extinct. and? this a completely retarded observation. its like saying if everyone ate hot chilis we would all starve. humanity is never going to only eat chilis. humanity is never going to engage in homosexuality beyond 10% of the population. so what's your point in fearing or being hostile to the practice?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  68. Private clubs? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Admittedly, I wasn't paying attention, but when I went skiing at Alta last year I went into the lodge, there was a place with a thing that looked alot like a bar, and I was able to order several pitchers of beer at it.

    Hmm.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  69. Congratulations to the governor. by russotto · · Score: 1

    Utah's governor called the idea "almost Orwellian". He's almost right.

  70. depends what you mean by nice by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    As far as people who have religious disagreements go, I've personally found my interactions with Mormons to be much more pleasant than me interactions with religious Catholics, southern Baptists, Muslims, or vegans. They generally politely try to excuse themselves if they disagree with something or avoid the issue, rather than lambasting you about whatever their pet issue is.

    1. Re:depends what you mean by nice by pauljlucas · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They generally politely try to excuse themselves if they disagree with something or avoid the issue, rather than lambasting you about whatever their pet issue is.

      ... and instead break open their checkbooks and send tons of money to the Yes on 8 campaign in a state that isn't even theirs. Yeah, that's so much better.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  71. I don't get this Slashdot story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the Australian connection?

  72. hardly the only ones, there by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The biggest proponents of Yes-on-8, both by on-the-ground activism of bishops and priests, and by actual yes votes, were the Catholics, and I don't see anyone scapegoating them. Probably because they're an important voting bloc so you have to be nice to them, while the Mormons are a small enough minority that they're a useful scapegoat.

    1. Re:hardly the only ones, there by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      I never said I didn't blame the catholics. I was merely counting the "Mormons are so nice" comment.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  73. Or they're just not assholes like you. by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Seriously, if somebody gets all huffy about somebody cracking a joke about their religion, they must not be that secure in their beliefs.

    That or they hold their beliefs sacred and important. Perhaps there is nothing in your life worthy of reverence or respect, but there are some people on the planet that wrap their time around more important things than just their work and their favorite Monday night tv shows. Finding your mockery of their lives' foundations to be rude, disrespectful, and distasteful isn't insecurity on their part, it's complete inconsideration on yours. Have you ever had the balls to tell someone "Dude, that's not funny." or do you take your lessons from 14-year-olds on what is and is not appropriate? What kind of a man has to make fun of someone else's belief system? Seriously?

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    1. Re: Or they're just not assholes like you. by gnick · · Score: 0

      So I suppose that every time somebody makes a crack about Xenu and his DC-8s, you immediately jump in and prove that you have "the balls to tell someone "Dude, that's not funny"? There are a large number of people for which that's a sacred and important belief. If you do insert yourself and object, then you and I just disagree about where to draw the line. If not, then you're at best heavily biased and at worst a hypocrite.

      Somebody holding their beliefs sacred is fine - Good on 'em. But that doesn't imply that I also need to hold them sacred. And if somebody huffs off as soon as they hear "A Jew, a Catholic, and an atheist walk into a bar...", well then that's their problem. Sorry. Now if it was walking up to somebody and directly ridiculing them for their beliefs, that would be different - You'd have to be a complete prick. But what's wrong with making light of a belief structure if you find something funny about it? I'm not going to make Catholic jokes while I'm attending mass or make Jew jokes during a briss - That would be disrespectful and irreverent. But out in the wild, it seems just fine to me. There are some funny jokes out there about Xenu, Jesus, the Buddha, and most large religious groups as generic stereotypes - If you find all of those jokes offensive just because they're making light of something that Somebody Somewhere holds sacred, you must spend a lot of time shouting down tacky jokes.

      Yes, there are some subjects that I hold as taboo for humor and I have pointed out to people that their attempt at humor was just not funny. But mostly it's making light of something that involves deep pain for others - Jokes about child abuse or the holocaust, for example, I consider to be in poor taste. If they want to joke about it to others, that's fine, but I make it clear that I'm not interested.

      As a side note... You know, calling a stranger an asshole, asking him if he has "the balls to tell someone "Dude, that's not funny," and then asking if they "take [their] lessons from 14-year-olds on what is and is not appropriate..." It makes you sound, well, a lot like a 14-year-old. I don't think I'll be taking my lessons on what is and is not appropriate from you.

      Sorry my post endorsing blasphemy hurt your feelings, but maybe you should grow a little thicker skin.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Or they're just not assholes like you. by sqldr · · Score: 1

      What kind of a man has to make fun of someone else's belief system? Seriously?

      Somebody man enough to stand up to facism^H^H^H^H^H^Hreligion? You cannot trump your way out of a debate on a ridiculous belief system just because it might offend you or your imaginary friend with a beard who lives on a cloud. It's the imaginary guy with the beard who lives on a cloud which is a) a fucking stupid belief, and b) the problem.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
  74. It's not that bad by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    When snowboarding at big sky, getting into the bar meant filling out the membership card the pretty hostess gave me, and if IIRC, having somebody who already had a membership say "sure, he's with me".

  75. Simple... by ZxCv · · Score: 1

    I'll never understand why everyone thinks Mormons are crazier than any other religious person. It's still the same zombie Jesus rhetoric.

    Because Mormons take that typical zombie Jesus rhetoric, and top it with a healthy dose of good ol' insanity. Golden plates with seer stones? The first man and woman lived in North America? "True" native americans were white? The list goes on and on...

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
    1. Re:Simple... by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      I'll feed your trolling.

      The most important religious documents have always been written on long-lasting materials (rocks, metal, etc.). Gold plates or similar things are fairly common, especially considering that as people changed their beliefs many plates or documents would have been destroyed.

      The seer stones are mentioned in the Bible (I'm not saying that answers your question but they are Biblical).

      If you believe in the Adam and Eve story, why does it matter where they lived? What is now know as the U.S. is as good as any other place. If you don't believe the story, then why does it matter where they lived?

      As far as "'true' native americans were white" - that's a very inaccurate representation of LDS Church teachings. We believe there were (within the realm of the Book of Mormon) two groups of people (there were actually other groups too but I'm keeping it simple) - some with lighter skin and some with darker skin. Actually, when the people were righteous they were often referred to having "fair countenances" which does != white. That is a very common way to refer to good and bad - white and black (e.g., white knights and black knights). Besides, there were other people in the Americas - the Book of Mormon only talks about relatively few people and America is a big place. There were other people here too.

      You can think we're insane, that's fine, but all people believe strange things in their own way.

  76. Try Reading the Actual Laws for Once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those that actually don't read the laws. The private club thing is not for drinking it is for the smoking part. Utah has a clean air act(Utah is not the only one with this law btw) that prohibits smoking inside buildings that are public. For the bars to get around this law they must be private so their patrons can smoke in the bar. It has nothing to do with ordering a beer or a shot or anything else. If this was the case every resturant in state would have to be "private" cause you can order a drink from
    Chili's or Applebees etc.
             

  77. Stuck in Utah. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    I played in a band last year that went on Warped Tour. We broke down and got stuck in St. George, Utah. It was June, and approximately 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit for the duration of our stay there (we were stuck about a week). There was a total of one bars in St. George, and it was beer only (It's called "The One and Only". In addition, the beers were not full strength. They have to have custom brewed Guinness that tastes completely horrible and has less than the expected alcohol content of regular Guinness. We negotiated a deal to play at the one bar in town every night we were there, hoping to at least get free crappy beer since we were stuck in arguably the worst state of the union.

    I have Mormon friends. The Mormon lifestyle is healthy and wise in numerous ways. But the religion is clearly based on horse shit. There is no way a known charlatan found golden plates from a missing Jewish tribe that got wiped out in the Americas. It's OBVIOUSLY poppy cock.

    Further, their religion is based on Christianity, which is also full of holes scientifically, and they've further edited that down.

    Their opposition to alcohol comes from a section of "The Pearl of Great Price" wherein they refer to a church members body as a temple that must be respected. Fine, but what about Jesus making more wine at the wedding? Well, they claim it was "New Wine" (grape juice).

    I play violin. I've played probably 2,000 weddings over the last 20 years. I have seen them run out of:

    Beer
    Champagne
    Wine
    Vodka
    Rum
    Tequila
    Whiskey
    Bailey's
    Kahlua
    Midori

    I have literally seen every type of alcohol run out of at least once at one wedding. I have NEVER seen a wedding run out of grape juice. Not once.

    The obvious affront to the right to privacy that is in the constitution should be the main issue here, but there are many, many other reasons why Utah sucks, the Mormon religion sucks, and prohibition did not work, and WILL not work.

    For the rest of us, we can rest easy knowing that we don't have to live in Utah, and can avoid it altogether, so long as we don't get called again for Warped Tour next year.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  78. This sounds like The Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like something out of The Onion.

  79. not talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    duh.

  80. I'm not sure you realize this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but Park City isn't actually in Utah. There are also parts of Salt Lake City and Ogden that aren't part of Utah.

  81. Sandpaper on a few block wouldn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The encoding algorithm for pdf417 barcodes, which are often used on drivers licenses, uses Reed-Solomon error correction. Significant portions of the image can be smudged without loss of information.

  82. Jew is a tribal myth of Caanid hebrews. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a Jew growing in my backyard. Water it twice a month. The berries are fair, but the seed is poisonous. The oldest living Jew is over in Scotland where Pontius Pilate was borne.

  83. There's a loophole in that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way it {loophole} works is if the hair is first douched with some alcohol and then singed with a lit match; it no longer qualifies as the "shaved" part. I have to accept this as fact because I tried a patriot myth that "shaving pussy" was the loophole, but I just couldn't balance the comprehensional modus to differentiate between a loophole of "shaving pussy" to shaved pussy.

      Patriot (bowel) movement in-deed. I'll stick' to singed pussy from now on.

    To confirm you're not a script,
    please type the word in this image: propane

  84. Take a Philosophy course? by EgoWumpus · · Score: 1

    Sperm do not decide anything, never mind that they're going to volunteer for a race up the vaginal canal. That's like saying the Moon decides to orbit the Earth, or that electrons decide to seek positive charge.

    Choice - if it exists at all - is very clearly a rare thing in the universe. You may wish to re-examine your argument.

    --

    [Ego]out