Utah's Liquor Laws: Still Crazy, but Less So (I Think)

Two years ago, in what may have been his single greatest achievement as governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman signed legislation that eliminated the state's "private club" rule for serving alcohol. No longer would bar patrons have to pay a fee to join a legal fiction before ordering a drink. But as The New York Times notes, Utah still has some pretty weird alcohol regulations. For instance:

1. Restaurants that can't obtain highly coveted "club liquor licenses," which are limited to one per 7,850 Utah residents, can still serve alcoholic beverages, but they have to be prepared behind "a solid, opaque or translucent permanent structural barrier" (a.k.a. a "Zion Curtain") and appear as if by magic. Bottles and bartenders must be hidden from the customer's view, which can really mess with interior design plans. In 2009 the legislature lifted the Zion Curtain requirement for businesses with club licenses but imposed it on businesses with restaurant licenses, which are nevertheless exempt from the rule if their bars were operating as of May 11, 2009.

2. Restaurants may serve alcoholic beverages only with food. If a customer comes in and declares that he just wants a beer, he must be shown the door.

3. Bars ("clubs") may not offer drink specials. If margaritas are $2 on Thursdays, they have to be $2 all week long. This is a new rule, introduced to keep bars under control after they no longer had to masquerade as private clubs.

4. Cocktail strength is strictly controlled: 

Stiff drinks and doubles are illegal in Utah. Bars and restaurants must use meters on their liquor bottles to make sure they do not pour more than 1.5 ounces at a time. Other liquors can be added to cocktails in lesser amounts, not to exceed 2.5 ounces of liquor in a drink, as long as they are poured from bottles clearly marked "flavoring."

It is illegal to stiffen a drink with a second shot: under the law a drinker can order a vodka and tonic with a shot of whiskey on the side, but not a vodka tonic with a shot of vodka on the side.

Assembling a Long Island Iced Tea would seem to require collusion by at least two different customers. In South Carolina, which for decades (until 2004) mandated that cocktails be made with liquor from 50-milliliter containers, distributors used to sell bars mini-bottles containing premixed Long Island Iced Tea liquors (vodka, tequila, rum, gin, and triple sec). South Carolina's rule, like Utah's, was aimed at limiting cocktail strength, but it had the opposite effect, since 50 milliliters (all of which had to be poured into a drink) is about 1.7 ounces, while a typical shot nowadays is 1.5 ounces or less.

The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control explains the partition rules for holders of "limited restaurant liquor licenses" (who may serve "wine, heavy beer, and beer" but not "distilled spirits and flavored malt beverages") and "restaurant liquor licenses" (who may serve "all types of alcoholic beverages"). In 2009 I noted the change in Utah's liquor laws, and a bartender explained the old system to Reason.tv:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian||

    Four shots of vodka for me and my friends! Oh, and a cup of orange juice!

    *combines, drinks*

    Did I just break the law? Fuck you, too, Utah. Fuck...

  • omg||

    It appears that they actually couldn't serve you the four shots, according to the video. You could buy a shot of whiskey, a shot of vodka, a shot of rum, a shot of gin and a cup of orange juice if you like. But 4 shots of vodka would be 2 or more shots of the same liquor and could not be served.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    So that George Thoroughgood song was just listing how to order drinks in Provo. Interesting.

  • ||

    A man was arrested Thursday evening after two students and a library employee reported seeing a male who appeared to be masturbating on the fourth floor of Clemons Library.

    The police report stated that he was engaging in the obscene behavior while “viewing what appeared to be pornography on a laptop computer.”

    University Police responded to the incident around 8:10 p.m. and charged 28-year-old Anthony Daniel Landram with one count of obscene sexual display.

    Nothing else happened.

    http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2.....t-clemons/

  • Warty||

    but they have to be prepared behind "a solid, opaque or translucent permanent structural barrier" (a.k.a. a "Zion Curtain") and appear as if by magic.

    What the fuck?

  • ||

    Oh hey, I found this for you , I know you're a big fan.

    Isn't it sweet?

  • Warty||

    Pittsburgh's royal wedding is set for Christ Church at Grove Farm in Ohio Township, the couple's place of worship for the past year.

    That's a few miles from where I lived when I was a teenager. I spent a lot of time doing drugs and illegally shooting guns in the woods near that church.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Did he meet her in a bar bathroom?

  • SIV||

    Does Ashley enjoy raep too?

  • STEVE SMITH||

    DOES SHE HAVE SISTER?

  • Mainer||

    Seems like you could backlight a translucent barrier, make it sort of a shadow box. You'd see the silhouette of the bottles, the bartender mixing your drink...making the whole experience more exotic and enticing.

  • Team Red Shill||

    B-b-but social conservatives don't have any actual power and never actually affect the laws anywhere, so it's OK to go ahead and elect them as long as they pay lip-service to fiscal conservatism!

  • robc||

    Social conservatives dont pass laws like this.

    This level of stupidity requires mormonism.

  • JD||

    Why were South Carolina's laws just as bad then?

  • robc||

    South Carolina never required curtains.

  • Paul||

    Thread jack:

    L.A. City Council passes landmark 'cyclist harassment law'. It's now illegal for motorists to harass cyclists, and allows cyclists to sue in civil court while waiting for criminal charges to be filed.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/lo.....9222.story

  • Paul||

    This is why this law was needed:

    He became an advocate for the community in 2008 after two cyclists pedaling on a curvy road in his Brentwood district were seriously injured when a driver slammed on his brakes in front of them. The motorist, physician Christopher Thompson, was convicted of numerous charges, including assault with a deadly weapon.

    Without this law, Christopher Thompson would have got off scott-free.

  • Joe M||

    He wasn't convicted hard enough.

  • BakedPenguin||

    This was obviously a hate crime.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    First, do no harm. Unless someone slows you down for a while before you can get around him.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Why do we let bikes on the road?

    That is a serious question. An in-shape runner can run 7 MPH. Your leisurely moron on a bike does 12 MPH tops.

    Get off the fucking road. Bicycles are not meant for a grown-up car world.

  • Zeb||

    "Why do we let bikes on the road?"

    Probably for the same reasons "We" let cars on the road even if the drivers aren't doing anything useful or important.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    It is not an issue of importance; it is multiple issues of safety, fairness, and convenience. As I alluded to, it is not safe for a person to run in the road, even if that person can run fast (e.g. 7 mph and above). Are bicycles permitted in roads simply because they have wheels? Just as I would not advise people to run in the road, I would not advise them to bike in the road. And if bicycles are to be permitted in the roads (and yes, traveling on roads is still a permission, not a right), then they should be licensed the same way cars are.

  • robc||

    They key is minimum speeds. Set a minimum 10 mph below the limit.

    Cant hold 25 mph on your bike? Stay off the 35 mph road.

    It is differences in speed that are the danger.

  • ||

    I think this is one for Tulpa. He supports any restriction on use of the public ways, after all.

  • Paul||

    Public ways have externalities. Or something.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Again, there are laws (and common sense adminoshment) to running in the street, even though there are people who run at 7-8 mph. Why should a bike that goes 12 be any different? Because it has wheels?

  • Brett L||

    I think you'll find very few laws against pedestrians in streets without provision for alternate rights-of-way. I run on the edge of a 45 mph road all the time to get from my house to a a city park. Why? Because there is no sidewalk or significant unpaved cleared road. Its no harder to miss a biker or runner than it is to miss a slow car.

  • ||

    correct. pedestrians are only prohibited (where i have lived and worked) on freeways. that's it.

    even rural highways with a 50+ speed limit are fine for pedestrians

    as for bicycles, i think bicycles should be allowed pretty much anywhere

  • SIV||

    If you are driving and following a car that "slams on its brakes" and you hit it, or leave the roadway it's your fucking fault. Following too closely is the usual cite.

  • Paul||

    I'm going to give the cyclists the benefit of the doubt on the case above. My guess is the motorist had had enough of the "Critical Mass" activities, whipped around them, pulled right in front of them and slammed the brakes-- creating the situation.

    As tempting as it is to fuck with self-righteous people wearing tight spandex shorts and Cinzano rash guards on $2200 bikes, running them over is going too far.

    Unfortunately, in LA, you can't even say something rude to them either.

    What I'm wondering is have they created a "Paul's Mother" law: Bikers can harass motorists, but if the motorist says something back, he gets thrown in jail? If so, that's fucked up.

    I'm foreseeing LA courtrooms filled with svelt young men with tasteful blonde highlights claiming that some motorost said mean things to him and therefore should be prosecuted.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    My guess is the motorist had had enough of the "Critical Mass" activities, whipped around them, pulled right in front of them and slammed the brakes-- creating the situation.

    That's... quite a bit of guesswork.

  • Paul||

    It is quite a bit of guesswork, I'm guessing further that the guesswork was taken out during trial.

    But scraping a few facts from the trial, we know:

    Christopher Thompson was a physician. So he gets 10 automatic hot-head points.

    It took place on a long, meandering five-mile road where motorists and cyclists had a history of 'tensions'. I'm picturing cyclists, riding two abreast, holding up traffic, raising the temperatures of motorists.

    Whoops, I don't have to guess that:

    Prosecutors alleged that Thompson stopped his car after passing the two cyclists and shouting at them to ride single file.

    Also:

    The cyclists testified that they began maneuvering to ride one after the other when they noticed Thompson's car approaching fast behind them but that the driver passed dangerously close before abruptly stopping.
    [...]
    A police officer testified that Thompson told him soon after the accident that the cyclists had cursed at him and flipped him off, so he slammed on his brakes "to teach them a lesson."

    Turns out my guesswork was pretty damned good.

  • SIV||

    That was my guess too. If the doc had kept his damn mouth shut instead of bragging on how he "taught them a lesson" the cycle dickheads would've had a "following too closely citation" to go with their injuries

  • ||

    doctors tend to think they are smarter than they are. i have found that interrogating such people is immensely rewarding since a combination of pretending to be much stupider than i am (insert jokes here) and respecting their big brains(tm) iow egging them on about how wicked smaht they are is like giving curry to a pisshead. they can't resist spouting off their mouth

    surgeons are especially bad in this respect (thinking they are all knowing all powerful beings and completely self righteous)

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Are... are you a wizard?

  • Paul||

    I'm the Harry Potter of Google.

  • Pip||

    "Unfortunately, in LA, you can't even say something rude to them either."

    Congress shall make no law...

    I know I've read that somewhere.

  • ||

    I got no problem with this. Most motorists are dangerous idiots when it comes to sharing the public way with bicyclists.

  • Paul||

    But a law which makes it illegal to verbally harass a cyclist? And it's a one-way law?

  • Hugh Akston||

    On the contrary, they are natural selection in action.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    The only reasonable calculation when it comes to the roadway is a utilitarian one. There are way more people in cars than on bikes. Therefore, cars win and bikes lose. That is what happens with public roadways. If you made them nonpublic, then you can do whatever you want.

    I see absolutely no usefulness in permitting a bicyclist to bottleneck traffic by going 12 miles an hour in a 35.

  • SIV||

    Bicyclists learned to return the favor. I never have a problem with kids or basic transportation plainclothes poor person or DUI bicyclists.It's always those spandex high dollar road bike guys, and then only when they are in groups.

  • ||

    that's fine, but a law prohibiting an expression of OPINION is not ok.

  • Pip||

    Here's what I do when I encounter these fucks riding down the middle of the street. Just before I come up even with them, I slam on the brakes of my full sized pickup truck. Scares the hell out of them, which is only right, as my taxes paid for the bike path that runs just a few feet off of the road.

  • ||

    Oh hey, pip is the only guy that pays fucking taxes!

    I've been commuting by bicycle for about ten years. I follow traffic laws, and am courteous enough to go to the side if I'm slowing traffic. But every once in a while that'e not enough, some guys get fucking tough when they have over a ton of steel protecting them.

    As soon as you get to a stop light and start fucking up their car they don't want nothing anymore.

    Anecdote:

    I had some piece of shit riding my ass downtown one day. He was beeping and swerving behind me even though I was ten feet from the guy in front of me's bumper. This dude eventually swerved into the oncoming lane to pass me, almost hitting me and an incoming car in the process. When we reached the next stoplight I pulled up to his window to see a neck-tat having, tapout shirt wearing piece of shit honky behind the wheel. I started punching his car telling him to get his tough guy ass out of the fucking car; he wouldn't.

    Some fucking tough guy asshole tries that shit about once a month and never has one of those pussies gotten out of their car, never. NEVER.

    If the shit drivers talk on the internet were true I'd be fucking dead by now. ...and I'm a small pacifist.

    Asshole bikers piss me off too. They make law abiding bikers like me look bad, but I ain't taking no shit from a suddenly tough motorist that isn't willing to go to jail.

    Though I'm sure that you're a fucking badass stopping short in front of spandex clad middle aged fucks.

  • ||

    Stupid atheists and their obsession with controlling liquor consumption are behind this outrage.

  • Almanian||

    Don't be bringing people's sexual proclivities into this, Aspartame!

  • ||

    In PA every place that has a liquor license has to have an alcohol manager that has to be familiar with the state laws concerning booze.

    I held this position at a place I managed once and can say that PA has some bizarre laws as well.

    An example: You can have a half price happy hour, but cannot do a BOGO special. WTF, WTF indeed.

    As far as I can tell there is no religious motivation behind this stupidity, and the state's republicans are usually the ones pushing for liquor store privatization.(I think because state store employees are unionized)

  • ||

    Sorry, but living in state polluted with dry counties, that's just not true. When wet/dry votes come up, the churches lead the charge to keep counties dry. The fight to open bars and liquor stores on Sunday was opposed by churches and people claiming religious motivation.

    And it sure wasn't atheists who came up with the idea alcohol shouldn't be sold on Sunday in the first place.

  • Hugh Akston||

    In Colorado, the fight against opening liquor stores on Sundays was led by the liquor store lobby.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    yup. My local liquor store guy said "now I and my employees need to work on sunday or risk going out of business." The fact that this statement does not compute has failed to cripple his mind...further.

  • Paul||

    Next thing you know, those hard-working Asians will control the liquor business.

  • Pip||

    Same as Minnesota.

  • robc||

    Same for KY, despite what SF says.

  • ||

    Oh, I wasn't saying that in other states dry laws aren't motivated by religion; just that here it's more of a bureaucracy trying to remain relevant.

    I think that PA's arcane laws also exist so that there is a mechanism to punish "problem" bars because most laws aren't enforced(or even known about). But a bar with a lot of fights will get cited for something like 'too small diameter on the rope encircling the outside drinking area'.

    I used to get a sheet in the mail from the LCB that had all the citations for the month and the local trashy bars always were getting cited/shut down for stupid shit that would not be noticed at a 'classy' bar.(incorrect signage size, maybe)

  • dhex||

    so there are states where buybacks are illegal?

  • ||

    Do you mean where the state buys the license from the owner as to try and put problem places out of business?

    I think in PA a license has to go unused for like 3 years then it is either bought by the state or nullified. But this is done because the licenses are given out based on a quota system (#licenses/#residents) and not to any business that completes the right forms and pays the fees. This causes people to hold on to licenses and use them as property(I think that you can use one as collateral)waiting to gouge someone. So the unused licensed get nullified and new businesses can start operations...in theory.

    In practice it's usually an extortion game. You find the 'right' lawyer, give him $50k and he finds you a license that you will probably pay another $50k for. It's a legalized racket that invites all sorts of corruption and cronyism.

  • BakedPenguin||

    There's a sort of market for licenses here in FL. They were going for ~ $100k last time I checked.

  • KDN||

    By buybacks I think he means the bartender not charging for a drink if the patron's running up a large bill or is a heavy tipper. That's how we use the term in NJ, anyway.

  • ||

    Oh where you get a chip, or the upside down shot glass?

    Yeah, if you buy a drink the bartender cannot give you a chip for a free drink, but he can charge you half price. In regards to free booze, what you say happens all the time, but I think it may be against the law. (if you have a license it's illegal to give away booze, if you don't then you can give it away but not sell it)

    Like I said before, most of these regulations are openly broken; just don't have a shooting at your bar or you'll have agents up your ass.

  • ||

    i had a liquor control guy tell me this was illegal in my state. frankly, i have no idea and i find most of the liquor laws to be ridiculously restrictive.

    but then, despite my being a strong opponent of DUI and a strong proponent of aggressive enforcement thereof, i think bars should be able to serve intoxicated people. it should be up to the people to determine not to drive. bars shouldn't be forced to be nannies

    that said, our liquor laws at least don't make public intoxication illegal, which is cool.

  • ||

    I agree PA is its own kind of fucked up.

  • Ted S.||

    But a bar with a lot of fights will get cited for something like 'too small diameter on the rope encircling the outside drinking area'.

    Is that really a law on the books in PA? Yikes.

  • SIV||

    I though Kentuck was run by drunken Catholics. Shit, it's where the good whiskey comes from.

  • ||

    KY is only 14% Catholic. And they are mostly clustered along the north border.

  • jester||

    Clustered? What could be the meaning of this?

  • robc||

    Every single catholic in the state shows up for the St X-Trinity high school football game every year.

    Well, maybe not EVERY one.

  • robc||

    Thats a cluster.

  • ||

    "poor people tend to live in clusters" - cartman on COPS

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    I believe you're thinking of Ireland.

  • ||

    Two strikes. Its Scotland.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Scotland is only about 16% Catholic (only slightly more so than Kentuckilanti). The Church of Scotland is 42%. (sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Scotland)

    But you are correct about their whisky/ey (can't be bothered to remember how they spell it). Still: de gustibus, etc.

  • Brett L||

    No 'e' in the Isles. Whiskey is a Canadian/American spelling.

  • robc||

    Bourbon was invented by a baptist minister, the Rev Elijah Craig.

    Probably apocryphal, but still.

  • robc||

    The fight to open bars and liquor stores on Sunday was opposed by churches and people claiming religious motivation.

    False, in Jefferson County the Sunday law was opposed by liquor store owners primarily.

  • Pip||

    The fuck is a BOGO?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Link.

  • Ted S.||

    Capitol L should have called it a BΠGΠ, to make it more obvious:

    Buy π, get π free

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Buy |i2|, get |i2|

  • ||

    How about buy one get e^(Pi^i) for free!

    "That draft will be $7"

  • SIV||

    It's not like Utah is run by Christians.

    One of the thingds I like about Kentucky is (in Bardstown at least) you can go in a Mom n'Pop Meant and Three and get a liqour drink with your country-fried steak, beans, greens and corn bread (or a hot brown).I assumed you could get a drink with your bacon and eggs as well

  • ||

    But it sure the fuck ain't run by atheists. Something to think about the next time people want to claim that religion doesn't do anything to enforce its "morals" in America.

  • SIV||

    Utah is run by members of a faith that forbids adherents from consuming any alcohol whatsoever.Under the Constitution they could ban all alcohol sales if they wished.

    The contemporary American temperance movement is largely secular "public health" one. The anti-tobacco movement, outside say Utah, is wholly secular with some Atheists among it's most zealous proponents.

  • ||

    Still does nothing to refute my claim that it isn't atheists that come up with these stupid alcohol laws. "American Taliban" is way too far, but to say that there is a contingent of religious people who are fine with forcing people who are not members of their faith into following their adopted rules of behavior is an outright lie.

  • ||

    *is not* fucking typing

  • SIV||

    I don't think the opposition is all that "faith based". Connecticut has some of the strongest blue laws in the country and they aren't regarded as a bastion of Bible-beaters. Here in GA the liqour lobby had to poke and stir to get some Christians to join in their (failed) anti-Sunday sales campaign. These laws originated from religious motivation but they are perpetuated by new constituencies and inertia. Some states ban Sunday hunting.I don't think that originated out of morals but rather that churches used to be in the woods and gunshots disturbed the services with noise and the occasional errant round.
    Try to lift the Sunday hunting ban now and you'll get animal rights activists campaigning against it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    What is this meme of people claiming that Mormons aren't Christians today?

  • T||

    It occupied most of the morning links. How do you expect to remain relevant here if you don't peruse every thread?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    understandable if he looked at the ML thread saw Lover John and Lover MNG having another tiff and decided to move on.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I just went back and read that whole exchange. I'm sincerely glad I was stuck on the 405 for that stupidstorm. I'm also glad Cliché Bandit was there to say what I want to say.

  • SIV||

    I think Mormons are Christians if they so identify. I was alluding to the discussion in the morning links thread.

  • Atanarjuat||

    The original point was will conservative Christians prefer Rick Perry over Mitt Morm-ney because of the candidates' preferred denominations. I grew up in that world (Missouri Synod Lutheran to be precise), and was instructed from a young age that Mormons are a wacky, even dangerous cult. Mormons can call themselves Christian, but I'd imagine the number of other Christians who don't want to include them is pretty large. Of course Romney has many other negatives for potential voters (eg, Tea Party voters won't like him because of Romneycare).

  • SIV||

    Conservative Christians don't like Romney because he flip-flopped on baby killing. Worse, he is a former gun-grabber Yankee babykiller from Taxachusetts! The "Mormon cult" thing is far down the list.

  • robc||

    Playing the pyramid:

    Jehovah's Witnesses
    Mormons
    Christian Scientists (bzzzt)

    The category was "Religious groups that arent christian", but you used the word, so got buzzed.

    Im ecumenical, but none of those 3 groups are christian.

  • ||

    Jeez, Hugh... keep up, dude. :-)

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    It's just plain fun, that's why.

    I wonder where MNG & PIRS are though...

  • ||

    Trying to get hard for another round.

  • SIV||

    For some reason I read that comment with Rob Halford singing it.

  • ||

    I wish I could hit those notes.

  • MNG & PIRS ||

    Go away...'baitin'...

  • stuartl||

    Are the bartenders now allowed to stir the drinks?

    On a visit to Zion several years ago, my wife ordered a mixed drink at a nice restaurant. She spit out the first sip since the drink had not been stirred. The waitress explained that stirring by the bartender was not allowed.

  • Hank||

    You can't surprise a classy woman and expect her not to spit.

    Maybe the bartender could have given her a quick couple tugs of the hair. Y'know, as a signal.

  • Ted S.||

    Why do you think James Bond orders his martinis shaken, not stirred?

  • ||

    Their 1.5 oz limit is a martini ban! I want my 3 oz of gin with the teeniest tiniest splash of vermouth.

  • Paul||

    My father, a professional drinker, believed that the vermouth bottle should only be set near the martini glass for a short time. And not too long.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I believe you're supposed to wave the vermouth bottle around the rim of your martini glass and then return it to the shelf.

  • Hank||

    Hooray for pretentious prop comedy! (Having actually done this myself, my cheers are sincere.)

  • Paul||

    That was when he was younger. Once he got older, it just really had to be on the shelf to satisfy the requirements.

  • ||

    If you want cold gin and an olive, drink up, chum. But don't call it a martini.

    The oldest martini recipes are 2 parts gin and 1 part dry vermouth.

  • Ska||

    If you still want a tip for mixing a martini, don't follow the old recipes.

  • ||

    Of course not, it's just that all the chocotinis and appletinis and shit-ass-garbage-tinis have me all touchy on the subject. It would be like if the running joke about a Mint Julep is that it should contain no mint at all. Fine, then. Order an Old Fashion and be done with it.

  • ||

    This is the kind of statement that should be made while shaking something (a fist, or perhaps a cane if one were an old?)

    *Not that I don't agree 100%. Drinks should not taste like dessert.

  • ||

    Get back in the kitchen, missy! Where's my Metamucil? Whippersnappers!

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    +1

    I like mine about 4:1. The vermouth is an essential flavor in the drink. If your vermouth tastes bad, buy better vermouth.

  • ||

    The tip I follow is that vermouth doesn't have enough alcohol to be shelf stable after opening. Dry and sweet vermouth, and Lillet Blanc and Rouge should be refrigerated after opening.

  • jester||

    Just buy the mini version.

  • robc||

    I order my once every 3 years martinis "wet and dirty".

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Empty Martini glass of ice water (you DID ice it down didnt you?)

    Pour splash of vermouth into glass, swirl (or swish if that is your thing).

    Pour out vermouth.

    Fill glass with Vodka goodness.

    Profit.

  • ||

    A vodka martini is scarcely a martini at all. *ducks*

    Here is something for our resident booze snobs to unite around: I was in Montreal and Toronto last week, and Canadian restaurants and bars seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that all mixed drinks served in a martini glass are martinis (monstrosities with Hpnotiq, all manner of girly fruitiness, Bailey's, you name it, all called "martinis"). KITH's Girl Drink Drunk was apparently based on a true story.

  • ||

    That scene where he digs through the trash for a cocktail umbrella is easily in my top five KITH moments.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    I hate to break it to you, but it's not just the Canucks. Bars/restaurants everywhere now have "martini menus".

  • Ska||

    That's the norm everywhere. For example, an apple martini = some shitty ass Dekuyper green apple poison, er, schnapps, with some extra vodka and maybe a drop of 7up. It's fucking garbage in a glass, but every place will serve that (or something similar) and call it a kind of martini.

    The only mixed drink I know of with Hpnotiq (or the equally nauseating Alize) is the Thug's Passion - Alize (or other crappy fruit infused cognac) with Hennesey. Talk about shitty drinks.

  • ||

    Barf. I had thought the Canadians were just behind the times (as usual) and that had gone out of style with Sex and the City. The pretentious bars 'round these parts have been on the Prohibition Era cocktail tip for a while now, which is much better.

  • ||

    The next time you are out, see if one will make you a Corpse Reviver #2 or a French 75. Hell, even a simple old Sidecar is a delight. The craft cocktail craze can not come too quick to Kentucky for me. I had to make my own damn orgeat syrup because I could find any without paying an arm and leg on-line. [grumble]

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    I taught the bartender at my Ann Arbor watering hole to make French 75s. It was the sort of classy place that kept around tiny champagne bottles anyways.

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Girl Drink Drunk" was one of their best. Netflix has their episodes streaming right now. I've relearned the bass and guitar parts to this. My friend (then) 4 year old daughter used to scream every time she saw me "Penguin, play the Kids in the Hall!!"

  • ||

    "I don't know if it's my strength...but. this. chair. keeps! BREAKING!"

  • BakedPenguin||

    The. Beard. STAYS!!

  • ||

    "YOU GO!"

  • BakedPenguin||

    Also, people who remember that far back might remember this from a Taco Bell commercial.

  • Zeb||

    This irritates me to no end as well. And it is going strong in the US too, sadly. A martini has gin, vermouth and an olive in it. If you make it with vodka, it is called "vodka martini" not "martini". If it has any fruity shit or anything else in it, it is something else, no matter what glass you put it in. All those non-martinis that are so trendy now are just for people who are too pussy to drink real liquor but want to pretend that they aren't.

  • jester||

    It's an example of catechresis. Couldn't come up with a new name, so they appropriated the term martini which is in its current recipe a catechresis in its own right and then portmantaued it into its submission as as lame-ass suffix -ini that is as annoying as the -gate suffix.

  • jester||

    It's an example of catechresis. Couldn't come up with a new name, so they appropriated the term martini which is in its current recipe a catechresis in its own right and then portmantaued it into its submission as as lame-ass suffix -ini that is as annoying as the -gate suffix.

  • Rhywun||

    The beauty of "states rights" in action.... Without it, they'd be busy trying to force this silliness on all of us.

  • T||

    I hate going to different states on business trips and trying to figure out WTF I have to do to get a beer.

  • ||

    Me too! Sometimes I remember to research, but usually end up forgetting and oh fuck, it's Sunday, or after 8pm, or you can't buy alcohol in a grocery store, or somesuch fuckery. Seriously, stupid states: business travelers like to drink. There is nothing else to do after work and the TV in our hotel rooms sucks. If you let us buy alcohol, we will pay you money.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That gives me an idea.

    ::Hammers "Business Travelers Go Away!" sign into the ground::

  • Paul||

    If you let us buy alcohol, we will pay you money.

    It's about children, not money.

  • Ted S.||

    So you'll let us buy liquor if we can pay in children?

  • SIV||

    Some Mississippi counties make you buy it hot. I don't know where that is in the Bible but the bagged ice lobby loves it. Keeps people from consuming in the parking lot too. If you have to ice it down and wait, might as well go somewhere else.

  • jester||

    I can buy Polygamy Porter in Texas now. The Beehive State is exporting now. Who'd've thought?

  • Zuo||

    Nothing like a nice cold beer on a hot Utah summer evening, looking at the red sandstone cliffs. Ah, such pleasantness.

  • ||

    Yes, Utah, you are lamer than us in PA in some ways, but our booze rules overall are much more communist than yours. So we win, comrade.

  • ||

    As far as I can tell there is no religious motivation behind this stupidity, and the state's republicans are usually the ones pushing for liquor store privatization.(I think because state store employees are unionized)

    Yeah, in PA the liquor laws are set up to protect favored segments of the industry (taverns, beer distributors, beer wholesellers) and benefit the state (state liquor and wine sales) more so than Utah's religious thing.

    And yep, the GOP wants to privatize, and the House majority leader just introduced a bill. The legislative Democrats are so covered with liquor store union pocket lint you can't see their faces when liquor bills are up for debate.

    Privatization can pass this time due to a larger House GOP margin, as long as the religious right loosen up a bit and favor freedom and fiscal sanity over curtailing Demon Rum.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    The irony of Utah being the neighbor of Nevada never seems to get old for me.

  • ||

    For my gin and tonics I just order two shots of gin and a small glass of tonic water. They can't dilute shots, but if you order just gin and tonics, you'll never be able to get drunk. Stupid Mormon crazies.

  • Jeff P||

    Has anyone at Reason ever compiled all nanny laws organized by state?

  • ||

    Where would they store them all? They probably only have 6 or 7 terabytes of server space.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Terrabytes are pretty cheap these days. They probably wouldn't even need the Kochs to fund the Compendium Nannarium.

  • Ska||

    Yeah but think of all the drugs, drinking, therapy, strippers, whores, cigarettes, etc. that would be needed to get their brains back into fit, working condition after the compilation process. Hell, during it too.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Isn't that basically a typical day for Reason employees? Minus the therapy, of course.

  • ||

    lol

  • ||

    The fact that government's involved in alcohol production and sales at all is something that doesn't register with me better than any other such regulation, unlike most people in my corner of North Carolina. Why can't I just buy booze from a vending machine (I rarely drink at all, but anyway)?

  • ||

    we would all turn into amoral alcoholics! like the japanese

  • ||

  • ||

    Restaurants may serve alcoholic beverages only with food. If a customer comes in and declares that he just wants a beer, he must be shown the door.

    This is dumb, but it at least makes more sense from a "temperance promotion" standpoint (which is the main justification given for state regulation of liquor sales) than states which prohibit bars from earning "too much" money from food sales!

  • ||

    states which prohibit bars from earning "too much" money from food sales

    Huh? An example?

    I'm familiar with the reverse... here in Washington state, up until about 2001 a license to sell hard liquor required an establishment to maintain a MINIMUM percentage of gross revenue from food sales (65% seems to stick in my mind). This put heavy emphasis on the second part of being a 'bar and grill' and was why most nightclubs and such were beer-and-wine only. This was the standard for decades. Then the WSLCB softened the hard liquor policy to a requirement only that food 'needed to be available'. The nightclubs jumped on this and got new licenses; some of them basically worked it where, if you really really wanted one, they'd heat up a TV dinner in a toaster oven or sell you a shrinkwrapped bagel, at outrageous prices-- just to meet the 'food available' requirement. But I've never heard of a drinking establishment penalized for selling 'too much' food.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement