Nanny rules

This is an archived article that was published on in 2013, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Re "In Utah, it's eat, drink and be wary — and in that order" (Tribune, Jan. 12):

Let's see, the Utah Legislature doesn't think its adult restaurant patrons are responsible enough to have a drink while they peruse the menu. No, they must first order food before they can order a gin and tonic.

Why is it that only non-Mormons are treated like children? Other adults are considered responsible enough that they may carry a concealed weapon with no hands-on training. Motorcyclists may choose whether or not to wear a helmet. And any Mormon elder may efficiently set up his home teaching appointments on his cellphone while negotiating Interstate 15 rush-hour traffic.

Why are they treated like responsible adults with much more dangerous activities, but simply drinking at a restaurant requires micromanaging nanny rules? Something is wrong with our priorities.

Something is wrong with our Mormon state legislators.

Brett Routley

Salt Lake City