The Utah House of Representatives [official website] passed an alcohol reform bill on Friday aimed at removing what is referred to as the “Zion Curtain,” a 7-foot-tall barrier, shielding children from watching drinks being mixed in restaurants. The bill, HB442 [text], which was passed by the House by a 58-10 vote and awaiting Utah Senate approval, aims to allow restaurants to utilize alternatives to the Zion Curtain including placing the bar in a separate room and providing a no-children buffer area within 10-feet of the bar. Currently, only bars created since 2009 are required to have the Zion Curtain, while older bars and dining clubs are not. The new legislation would require all restaurants to adhere to the same regulations by 2022. Many in the Utah House, including the bill’s sponsor and the House Majority Leader Brad Wilson [official profile] believe that the bill will keep children from becoming “enamored” by the temptations of alcohol [SL Tribune report]. In addition to the Zion Curtain alternatives, the bill will also mandate higher state liquor and beer markups, create underage drinking prevention programs, and also restrict alcoholic beverages in stores to two areas in the store.

Alcohol related laws and regulations have been undergoing changes in the US and worldwide or have otherwise created legal controversies over the past year. In October, the Iraq Parliament [official website, in Arabic] approved a law [JURIST report] “Forbidding the import, manufacture and sale of all kinds of alcohol drinks.” Until that time, alcohol was been made readily available in shops, bars, restaurant and hotels in Baghdad and in some of the provinces of Iraq, and it was not unusual for young people in Baghdad to be observed drinking. In June the Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that governments can required suspected drunk drivers to undergo a blood alcohol test without a warrant but could not require them to take a blood test. In October 2015 the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled [JURIST report] that an officer must obtain a warrant in order to test the blood of a person suspected of driving while intoxicated (DWI). In November 2014 both the Texas 13th Court of Appeals and the Nevada Supreme Court [JURIST reports] ruled that implied consent laws, which allow officers to take blood without consent to test for alcohol, were unconstitutional.