Today is the fifth anniversary of the decision that forced Utah to lift a state-imposed ban against liquor advertising.

Utah's advertising prohibition was irrational and probably unconstitutional, said the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The state's holiday was spared somewhat because the 2001 decision came down during the evening of July 24.

"An out-of-state reporter called and asked why nobody around town was answering the telephones," said Greta Belanger deJong, founder and editor of Catalyst magazine. "People don't know about the big holiday outside Utah."

The legal action was prompted when deJong asked the Utah Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission if her magazine could include alcohol served at restaurants in its dining guide.

"The person said, 'I don't know, so maybe you'd better not,' '' she said. "I decided that the department ought to know, so let's wrestle this to the ground."

Because of the federal ruling, Utah restaurants can leave drink lists at their tables, waiters can ask customers if they want a glass of wine or a cocktail, and bars can put a neon sign in their windows advertising that they sell heavy beer.

"Utah hasn't gone to hell in a handbasket as a direct result of that ruling," said attorney Brian Barnard, who won the lawsuit against the state. "No one has said anything about bad things happening, and I sure haven't seen it."

Faced with liquor advertising, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recommended that Utah's liquor commission and the Legislature consider even stricter measures. Church officials suggested that the commission solicit a series of studies and a comprehensive review of permissible liquor advertising restrictions that could be enacted at a later date.

Target date, according to a 12-page church report, would be the 2003 Legislature for the new legislation. That date was well after the 2002 Winter Olympics, which had generated debate over Utah's strict liquor laws.

The liquor commission, however, passed up on the recommendation for stricter legislation after several federal appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in favor of commercial free speech rights, said Earl Dorius, regulatory director of the liquor commission.

The nation's high court said in a Virginia case that advertising, "however tasteless and excessive it sometimes may seem, is nonetheless dissemination of information as to who is producing and selling what product, for what reason, and at what price."

In Utah, there still is a chasm separating the views many state residents have of Utah's liquor laws - with conservative, teetotaling, churchgoing Mormons on one side saying state control over alcohol is about right, while fewer restrictions are desired by their non-Mormon, more liberal neighbors who take a nip now and then.

Historically, 19th-century Mormons were discouraged from imbibing, but the advice contained in the church's Word of Wisdom has turned into a prohibition. Versions vary on how much alcohol Mormons consumed.

"It was good advice, but it was more ignored than it was followed," said Utah historian Will Bagley. "Mormon pioneers drank a lot whenever they got the chance."

dawn@sltrib.com