BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Banning Booze

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
00:20 / 25.03.07
I'm with Flyboy. Why stop at booze? We should ban everything that makes anyone even the slightest bit uncomfortable from public places. Out of sight, out of mind, after all, and it's clearly for your own good, so how could anyone object?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:29 / 25.03.07
Unaccompanied women walking around clearly give rise to all sorts of problems, too. And people who look a bit foreign.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
00:42 / 25.03.07
I'm glad to see we're on the same page, Stoatie. I knew you "got it."
 
 
The Ghost of Tom Winter
00:44 / 25.03.07
Here in Florida, on a lovely college campus, the problem isn't so much as people stumbling around drunk as it is people swerving off the side of the road and into trees drunk. I don't think it'd be very productive to outlaw public drunkenness in a place like Tallahassee since people would just jump into their cars to hide away from the scary police men that might see you walking around which isn't very good for other non-drunk people walking on the road.
In summary: public drunks I don’t mind, public drunk drivers I do. Don’t outlaw public stumbling around yelling at people plz.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:46 / 25.03.07
Actually, more seriously, I would actually be in favour of drastically increasing the penalties for drink-driving, off-topic though that may be.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:34 / 25.03.07
Leaving aside the banning question, please don't be silly, darlings. People looking a bit foreign do not generally attack other people outside city centre pubs, or overwhelm our A&E wards and prevent other people from getting timely treatment.

Interesting fact - the London ambulance service can no longer deal with the number of people picked up in Soho of a lively night paralytically drunk. So, instead, a minibus collects the drunks. Once it has a full load, it goes to hospital, disgorges them and then comes back for another load.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
01:45 / 25.03.07
Bizarre. In the States, those minibuses go to the jail, not the hospital.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
02:03 / 25.03.07
Leaving aside the banning question, please don't be silly, darlings. People looking a bit foreign do not generally attack other people outside city centre pubs, or overwhelm our A&E wards and prevent other people from getting timely treatment.

Interesting fact - the London ambulance service can no longer deal with the number of people picked up in Soho of a lively night paralytically drunk. So, instead, a minibus collects the drunks. Once it has a full load, it goes to hospital, disgorges them and then comes back for another load.

I think this highlights the fact that the problem is not caused by drinking in public- it's caused by people not being able to drink properly. If you can't get hammered and find your way home without hitting someone or being sick through someone's letterbox, you shouldn't be getting hammered. Fucking amateurs. Perhaps some sort of test?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
02:05 / 25.03.07
In either case though, shouldn't the social services have better things to do? In Soho, anyway, it seems only fair to suppose if that one's too far gone to get a bus, cab, etc, home, one probably deserves to be woken up by the morning cockney sparrows, with a bin bag as a pillow, and work in two hours.

London's always been like this, it's what it does to people, and to pretend otherwise seems a bit romantic.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
02:06 / 25.03.07
X-post with Stoat.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
02:15 / 25.03.07
This is very true, Stoats. Which is where, actually, publicans have to start enforcing the law, and not e.g. serving or selling booze to people who are clearly already intoxicated. If you can look sober at a bar, you can probably make it home without pissing in a postbox or hitting someone. Of course, crowded bars, poorly-trained staff and lots of ambient noise make it harder to judge that.

Jake: Regrettably, there's more space and more likelihood of getting a bed in the Emergency Room than there is in jail.
 
 
The Ghost of Tom Winter
09:00 / 25.03.07
Regrettably, there's more space and more likelihood of getting a bed in the Emergency Room than there is in jail.

Doesn't really seem to be the case in America. From my experience with Emergency Rooms it takes a good few hours to get into one even if you are bleeding excessively. Although you probably won't get a bed in jail, but a nice concrete floor and a bench with a record of public drunkenness.

My experience with public drunkenness is a bit low however, so I may be wrong on this.

Of course, crowded bars, poorly-trained staff and lots of ambient noise make it harder to judge that.

I know that in my town if a bartender won’t serve you most people will get their buddies to give you more drinks. For some reason it’s some achievement to be piss drunk. I’m mostly speaking of the guys in fraternities.
 
 
Olulabelle
12:13 / 25.03.07
I would certainly drink less if there was a ban on alcohol because I seem quite unable to drink soft drinks in the pub, so I would benefit, but not like it. I would certainly miss having a bottle of wine with my dinner if I was eating out.

There are several suggestions here that people would go out less, but perhaps people would go 'out' more. Would we not find better things to do, go to more gigs, the cinema, galleries? Would we do other things where before we had just sat in the pub? Maybe venues would find they were making more money with new events they were putting on for all the people desperate to have a night out but who can't go down the pub anymore. And people still drink other things don't they? Perhaps we could all have milkshakes and nursery tea whilst we were at our gigs.

I don't think it would ever happen and I would hate to live in a country with a ban on alcohol, but having said that Haus's point about the hospitals is very valid. Mix and I waited over three hours the other day in casualty and that was on a Tuesday night. And the reason we were there in the first place was because of a bunch of drunken teenagers who had gone on the rampage.

Offtopic; Phiar, I am keen to know what is going to happen to the coffee shops if a smoking ban is introduced. Are there any proposals for excluding cannabis from the ban?
 
 
Whisky Priestess
12:39 / 25.03.07
(offtopic)
Phriar, I didn't realise you were from Holland. Do you mind if I read all your posts out loud in a Dutch accent from now on?

(and back on)
I think the smoking ban is a poor model for what might happen if public drinking were to be banned for another reason, which is that (statistics being pulled from behind my ear so forgive if these are not completely accurate) something like 1/4 to 1/3 of the UK adult population smokes, whereas drinkers - mild, medium and hard - make up 75-80% of UK adults, maybe more. It's just going to be a far bigger task and will piss a lot more people off.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
12:44 / 25.03.07
Prohibition is stupid and doesn't work. Obviously this isn't quite the same as prohibition, but it's getting pretty close if by "public places" you mean pubs and bars...and to be honest I don't have that big a problem with drunkards.
 
 
Smoothly
14:02 / 25.03.07
Something like 1/4 to 1/3 of the UK adult population smokes, whereas drinkers - mild, medium and hard - make up 75-80% of UK adults, maybe more. It's just going to be a far bigger task and will piss a lot more people off.

To be honest, those numbers just support my contention that there is too much drinking in this country, and that the nation's health could benefit hugely from anti-drinking measures. And it's worse than you think. A quick Google for stats tells me that about 89% of Britons drink alcohol, compared with 33% of Germans. Now this is somewhat anecdotal and subjective, but I've been out in Berlin and it's a much more civilised place at night than London is.

I accepted from the off that such a ban would piss (some) people off. But legislation against carrying knives pisses off people who want to carry knives. The fact that there are a lot of people who it would affect doesn't dissuade me, quite the opposite in fact.

To be honest I don't have that big a problem with drunkards.

That's all well and good, Allecto, but bear in mind that young men aren't, by and large, going to be the people who benefit most. Older people and younger people probably benefit more. Which goes back to Olulabelle's point. It might not just be that people would go out and enjoy different things, but also different people would feel comfortable going out and enjoying them.
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:08 / 25.03.07
Why not just ban public places? They're clearly the source of so many problems.

As a drinker who doesn't get drunk, I'd miss having an alcoholic beverage when out, but wouldn't miss the effect over-imbibing has on certain people and the knock on effect on society as a whole. But the arguments for banning banning consumption, public consumption, and public overconsumption are very different.

For example, the public smoking ban is based upon the health effects of secondary smoke on local nonsmokers within an enclosed environment. Whilst the same logic can be applied to public overconsumption (including mild consumption in the case of drivers), it does not neccessarily apply to mild public consumption. A large number of mild smokers can produce a lot of smoke, whilst a large number of mild drinkers do not neccessarily have as much of an impact on public health generally. Nor is their negative impact on (for example) culture/atmosphere anywhere near as pronounced as a smaller number of overconsumers.

From Smoothly's first post: Personally I hate public drunkenness. Sure, I've been guilty of it myself, but I always regret it in the morning and would appreciate having temptation taken away from me.

Relate that back to the knife ban. Whilst banning knives has obviously cut down on the number of stabbings, has it addressed the underlying problem of violence? I would suspect not. Whilst I would like to think that violence is still (in the majority of society) unnacceptable, out-and-out drunkenness is celebrated. I don't think anyone's quite clear on exactly why, though obviously there's an element of "look-at-how-tuff-I-am" to it. But perhaps that is a worthier target than all public drinking, which, even if it were eliminated, would probably not address the root problem.
 
 
Smoothly
15:40 / 25.03.07
Yes, I don't think drinking maps perfectly on to smoking, I was just using that as a model that is evidently successful. Of course I don't have a problem with people who share one bottle of wine with dinner, but I don't have a problem with people carrying knives for non-violent purposes. It's just impossible to police the distinction.

Indeed, the 'celebration' of drinking culture is a big problem. I don't know exactly why it exists either, but I imagine that pub culture and a powerful drinks industry is part of it. I think an end to Weatherspoons happy hours, tequila girls and WKD adverts could only lead to an improvement.
 
 
Dutch
16:55 / 25.03.07
(off-topic reply to olullabelle)

Here in the Netherlands, the majority of the "Tweede Kamer", which in British terms would somewhat resemble the House of Commons, proposed to exclude the coffeeshops from the smoking ban a few weeks ago. The original smoking ban, which is to be implemented in 2009 (surely, probably, might be, not sure, etc.) would, they claim, involve an unwanted change in the current soft-drugs policy.

The coffeeshops, of which there are decreasing numbers in the last few years, are the only semi-legally allowed places of public usage. The point of the coffeeshops was originally to prevent organized crime from becoming too big, while at the same time maintain a certain amount of control over marihuana usage (you can only buy five grams). While there is a thriving market in illegally grown marihuana, and there are plenty of places people can still go to fuck up their lives by being constantly stoned, I think the institution of coffeeshops is worthy of maintaining. If only from the perspective of it being pretty much violence free compared to alcohol-serving establishments* and because I believe people have the right to do to their bodies as they please.

The more left-leaning parties, of which one now governs with two others are usually in favor of either condoning the usage of marihuana or the legalisation of it. As long as those parties are in a position of power (governing or in opposition) it is hopefully unlikely the soft-drugs policies will change.

In trying to maintain a semblance of on-topicness; one of the spokespersons for the parties proposing the exclusion of coffeeshops from the ban, compared the outlawing of smoking in coffeeshops to a ban on drinking in bars.

* it's illegal to serve alcohol in any premise where weed is sold or smoked, although as always in the Netherlands, there are weird loopholes and exceptions.
 
 
This Sunday
20:20 / 25.03.07
We don't need to ban drinking, we need to ban the acceptance of the 'I was drunk' excuse. 'I was drugged beyond my will' I'd accept, but seriously, there are towns not too far from me, people so close I could probably see them if I walked outdoors and wasn't looking at trees and mesa... who will stop their reasoning at the words 'I was drunk', like it explains away anything. Doesn't work with other chemical overloads. No going about 'sorry I hit your kid with my SUV and then drove home without saying anything to anyone: I was on crack!' or 'I didn't mean to be a total asshole, feel you up and then vomit on your shoes before screaming for the death of all non-aryans. You see, I had a little too much coffee that night. Normally, I'm a real great guy.'

It just wouldn't wash.

Not that I think people should be punished or condemned more for doing something awful while drinking than not. The actions are the actions they are, is all.

Now, banning public consumption of things I don't like? I could possibly go for that one.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:05 / 25.03.07
Do Wetherspoons actually have happy hours? My local one doesn't.
 
 
Mon Oncle Ignatius
21:20 / 25.03.07
I think every hour at Weatherspoons pubs is happy hour, given the cheapness of their booze. Which of course may be part of the problem being discussed.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
22:41 / 25.03.07
I accepted from the off that such a ban would piss (some) people off. But legislation against carrying knives pisses off people who want to carry knives. The fact that there are a lot of people who it would affect doesn't dissuade me, quite the opposite in fact.

Yes, weapons and booze really are very similar, aren't they? That's the best analogy ever.
 
 
Smoothly
00:07 / 26.03.07
They're similar in the sense that carrying knives is prohibited in addition to prohibitions against stabbing people. The analogy was in reference to the point made on page one that we already have laws against public drunkenness.
 
 
Sole Eater
01:48 / 26.03.07
We have a situation here on Groote Eylandt where a permit must be obtained from the Liquor Commission before a person can buy take-away grog. Without the permit you may only drink within the confines of the two licensed premises i.e. the Rec. Club and the Golfie. The permit lasts for 12 months and is revokable at the discretion of the Commissioner.

Any untoward behaviour and a person may well find himself stuck on a tropical island paradise with nowt but coconut juice for solace.

A friend of mine got an extension on his permit to allow two traditional landowners (sans permit) to drink at his place on Christmas Day. The extension clearly stated that the pair were to be my mate's responsibility and that any incident involving alcohol would jeopardise his permit.

Later in the evening, without warning and in front of the entire gathering of perhaps 16 people, the male visitor turned on his wife and struck her in the head with a half full beer stubbie; knocking her unconscious and almost blinding her in one eye.

The result? Mick's permit revoked for 3 months. Fair? I guess so, he really should have been more aware of the man's inebriation level (the light beer ran out and everyong was supping on my Coopers Pale).

Possession of a liquor permit also allows residents of Alyangula to import alcohol from the mainland in bulk. By-laws exist to control the storage and security of such quantities.

If an aboriginal person decides they want to drink, they must move into town to gain a permit. That requires them to become employed. These are the conditions laid down by the Anindilyakwa Land Council and ratified by the commission. The person loses their job, they lose their house and permit and are relegated back out to the arid zone.

One of the sneakier methods devised to get alcohol into the hands of the unpermitted is to fill up a coffin (beside the deceased's body) with the firewater of choice. Bundaberg Rum is a consistent choice for some reason. The cops are pretty much on to this now but it doesn't stop people trying. After all, who are the cops going to arrest? This can be pretty scary in itself, for if a cargo does get through, it inevitably fuels up a community which is already teetering under a strong emotional burden. Riots around funerals are no big news for dwellers here.

So all in all, drunken violence is not an issue among the 2000 odd drinkers here. No-one wants to risk losing the right to a cool bevvy in the privacy of their home.

Alcohol is allowed at only one beach on the eylandt, fittingly enough called Picnic Beach. Beer and wine only though.

Those wishing to crack a tinny while fishing are at liberty to do so - boats are open slather and much hilarity inevitably ensues on long-weekend fishing trips (the working week here is four days on and four days off so there are a lot of long-weekends to make use of).

Strange though how this thread started off discussing the banning of public drinking but here, if you lose the plot, public drinking is the only sort you can do.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
02:09 / 26.03.07
The result? Mick's permit revoked for 3 months.

And, perhaps more importantly, what happened to the chap who smacked his wife in the face with a beer can. Did he go to jail?
 
 
Sole Eater
03:58 / 26.03.07
And, perhaps more importantly, what happened to the chap who smacked his wife in the face with a beer can. Did he go to jail?

Sorry, I tend to get a bit blase regarding violence out here in the boondocks.

No jail. Traditional (tribal) law was applicable in this case. The injured woman's family were allowed to enact justice via the time-honoured "spearing" of the offender in the leg (this can be a bit "hit or miss." Leg spearing can involve a wound from low calf to over the hip). He was probably also hit with a bit of a fine though. Now happily ensconced back within the conjugal home. Illicit alcohol when he can get it. Same thing quite likely again. This sort of thing hardly raises eyebrows up here. Possibly why I get accused of being callous quite regularly by my old buddies down south.
 
 
locusSolus
05:51 / 26.03.07
Banning of tobacco is happening due to the effects of secondary smoking, rather than the actual health hazard involved. You know, I'm beginning to think this whole banning of one thing and another in public places has nothing to do with anyone's well-being. Many of the arguments are beginning to sound like bunch of constipated people angry about things they just don't like seeing in the first place. You know, like seeing a black man in public places during apartheid was supposed to be 'indecent' and the like. Next thing you know, they'll be banning cell phones and MP3s.

As for banning of alcohol in public places (isn't it already semi-banned in New York city?), if people themselves can't learn that getting drunk and throwing up in public places is a bad idea (as opposed to 'drinking' itself)there's no law in this world to stop them anyway.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:14 / 26.03.07
Can I ban facile metaphors in public places?
 
 
Smoothly
12:34 / 27.03.07
God, it's worse than I thought. Alcohol causes one in four deaths among 15 to 29-year-olds.
 
 
Shiny: Well Over Thirty
15:55 / 27.03.07
Hmmm, I have complex feelings on this one. The public drunkenness of others is something I really rather dislike, and my own public drunkenness is something despise quite intensely. Thus my knee-jerk reaction might be to rather like the idea of a ban on public drunkenness, and indeed there have been many times I’ve irritably thought I’d like to see exactly that. However I fear the world might be a rather grim place if we started making these sorts of rules based primarily on whether I happen to dislike a thing.

However as Smoothly points out there is some rather hideous damage done by alcohol, and it would be really quite spiffing if we could reduce that harm. I’m still not convinced prohibition is the answer though – I don’t think we’re really ready a culture to accept an absence of pubs as social gathering places, and I’d be pretty horrified to see those moderate non problem drinkers being punished because of those who do cause problems. That said I could probably quite happily see a far harder line being taken in enforcing the current laws on drunk and disorderly behaviour, and would certainly want to see people who violate other existing laws whilst drunk treated accordingly.

Going back to the study Smoothly links to on the first page I almost wonder if part of the solution to Britain’s booze obsession might be less prohibition – ie to legalise and licence those substances deemed to be less harmful than alcohol, as it seems possible to me that if alcohol were not the only reasonably effective legal option and people had easy and safe access to a variety of methods of getting themselves trashed they might become somewhat less obsessed with the stuff.
 
 
Ex
16:03 / 27.03.07
Any idea how Metro is calculating 'causes', or from where the statistic comes? Are they counting drunk driving, drunk fighting, drunk falling off things as deaths caused by alcohol? I know that interpersonal violence is a huge cause of injury among young men, and I imagine a lot of that isn't sober, but I'd see it more as contributary than causal, which would have a lot of bearing on how one deals with it.
 
 
Quantum
16:10 / 27.03.07
Can I ban asymmetric emo haircuts and wearing those annoying trousers that are far too small?
 
 
Smoothly
16:27 / 27.03.07
Ex, I assume it’s all contributory rather than directly causal. I suppose the only people who are killed directly by it are the 50 people a year who die of acute alcohol poisoning. But if that’s the only thing that counts as a bona fide cause then no one’s death can be said to be caused by smoking, for example.

I think I agree with you POST. As Django-Ignatius Durango mentioned earlier, if all the pubs were replaced with weed cafés, I personally think that would be an improvement. It would, however, be hard for vendors of those substances to assail the huge financial and cultural legacy that alcohol has on its side. There will be some people who drink because they can’t smoke a joint or bang a pill, but not many. Although I suppose there might be a migration over time.
 
 
Smoothly
16:30 / 27.03.07
PS. Can people who want to propose banning haircuts, young people, cell phones, public places etc please start their own threads? Thanks.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply