Quote:
Originally Posted by Taggy
Me n Cashy touched roughly on this subject when we had a natter in Accy a few days ago. And i guess there aint a really simple answer to it. Although i certainly think that the 24 hr drinking "experiment" has not helped the situation. As Cashy says, there's always been after hours drinking to some degree, but by and large, when we were younger, it was more controlled. You didn't have some pubs just opening at around 10 in the evening for a few nights a week. You had to be "known" to the landlord and usually a regular at a particular pub in order to get served after time. PLus you mainly had to have been drinking there earlier in the evening...maybe go for a little wander...then go back to your regular pub reasonably before last orders were called!...Obviously it varied a bit...but that was general after time etiquette!
Also there was very much a mixed age group in pubs then, which doesn't happen much now. You used to find lads and lassies, going into pubs with their parents and grandparents, thats how we used to learn how to drink relatively responsibily, otherwise ya got a clip of yer dad or granddad. Now we have older people in some pubs and the younger element coming out much later, and going into different pubs, usually after they've met up in someones house and drunk some cheap supermarket booze first! 24 hour drinking has allowed this to happen, and is responsible for quite an element of binge drinking.
If we agree thats its also mainly, but not exclusively, young people who are the problem in terms of binge drinking, then perhaps it would be fairer to raise the legal drinking age to 21, as they have in USA, rather than target everyone. When i mentioned this, Cashy raised the valid point that if someone is old enough to be sent to War to fight for us, then they are old enough to drink, and its hard to argue with that, other than to say that whenever a law is brougt in, there will always be some that suffer in order to make things better, so i still feel this would overall be a more appropriate measure than charging everone more for alcohol!
I also agree that we need tougher sentencing for drunken/violent behaviour...but can anyone see that happening?
Needs a lot of thought...and as ever, punishing everyone, and increasing profits for breweries/supermarkets and revenue for the government, will usually win the day!
Best Regards - Taggy
|
Tagy, that is how I remember lock ins working....you had to be known and be a regular......although sometimes if you were
with a regular you might be permitted to stay.
I can't see the judiciary accepting tougher sentencing on drunken behaviour as a means of tackling this thorny problem.
In America that age that you can legally drink alcohol is 21, and while they have young men going to war over there too, to fight for their country, they do not challenge the alcohol laws.......just because you can fight doesn't mean that you can handle alcohol....and many Barracks towns will prove this.
21 should be the age at which you can purchase alcohol......as for deterrants....I think the only thing that will happen is that drunkards will be sent on education courses, much the way that speeders are.
The folk who abuse alcohol should be sent to work as volunteers on the units which treat those with Liver failure.