|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 29, 2014 14:28:09 GMT
and tell me why they would stop selling something that brings them $100 a gram when they started selling something that brought a few dollars a pint.
no, they'd just hire on more crews and do both.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 29, 2014 15:38:39 GMT
I think that SD might be right if you were to look at prohibition purely in terms of costs to Accident and Emergency budgets, but the wider point of what it would cost society in general means that it would not be worth trying prohibition. As we say over here, the US may say it as well," What you gain on the Swings you loose on the Roundabouts"
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 29, 2014 15:42:34 GMT
I think that SD might be right if you were to look at prohibition purely in terms of costs to Accident and Emergency budgets, but the wider point of what it would cost society in general means that it would not be worth trying prohibition. As we say over here, the US may say it as well," What you gain on the Swings you loose on the Roundabouts" my question is whether the accidents caused by bootlegging would not compensate for the accidents prevented by outlawing liquor. and no, the US does not say that particular phrase. I'm currently blanking on a saying that would be similar in meaning, but I'm sure we have one. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 29, 2014 16:02:00 GMT
I think that SD might be right if you were to look at prohibition purely in terms of costs to Accident and Emergency budgets, but the wider point of what it would cost society in general means that it would not be worth trying prohibition. As we say over here, the US may say it as well," What you gain on the Swings you loose on the Roundabouts" my question is whether the accidents caused by bootlegging would not compensate for the accidents prevented by outlawing liquor. and no, the US does not say that particular phrase. I'm currently blanking on a saying that would be similar in meaning, but I'm sure we have one. Having spent a few Friday nights in A&E, with diabetes related events, and given the British attitudes to getting blathered I would suspect not, for many the reason they go out is to get drunk, preloading on cheap spirits before going out and drinking when they get there until they can barley stand. Actually one of my mates recently had to have a metal plate put into his arm, after a Friday night out, and falling over breaking his elbow, so that cost a bit of money, but hey that is what he pays taxes for. I suppose the fact you cannot think of such a phrase in your country so a difference in attitude between us, you are far to optimistic to have one, where we are fatalistic and more pessimistic. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 29, 2014 16:14:16 GMT
my question is whether the accidents caused by bootlegging would not compensate for the accidents prevented by outlawing liquor. and no, the US does not say that particular phrase. I'm currently blanking on a saying that would be similar in meaning, but I'm sure we have one. Having spent a few Friday nights in A&E, with diabetes related events, and given the British attitudes to getting blathered I would suspect not, for many the reason they go out is to get drunk, preloading on cheap spirits before going out and drinking when they get there until they can barley stand. Actually one of my mates recently had to have a metal plate put into his arm, after a Friday night out, and falling over breaking his elbow, so that cost a bit of money, but hey that is what he pays taxes for. I suppose the fact you cannot think of such a phrase in your country so a difference in attitude between us, you are far to optimistic to have one, where we are fatalistic and more pessimistic. oh, we have plenty of fatalistic and pessimistic sayings. perhaps "out of the frying pan and into the fire" would be our equivalent. |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Sept 29, 2014 21:27:40 GMT
Now, any data from prohibition period would be pointless. Alcohol was never unavailable. Alcohol was available to anybody that wanted it. The Volstead Act (enforcing the 18th amendment) was approximately as tight as a sieve. There were some people who couldn't get booze during Prohibition, largely because the illegal stuff was more expensive (no more 5 cent beers). But home manufacture of wine or fruit alcohols was legal*, thanks to an exemption for the farm vote (supposedly written to let farm wives make fruit vinegar, but considering how those are made ...). Use of sacramental wines were allowed, and a lot of that was promptly steered into the bootleg market. Doctors could still prescribe liquor, and medicinal alcohol permits or prescription pads were worth a fortune as a result. And then there's the large number of uses for industrial alcohol (much of which could be redistilled to get rid of the denaturants ... if your bootlegger felt like bothering). Finally, if you had money, anything you could plausibly claim to have owned before January 17, 1920 was grandfathered in as legal booze. --- * State laws were sometimes more strict than federal, but not always. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 29, 2014 21:39:47 GMT
Now, any data from prohibition period would be pointless. Alcohol was never unavailable. Alcohol was available to anybody that wanted it. The Volstead Act (enforcing the 18th amendment) was approximately as tight as a sieve. There were some people who couldn't get booze during Prohibition, largely because the illegal stuff was more expensive (no more 5 cent beers). But home manufacture of wine or fruit alcohols was legal*, thanks to an exemption for the farm vote (supposedly written to let farm wives make fruit vinegar, but considering how those are made ...). Use of sacramental wines were allowed, and a lot of that was promptly steered into the bootleg market. Doctors could still prescribe liquor, and medicinal alcohol permits or prescription pads were worth a fortune as a result. And then there's the large number of uses for industrial alcohol (much of which could be redistilled to get rid of the denaturants ... if your bootlegger felt like bothering). Finally, if you had money, anything you could plausibly claim to have owned before January 17, 1920 was grandfathered in as legal booze. --- * State laws were sometimes more strict than federal, but not always. I had a talk with someone who was working at the time in a facility where alcohol was normally used as a spray cleaner - in undiluted strength - to the point where a person could get drunk just be being in contact with the spray mist. (via skin absorption) she said people always asked if they sprayed the alcohol in the air and walked through it to get drunk, and she said, "no, we also used wood alcohol - and nobody wanted to bet their life the bottles weren't mislabeled" |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 30, 2014 8:21:07 GMT
"Somewhere" in UK, they are trialling blowing into a breathalyser before you are allowed into a hight-club.....
I cant see that working, ... they go in sober, but the whole idea is they come out drunk?...
I have a friend who is door security.
His first rule is no entry to someone who needs to be carried into the property?....
Like that has to be an issue?...
Well, apparently it is.
Now I dont do this "Scene", but, a group of friends will not leave a friend behind, but will quite willingly carry them from club to club.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 30, 2014 11:39:53 GMT
Like I say it's the culture of going out to get drunk, not going out for a drink, the Breathalyser is there to deny entry to those that are already too drunk for the bar to serve them, and I would suggest as an excuse to ban those that have drunk cheap drinks at home before coming out, and force them to pay the nightclub prices. Those that are already loaded up may not be the ideal client for the club anyway so they are willing to deny them entry, so they have space for those who will spend more money in their establishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 30, 2014 12:31:35 GMT
IIRC, the places that are trialling this are not huge Cities like London or Greater Manchester, but slightly quieter places like Norwich or Northhampton.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2014 13:46:12 GMT
"Somewhere" in UK, they are trialling blowing into a breathalyser before you are allowed into a hight-club..... I cant see that working, ... they go in sober, but the whole idea is they come out drunk?... I have a friend who is door security. His first rule is no entry to someone who needs to be carried into the property?.... Like that has to be an issue?... Well, apparently it is. Now I dont do this "Scene", but, a group of friends will not leave a friend behind, but will quite willingly carry them from club to club. I agree with mr F. the bouncer at the door offers the breathalyzer and if the "patron" is too drunk to serve, they are too drunk to come onto the premises. - if you come in sober, we can control how drunk you get by refusing to serve - if you come in drunk we have to keep pushing you out the door while you are trying to steal other patrons' drinks because we are refusing to serve you. and then since you have been on our premises, you can try to sue us for damages when you crash into something. (sound familiar? I tried) |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 1, 2014 6:55:41 GMT
You are both right, Having someone already drunk on the premises is not good for business, as you have all the trouble but none of the profit.
And the idea of getting loaded on cheep alcohol at home before you go out is prevalent.
Why should the bar/club/venue accept the responsibility of all of your trouble if they legally should not serve you drinks.
(It is against the law to serve alcohol to anyone already intoxicated...)
The club is there to sell alcohol, and it provides a bit of free entertainment, it may even have a door entry price to discourage people wandering from place to place already, but, it has no interest for providing free entertainment for people who will be drinking water, free.
That just clogs up the place with already drunk people there for free..... not buying Drinks....
Which in a way, when you have a club full of people drunk before they came in, spoils it a little for those who are not drunk yet but will be quite merry when they leave.
This whole plan is there to discourage the hardcore drunk before they go out trouble makers who are the ones who make the headlines by being the worst behaved on camera.
These are the ones who attract the Police for bad behaviour, are not safe to be out, and, have not spent a single penny on alcohol in any of the bars, as they were already drunk past their limits before they got there.
they are free-loaders to the entertainment scene.
Trouble pushing you out the door?... yes, its the same thing...
Those who have had too much will never agree they have had too much, until they are ill.
Leave?.. they want to stay all night.
Some of them expect to be allowed to sleep under on over behind the table, and some all of the previous at the same time.
I have worked Nightclub, the worst part of the evening was having to deal with the "Put the tunes back on... we aint finished yet" crowd who are not for leaving.
In my own place, I got them used to the fact I was shoving them out the door at a certain time, and do not expect to stay past then.... and they respected that.
But places that have a different crowd every night?.. you always attract customers who think because they have bought one drink have the right to set the rules.
After may years of experience I can spot them on first sight.
I can not in any way stop judging people who walk into a bar... its part of me now, but I will always have spotted the one who causes trouble already.
In the most severe of cases, I will have left long before the kick off.
Drunk people ar trouble.
Its how you handle them.
Getting them to go home happy is key.
They ones who are told you are full, go home, do they leave angry?...
Actually, those who remember, the morning after, will be quite happy and amused at the fact someone had to tell them to go home.....
And they will not mind.
Well, the genuine ones.
Those who do hold that against you are the ones you dont want in in the first place.............
If that resembles you, you are trouble, get help, you may be alcoholic.
On being refused drink, most drunks will just try the next bar down the road...
After several refusals, they get the idea, and go home already.
Those who are trouble will still be trouble, but on the street, where the police can see them easier, and deal with them quicker.
The network will have already notified the law to be on the watch for the trouble.
BTW, The earpiece that door security wears, who has the other end of that radio?...
Do they talk to other door staff from other establishments?..
Would they warn them of trouble heading their way?....
Would they use it to summon Police?....
If you think the answer to those was yes, you get the idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom1b on Oct 1, 2014 9:09:13 GMT
Prohibition was a complete and total failure. It is not an opinion. It is a fact. Crime exploded. Organized crime took off like a skyrocket. They had to spend more money on police and the police (along with government officials) were taking bribes to look the other way. More people died. Medical costs took off. The Christians in charge of the temperance movement demanded that industrial alcohol be poisoned (they call it denatured now). People were drinking denatured alcohol and dieing and the temperance movement was glad because the sinners needed to die. The government lost billions in tax revenue because alcohol was no longer being sold. If you don't sell it, you can't tax it. People lost their jobs and couldn't pay taxes. Businesses closed. Flip through that CATO institute report. PBS has a nice write up too. One little line from the previous linked CATO report: "One of the few bright spots for which the prohibitionists can present some supporting evidence is the decline in "alcohol-related deaths" during Prohibition. On closer examination, however, that success is an illusion. Prohibition did not improve health and hygiene in America as anticipated." Another: "Repeal of Prohibition dramatically reduced crime, including organized crime, and corruption. Jobs were created, and new voluntary efforts, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which was begun in 1934, succeeded in helping alcoholics." A complete and total failure. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2014 14:16:51 GMT
You are both right, Having someone already drunk on the premises is not good for business, as you have all the trouble but none of the profit. And the idea of getting loaded on cheep alcohol at home before you go out is prevalent. Why should the bar/club/venue accept the responsibility of all of your trouble if they legally should not serve you drinks. (It is against the law to serve alcohol to anyone already intoxicated...) The club is there to sell alcohol, and it provides a bit of free entertainment, it may even have a door entry price to discourage people wandering from place to place already, but, it has no interest for providing free entertainment for people who will be drinking water, free. That just clogs up the place with already drunk people there for free..... not buying Drinks.... Which in a way, when you have a club full of people drunk before they came in, spoils it a little for those who are not drunk yet but will be quite merry when they leave. This whole plan is there to discourage the hardcore drunk before they go out trouble makers who are the ones who make the headlines by being the worst behaved on camera. These are the ones who attract the Police for bad behaviour, are not safe to be out, and, have not spent a single penny on alcohol in any of the bars, as they were already drunk past their limits before they got there. they are free-loaders to the entertainment scene. Trouble pushing you out the door?... yes, its the same thing... Those who have had too much will never agree they have had too much, until they are ill. Leave?.. they want to stay all night. Some of them expect to be allowed to sleep under on over behind the table, and some all of the previous at the same time. I have worked Nightclub, the worst part of the evening was having to deal with the "Put the tunes back on... we aint finished yet" crowd who are not for leaving. In my own place, I got them used to the fact I was shoving them out the door at a certain time, and do not expect to stay past then.... and they respected that. But places that have a different crowd every night?.. you always attract customers who think because they have bought one drink have the right to set the rules. After may years of experience I can spot them on first sight. I can not in any way stop judging people who walk into a bar... its part of me now, but I will always have spotted the one who causes trouble already. In the most severe of cases, I will have left long before the kick off. Drunk people ar trouble. Its how you handle them. Getting them to go home happy is key. They ones who are told you are full, go home, do they leave angry?... Actually, those who remember, the morning after, will be quite happy and amused at the fact someone had to tell them to go home..... And they will not mind. Well, the genuine ones. Those who do hold that against you are the ones you dont want in in the first place............. If that resembles you, you are trouble, get help, you may be alcoholic. On being refused drink, most drunks will just try the next bar down the road... After several refusals, they get the idea, and go home already. Those who are trouble will still be trouble, but on the street, where the police can see them easier, and deal with them quicker. The network will have already notified the law to be on the watch for the trouble. BTW, The earpiece that door security wears, who has the other end of that radio?... Do they talk to other door staff from other establishments?.. Would they warn them of trouble heading their way?.... Would they use it to summon Police?.... If you think the answer to those was yes, you get the idea. the truly hardcore drunks will never remember what happened the night before. but they will assume they had fun. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 2, 2014 6:40:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2014 14:15:07 GMT
The other question that comes to my mind is that if you deny them alcohol, will people just find some other stupid means of hurting themselves?
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Oct 2, 2014 23:45:58 GMT
England drinking sounds like your typical college student who get drunk as fast as possible as cheaply as possible. When I was attending West Virginia University (embarrassingly enough, ranked the #1 party school in the nation for quite a few years) I knew lots who drank like that. It would be interesting to use Morgantown, WV as an extreme for drinking in the US, and then compare it to averages in other areas and Dry areas.
I would suggest Provo, Utah as a example of 'stone cold sober.' Brigham Young University regularly ranks dead last in the party school listings. However, between being in the middle of Utah where it is hard enough to get a drink to start with, so no nearby counties where you can get a drink, extreme social pressure against drinking and heavy Mormon influence, it may not be a good place for an average. They also have a birth rate hugely higher than average. I also find it interesting that as much social sigma and as hard as it is to get alcohol in Utah, no part of Utah is actually dry.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 3, 2014 7:53:39 GMT
Studies suggest it is the young who are responsible most for the injuries.
Under 25's again provide the majority of KSI drunk figures, and they wonder why their car insurance is so high?.. its only as 'high' as the driver is, 5 yrs NCD will halve their rates.
My own studies suggest that an alcohol ban that prevent teenagers experiencing drink whilst under the guidance of responsible parents may also be a culprit....
Being banned until you are late rebellious teen produced teens in a damaged late way, as in the late Dent-Arthur-Dent way....
Countries that are less aggressive with teens and alcohol, those that prohibit solo teens from drinking but encourage experience whilst in the family, suffer less accidents due to drunk teen KSI figures.....
For me, I believe the more experience you have, the better you understand its effects, the less you are liable to over indulge.
I would support a law that allows sensible consumption under parental guidance.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 3, 2014 10:22:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Oct 3, 2014 12:55:40 GMT
In the US college scene, what happens is that as soon as a kid hit's 21, they can legally drink. So between new freedom, being around friends who drink, and being away from home and stabilizing influences there, a lot of youth get into drinking in a big way. Being poor college student, they go for the cheapest way to get as roaring drunk as possible. In my experience, a lot of this is social drinking. Everyone else binges, so they do too. Once they leave school, between starting careers, staring family, and getting into other hobbies, the amount of drinking drops quickly and by the late 20's has leveled off to a much more responsible level.
Silver, is that basically how it works in England as well? In most places here it is illegal to serve someone who is intoxicated, but enforcement is a real problem. In Morgantown, some bars and don't watch what people drink, often because there are too many people. Or more commonly, they will get a bunch of alcohol and take it a party at a private residence where there is no regulation.
Mrfatso, those pictures look like Morgantown, West Virginia after a WVU football game, only without the burning furniture. A bunch of drunk young adults do basically the same thing, doesn't matter what part of the world you are in. At least the Welsh girls are not dress as promiscuously as they do in Morgantown.
|
|
