No point in going out!! It really is ridiculous!!
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/upd...clubs-in-york/
are you not aware of the carnage on the roads around pubs and clubs of a w/e evening (or mebbe too pished to notice?) Not to mention the chaos in A&E.
have some drinks and enjoy yourself. no need to behave like an animal to have a good night out and if you must get leathered do it at home and go to bed afterwards
What you refer to is undoubtedly a real problem, although like all such problems it varies with time and place, but none of that makes state meddling any less intrusive, any less unpleasant, or any more justified.Originally Posted by Josh B
That said, this looks like a PR stunt rather than actual, active meddling. The devil is in the details, as ever.
Last edited by markrlondon; 15th January 2015 at 12:33.
Never seen any "carnage", never been to A&E as a result of alcohol intake and certinally do not behave like an animal.
Surely if I want to drink 8 pints of lager and do a few shots when I'm out with the lads thats my business.
Also, the idea is flawed. It will mean once you've reached the alcohol allowance you're more likely to stay at one venue to get wellied.
if people will not control themselves (and there is plenty evidence they will not on this issue) then the state ought to exercise its primary raison d'etre - the protection of its citizens.
I personally think this idea will cause more trouble than do good.
Imagine a group of lads pissed up being refused entry to a pub cos they've had too much to drink.
I think they will have to employ more doormen and have more police support in the areas it's implemented.
Nice theory. Would be nice if it could be reality.
The state's primary raison d'etre seems to me to be to sustain the state. This de facto functionality of self-sustenance inevitably becomes true of any large bureaucracy. Meddling micromanagement such as this (albeit apparently more about PR than about being enforced in this case) is an excellent way to help maintain the psychological acceptance of a powerful and intrusive state; protection of citizens, to the extent that stuff like this could or will actually protect anyone, seems to me to be a by product at best.
Also, perhaps people do "control themselves" to the extent that they, rather than you, think appropriate... ;-)
Last edited by markrlondon; 15th January 2015 at 12:43. Reason: Improved text
The terms Police and Initiative together don’t work.
in principle, yes its your business. the problem is that too many people choose to make it everyone elses business as well.
its not very complicated. Dont go out attacking other people or damaging property and if you do you should be stopped. Doesn't need an essay on political theory!
Who is going to decide what is too much?
As a counter I propose that scales should be installed at the entrance to all outlets supplying junk food. Anyone not complying with the recommended body mass index will be refused admittance ........... Or shot.
Last edited by BrianT; 15th January 2015 at 12:55.
Well, quite! But this doesn't need meddling and micromanagement, does it. It needs law enforcement to protect against actual crime being committed. This is nothing directly or causally in general to do with breathalysers in clubs and pubs.
It is the conflation of entirely separate things in some people's heads, as you have demonstrated so clearly here, that is a key part of this statist problem. One problem (violence or 'anti-social behaviour' by a comparative few) does not have to, and should not, lead to the other (meddling state micromanagement) in order for citizens to be protected.
Last edited by markrlondon; 15th January 2015 at 12:57. Reason: Updated text
Surely this is just a mechanism for the clubs to make more money? What they've seen is more and more people drinking large amounts of reasonably cheap alcohol at home prior to going 'out'. This means they arrive at the club nicely sozzled and don't need to buy any over-priced drinks in the club. This 'initiative' will ensure that you have to pay their ridiculous prices.
If they were serious about stopping over-drinking, they'd have the breathalysers at their bar and use it prior to serving! Strange they don't want to do that isn't it?
whether the measures are likely to succeed is a fair point.
Unfortunately the problem is not a minority one caused by a few silly folks. There were ten million hospital admissions for alcohol abuse in a single year (12/13). That in a country of just over six times that number of people.
Again, a bare statistic that has nothing directly at all to do with the state sponsored meddling in question in this thread. ;-)
In other words, it still seems very much like the comparative few who are responsible for the problem of "attacking other people or damaging property" that you introduced.
Last edited by markrlondon; 15th January 2015 at 13:19.
This will go the same way as drug-detectors on nightclub doors - filed on the 'epic fail' shelf.
Hopefully. ;-)
I'm sure most of the ten million drinking situations that required hospitalisation were peaceful and lovely and nothing more than an assault on the tax payer.
I have no grest sympathy for the civil liberties of the anti social. I do agree the state meddles far too much as a general proposition
They'll be weighing scales next to restaurants next.
Getting knocked back for a meal cos your a few pounds overweight and a burden to the tax payer.
I really do dread what the state of things will be in 50 years time.
Excellent plan. You get my vote!
Are you? I'm not. However, the point I am making is that these situations do not necessarily translate in any way whatsoever to anything other than a comparative few in the context of this discussion, do they. That's why I said it was a bare statistic. It is meaningless without knowing much, much more context.
Quoting bare statistics like that is a very common way of generating support (because it sounds shocking and thus causes an emotional response) without examining genuine relevance or significance. Politicians do it all the time, as do people wishing to influence politicians. Not that I am accusing you of using such a debating technique. ;-)
The civil liberties of everyone are surely the point, including (and most importantly) the innocent and peaceful. When the state intervenes, allegedly and ostensibly to protect the innocent, it very often seems to attack the civil liberties of the innocent too.
Quite so. And each little bit more, no matter how justified it might initially seem in and of itself or how minor it might be in and of itself, does not improve this situation.
There are laws about serving drunk people - i wonder why bars & pubs ignore these mmmmm....They could be enforced but they aren't...
1. There's plenty of data to conclude that drinking is a big problem. Its hardly controversial.
2. I fail to see how the civil liberties of the innocent would be attacked if its only those who are already pished are barred from getting more drunk in a public environment (they are ofc free to drink themselves to death at home). Obv the peaceful drunks are less of an immediate problem but they are a long term issue cos the booze is gonna get them eventually and the taxpayer will be picking up the tab so their indulgence does not warrant any special consideration in my view.
3. Your fundamental point of libertarianism would be great - if everybody were as intelligent and responsible as you are. unfortunately far too many are cretins.
Anyhow, I know that neither of us are likely to persuade the other so lets not run this to a fifty page multi quote debate ;)
As ever. Spot on MarkI don't need to post in this thread, you have said it
Civil liberties based on IQ. Ordering a pint should only allowed if you can score higher than 120 on an IQ test, any lower than 80 and you will be be imprisoned due to your outrageous imbecility. Henceforth only the cognitively superior will be allowed to drink/vote/own property/drive vehicles/sit at the front of the bus.
120 is a bit on the low side tbh. That aside, I was with you until the bus bit. There your plan becomes spectacularly unrealistic. After all, everyone knows that buses are for the hard of thinking as it is.
It seem to me that those that imbibe alcohol seem to be self funding re NHS costs.
The figures I can find indicate that the costs to the NHS are just over Ł1.3bn.
Alcohol sales contribute aprox Ł10bn.
Seems the drinking class are contributing more that they take out...
Sources:
https://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/ne...rs-10-million/
http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowle...-benefits.aspx
Aprox 90% of adults drink. So thats hardly surprising.
Imagine the tax take if the duty was more aggressive like cigarettes...
Total costing of the ten per cent or so of those drinkers who have serious alcohol problems is tricky to do but the wider costs include lost productivity, widespread misery and many thousands of deaths annually of people who will no longer contribute to the coffers.
i am not quite sure what point you are making though? Is it that because the money is good its all fine? Should we be encouraging our children to drink and smoke? God knows the state coffers could do with more income!
Quite so.
Just wait and see.
When marketed right, and no doubt they will, the masses who have nothing to fear are a public acceptance platform for this and much more of it.
Very soon your expensive sports car CANNOT 'speed' anymore. Wait... No. Thinking about this, it already would not if it really were about safety. The point is that it will loose the State an awful lot of income. Better keep suffering the daily killings through traffic because of THAT. Hushhhhhh, about it that THIS is a very real daily killer. Just have a look at how many traffic deaths there have been in the UK this century.
Have a look at the causes too.
Drink&drve, even - walk is a killer which COSTS money so THAT needs to be curtailed. Nothing to do with the safety nor the individual well being.
You've lost me.
Like I just wrote; see traffic accidents.
Owners of supercars are in effect philanthropists and speeders massive budget contributers.
In France the daily death rate in traffic is about 8. Stunning perspective for the investments put in anti-tterrorism'.
I this man hit the nail firmly on the head. surely it's all to do with this. Hence the fact that you can't get in if you've had a few too many, but you're free to drink as much as you can if you get in.
So come closing time there will still be as many drunks out causing mayhem and carnage as ever, it will have just cost them a lot more.
Sorry to have curtailed your clear explanation but this is the crux of just about the whole of the way we are governed to live our lives.
The only aspect missing is the virtual financial structure superstructure we are feeding though same. Defacto it has just about (perhaps even completely) become the State.
I remember a bar with a breathalyser - it was used for drinking competitions and the one time I blew it it showed me as over the drink drive limit despite not having anything to drink due to latent fumes in the tube from the binge drinkers.
In a limited space with a lot of people we are recycling our expelled breaths.
You were breathing out their fumes yes and that tripped the tester.
Substances in the environment can easily lead to false readings.
For example, an alcohol-free subject was asked to apply a pint of contact cement to a piece of plywood and then to apply a gallon of oil-base paint to a wall. The total activity lasted about an hour. Twenty minutes later the subject was tested on an Intoxilyzer, which registered a value of .12 percent.
Similarly, a painter with a protective mask spray painted a room for 20 minutes. Although a blood test showed no alcohol, an Intoxilyzer falsely reported his level as .075.
Any number of other products found in the environment can cause erroneous results. These include compounds found in lacquers, paint removers, celluloid, gasoline, and cleaning fluids.
Imagine a car ignition interlock!
An ignition interlock is a device installed in a vehicle to prevent its use if a driver has been drinking alcohol. It includes a breath testing device into which the driver must blow before starting the engine.
Are yes, the protection of citizens. The No.1 excuse to further limit their freedom.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin
I don't see a problem with this, and it's not going to affect my nights out.
I'm pretty sure it's not some nanny state intervention but more trying to appease some complaints from locals and visitors.
You see here in York, where this idea is proposed, we have a busy tourist trade consisting of three main groups:
Couples –*who go out shopping, dinner etc and drink responsibly.
Families – who visit the attractions.
Hen & Stags – who vomit everywhere.
The latter group, whilst great for the late night pub and club owners, annoy business owners, taxi drivers, residents and tourist who have to swerve or clear-up the chunder from the streets and doorways on a Sunday morning. We've also had a few students who've ended up in the river after a heavy night – so any effort to make those incidents less frequent should be welcomed.
Unless you're a 20 something who's had a skinfull of Jagerbombs and wobbling on the nightclub steps I doubt you'll ever see a breathalyzer in the town.
I'm one of the those yobs that goes to York with the lads a few times a year and yes we probably drink too much. That tends to happen when you get a bunch of good mates having a annual get together. A bit loud perhaps but having a good laugh and not causing any problems to the public or get into trouble with the law.
If I want to drink 8 pints with my mates then I don't think some doorman should have the right to tell me I've exceeded the amount they've decided is too much.
If this takes off in York I would look for a new venue. I will take my cash elsewhere where I can do as I please.
Last edited by alexaff; 16th January 2015 at 17:02. Reason: Changed rowdy to loud :)
Door staff, and licensees already have the right to refuse entry to customers they think have had too much. The breathalyser doesn't change that – it's just gives them a bit more of a reason to justify their decision.
Don't be put off coming here – new bars are opening all the time!
Until they put it there too.
Yes, we sooooo free.
Free to spend our money as we can.
And that is governed by what we are allowed.
Even that 'cash' you mention is under threat, already seriously curtailed.
That's what I don't get Chris! If someone's clearly lashed up then fair enough, refuse entry.
I don't understand why they're using the breathalyser. I think it will make more aggro personally.
Maybe they think it'll reduce aggro if they can prove that someone had too much, often arguments start when a customer says 'they've only had one' and are refused entry. Anyway it gives the boys a new challenge next time you're here –*see who can get breathalysed first!
I wasnt aware it was an essential liberty to abuse substances and attack other citizens and destroy their property. Cos that is simply what this is aimed at. Live and learn.
Commonsense should prevail without Nanny State intervention. As for citizens attacking each other, in my experience it's piss head fighting piss head regardless of who or who hasn't been breathalysed and 90% of those Friday / Saturday night punch-ups occur on the street. It will not deter those who want to get pissed and want a fight which is the excuse being given for introducing this breathalyser in the first place.
Leaving may be better! Just incase you wanna drive home.
The thing about common sense is that its not so common...
I rarely drink but when I do, I want to be able to do so to the excess or restraint that I choose.
It's just a matter of time...
But do you consider red ltraffic lights at road junctions to be "state-sponsored meddling" in our ability to move frrely about the road network?
If you don't, why is any other form of "control" designed to maintain the law and order most of us cherish, any different?
Comparing this to traffic lights is absurd.
If the Doormen can't tell when someone has had too much, then they need to employ better Doormen.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote