UK: Drinking crackdown to call time on 'happy hour' binges

[Jasbird]

I'm constantly cross-posting these alcohol stories but no one ever
seems to comment. Even the people at the very busy newsgroup:
<news:alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism> don't seem to be able to
summon the enthusiam to demand a ban on booze.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

<http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1006704,00.html>

Drinking crackdown to call time on 'happy hour' binges

Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday July 27, 2003
The Observer

Time is about to be called on 'happy hour'. The ritual that has
kick-started a million drunken nights on the tiles, but has also been
slammed as fuelling an epidemic of binge drinking, is facing a tough
government crackdown that will limit pubs' ability to offer cheap
booze.

The change comes amid growing concerns about the impact of
round-the-clock drinking on urban life and a culture of casual
violence and anti-social behaviour that is blighting many city centres
packed with bars and clubs.

Councils will be allowed to intervene in cases where happy hour stunts
are designed purely to get people drunk. It is expected to be based on
a code of practice drawn up by the pub trade outlawing such stunts as
offering free drinks during football matches if England score.
Although voluntary, bars that refuse to join could be denied licences.

The move comes as a Commons inquiry is expected to warn this week that
while a boom in the nation's nightlife - with changes in the licensing
laws meaning pubs could open 24 hours a day from 2005 - could create
jobs and help regenerate inner cities by drawing people back in, it
must also be carefully controlled to avoid havoc on the streets.

Figures in the brewing industry welcomed the idea. 'We undoubtedly
recognise that there are some cowboys out there who run irresponsible
promotions,' said Mark Hastings, spokesman for the British Beer and
Pub Association. 'Anything that is directly encouraging people to
drink to excess is an irresponsible promotion, as is anything that
encourages widespread drunkenness.'

However, an outright ban on happy hours is impossible, Ministers say,
because it would be considered price fixing.

The new guidance on happy hours is to be published by the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport this autumn and reflects growing concern
over drinking culture. Last week doctors last week demanded health
warnings like those found on cigarette packets be placed on bottles of
alcohol.

Two out of five Britons aged 18 to 24 are classified as 'binge
drinkers' - downing more than eight units a night (men) or six
(women). Doctors are now seeing twentysomething women already
suffering from liver problems because of alcohol.

It is not just drinkers' health that is at risk. Recent Home Office
research found binge drinkers three times more likely to commit
criminal offences, particularly violent ones.

The Government argues its plan to scrap early closing times will
encourage a Continental culture of measured consumption, ending the
frenzied rush to drink as much as possible before last orders. The
Association of Chief Police Officers backschange, arguing that
staggering closing times throughout the night will ease the pressure
on police when the pubs shut.

But critics argue it may only encourage bingeing. The report from the
Commons Urban Affairs Sub-Committee, 'The Evening Economy and the
Urban Renaissance', to be launched this week in Manchester is expected
to argue that booming nightlife could put new strains on citydwellers,
warning local residents should not have to pay for extra policing,
night buses and street cleaning to cope with drunken revellers.

The MPs are also expected to demand better late-night transport to
ferry drinkers home. In smaller towns, taxi queues are flashpoints for
trouble as too many people fight over too few cabs, while in cities
women risk sex attacks by resorting to unregistered minicabs.

Crucially however the MPs - who heard from Minister Kim Howells that
central Manchester became 'like a war zone' when its nightlife took
off in the 1990s because of overcrowding - are also expected to
recommend letting councils set 'capacity' limits, stopping new bars
opening in areas saturated with them.

It is the sheer volume of bars fighting for punters that lies behind
the ever more frenzied 'happy hour' discounts, says Simon Milton,
leader of Westminster council, which covers London's booming West End.

'Happy hours per se needn't be a problem. What is a problem is when
you have an oversupply of premises, there is price competition, and
you get ridiculous, very low prices,' he said.

[Robert McGregor]

"Jasbird" <jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:6gt6iv4m3slaq2rhrau9k3h6c8kdscsvs3@4ax.com...
> It is the sheer volume of bars fighting for punters that lies behind
> the ever more frenzied 'happy hour' discounts, says Simon Milton,
> leader of Westminster council, which covers London's booming West End.
>
> 'Happy hours per se needn't be a problem. What is a problem is when
> you have an oversupply of premises, there is price competition, and
> you get ridiculous, very low prices,' he said.
>
>


hahahaha, pommie bureaurocrats even complaining about competition driven low
prices. They deserve to get ripped off.

Bob;-)

[Shawster]

"Jasbird" <jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:6gt6iv4m3slaq2rhrau9k3h6c8kdscsvs3@4ax.com...
> I'm constantly cross-posting these alcohol stories but no one ever
> seems to comment. Even the people at the very busy newsgroup:
> <news:alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism> don't seem to be able to
> summon the enthusiam to demand a ban on booze.
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

"We are careful never to show intolerance or hatred of drinking as an
institution. Experience shows that such an attitude is not helpful to
anyone. Every new alcoholic looks for this spirit among us and is immensely
relieved when he finds we are not witchburners. A sprit of intolerance
might repel alcoholics whose lives could have been saved, had it not been
for such stupidity. we could not even do the cause of temperate drinking
any good, for not one drinker in a thousand likes to be told anything about
alcohol by someone who hates it."

"alcoholics Anonymous" pg. 103, 3rd ed.

[Clough]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 06:56:26 GMT, Jasbird
<jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>The move comes as a Commons inquiry is expected to warn this week that
>while a boom in the nation's nightlife - with changes in the licensing
>laws meaning pubs could open 24 hours a day from 2005 - could create
>jobs and help regenerate inner cities by drawing people back in, it
>must also be carefully controlled to avoid havoc on the streets.

Open legal cannabis cafes instead. Keep the price of pot low and the
price of booze high. This way everybody wins, jobs are created, people
can enjoy nightlife and the streets are filled with happy, smiling,
peaceable people at closing time instead of raucous, bellowing,
belligerent and generally anti social piss heads spewing their way
home and picking fights with everybody. And nobody wakes up with a
skull splitting hangover next day, either.

I suppose an altogether far too sensible solution for it ever to be
tried.

Clough

[Bobby L.]

Nope,

We don't have time to read cross-posting spam! And there is also the
history of the prohibition. You do have access to a history book, do you
not?


"Jasbird" <jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:6gt6iv4m3slaq2rhrau9k3h6c8kdscsvs3@4ax.com...
> I'm constantly cross-posting these alcohol stories but no one ever
> seems to comment. Even the people at the very busy newsgroup:
> <news:alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism> don't seem to be able to
> summon the enthusiam to demand a ban on booze.
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> <http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1006704,00.html>
>
> Drinking crackdown to call time on 'happy hour' binges
>
> Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
> Sunday July 27, 2003
> The Observer
>
> Time is about to be called on 'happy hour'. The ritual that has
> kick-started a million drunken nights on the tiles, but has also been
> slammed as fuelling an epidemic of binge drinking, is facing a tough
> government crackdown that will limit pubs' ability to offer cheap
> booze.
>
> The change comes amid growing concerns about the impact of
> round-the-clock drinking on urban life and a culture of casual
> violence and anti-social behaviour that is blighting many city centres
> packed with bars and clubs.
>
> Councils will be allowed to intervene in cases where happy hour stunts
> are designed purely to get people drunk. It is expected to be based on
> a code of practice drawn up by the pub trade outlawing such stunts as
> offering free drinks during football matches if England score.
> Although voluntary, bars that refuse to join could be denied licences.
>
> The move comes as a Commons inquiry is expected to warn this week that
> while a boom in the nation's nightlife - with changes in the licensing
> laws meaning pubs could open 24 hours a day from 2005 - could create
> jobs and help regenerate inner cities by drawing people back in, it
> must also be carefully controlled to avoid havoc on the streets.
>
> Figures in the brewing industry welcomed the idea. 'We undoubtedly
> recognise that there are some cowboys out there who run irresponsible
> promotions,' said Mark Hastings, spokesman for the British Beer and
> Pub Association. 'Anything that is directly encouraging people to
> drink to excess is an irresponsible promotion, as is anything that
> encourages widespread drunkenness.'
>
> However, an outright ban on happy hours is impossible, Ministers say,
> because it would be considered price fixing.
>
> The new guidance on happy hours is to be published by the Department
> for Culture, Media and Sport this autumn and reflects growing concern
> over drinking culture. Last week doctors last week demanded health
> warnings like those found on cigarette packets be placed on bottles of
> alcohol.
>
> Two out of five Britons aged 18 to 24 are classified as 'binge
> drinkers' - downing more than eight units a night (men) or six
> (women). Doctors are now seeing twentysomething women already
> suffering from liver problems because of alcohol.
>
> It is not just drinkers' health that is at risk. Recent Home Office
> research found binge drinkers three times more likely to commit
> criminal offences, particularly violent ones.
>
> The Government argues its plan to scrap early closing times will
> encourage a Continental culture of measured consumption, ending the
> frenzied rush to drink as much as possible before last orders. The
> Association of Chief Police Officers backschange, arguing that
> staggering closing times throughout the night will ease the pressure
> on police when the pubs shut.
>
> But critics argue it may only encourage bingeing. The report from the
> Commons Urban Affairs Sub-Committee, 'The Evening Economy and the
> Urban Renaissance', to be launched this week in Manchester is expected
> to argue that booming nightlife could put new strains on citydwellers,
> warning local residents should not have to pay for extra policing,
> night buses and street cleaning to cope with drunken revellers.
>
> The MPs are also expected to demand better late-night transport to
> ferry drinkers home. In smaller towns, taxi queues are flashpoints for
> trouble as too many people fight over too few cabs, while in cities
> women risk sex attacks by resorting to unregistered minicabs.
>
> Crucially however the MPs - who heard from Minister Kim Howells that
> central Manchester became 'like a war zone' when its nightlife took
> off in the 1990s because of overcrowding - are also expected to
> recommend letting councils set 'capacity' limits, stopping new bars
> opening in areas saturated with them.
>
> It is the sheer volume of bars fighting for punters that lies behind
> the ever more frenzied 'happy hour' discounts, says Simon Milton,
> leader of Westminster council, which covers London's booming West End.
>
> 'Happy hours per se needn't be a problem. What is a problem is when
> you have an oversupply of premises, there is price competition, and
> you get ridiculous, very low prices,' he said.
>
>

[Shawster]

> > > I'm constantly cross-posting these alcohol stories but no one ever
> > > seems to comment. Even the people at the very busy newsgroup:
> > > <news:alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism> don't seem to be able to
> > > summon the enthusiam to demand a ban on booze.
> > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> >
> > "We are careful never to show intolerance or hatred of drinking as an
> > institution. Experience shows that such an attitude is not helpful to
> > anyone. Every new alcoholic looks for this spirit among us and is
immensely
> > relieved when he finds we are not witchburners. A sprit of intolerance
> > might repel alcoholics whose lives could have been saved, had it not
been
> > for such stupidity. we could not even do the cause of temperate
drinking
> > any good, for not one drinker in a thousand likes to be told anything
about
> > alcohol by someone who hates it."
> >
> > "alcoholics Anonymous" pg. 103, 3rd ed.
> >
> >
>
> So, where it the spirit of tolerance and the acknowledgement that all
> prohibition ideology is nothing more than witchburning and intolerance so
that
> those who demonstrate pathological use of other drugs can also seek
recovery in
> an atmosphere free from hate?

Are you asking why they don't like to talk about drugs at an AA meeting?
it's because we are a program of recovery from the use of alcohol. we do
this through the stories of other drunks like us. NA spun off so that those
who used drugs more than alcohol can connect and help each other. I know an
OA that likes to go to AA meetings, as there aren't enough OA meetings a
week for her taste.

During those meetings she uses AA language *out of respect for us.*
Language like "clean, bingo's, jackpot's, clean time, using, addict..." have
no place in an AA meeting, in the same way that I don't use "drunk,
alcoholic, drink..." during an NA meeting. It's out of respect for the
other peoples' programs. I am also active in the Young peoples' group of AA,
where drugs are a part of most members' stories. However even at YPG
meetings, an apology is made before talking about any drugs, and it is kept
to a minimum, as we are trying to work a program of recovery from alcohol.

I'm sorry if you were shut down during an AA meeting. It happens sometimes;
sometimes for the right reasons, and sometimes for ego's sake. Please
remember that we are all sick individuals trying to get well. Resentments
only hurt those that hold them.

I am in alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism (I don't wish to crosspost
anymore).

I wish you all the best that life has to offer you Richard.

Shaw

>
>
>

[Cartman]

"Clough" <inuit@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:m0j7ivst6bqcndkvsuhe6gfr3u1nlch2bf@4ax.com...
> Open legal cannabis cafes instead. Keep the price of pot low and the
> price of booze high. This way everybody wins, jobs are created, people
> can enjoy nightlife and the streets are filled with happy, smiling,
> peaceable people...........................

And then.....opium dens and crack houses.

- Cartman

[Sla#s]

"Cartman" <omar_adebisi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0j-dnXHMB-1he76iRTvUpQ@speakeasy.net...
> "Clough" <inuit@canoemail.com> wrote in message
> news:m0j7ivst6bqcndkvsuhe6gfr3u1nlch2bf@4ax.com...
> > Open legal cannabis cafes instead. Keep the price of pot low and the
> > price of booze high. This way everybody wins, jobs are created, people
> > can enjoy nightlife and the streets are filled with happy, smiling,
> > peaceable people...........................
>
> And then.....opium dens and crack houses.

Well they allow KFCs, McDonalds & Burger Kings and look how many they
apparently addict and kill.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_2708000/2708367.stm

Slatts

[zzz]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 06:56:26 GMT, Jasbird
<jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com>

>I'm constantly cross-posting these alcohol stories but no one ever
>seems to comment. Even the people at the very busy newsgroup:
><news:alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism> don't seem to be able to
>summon the enthusiam to demand a ban on booze.

I don't usually comment because it's not news to me that alcohol is a
dangerous drug. Nevertheless, I don't think banning it would help.

> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
><http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1006704,00.html>
>
>Drinking crackdown to call time on 'happy hour' binges
>
>Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
>Sunday July 27, 2003
>The Observer
>
>Time is about to be called on 'happy hour'. The ritual that has
>kick-started a million drunken nights on the tiles, but has also been
>slammed as fuelling an epidemic of binge drinking, is facing a tough
>government crackdown that will limit pubs' ability to offer cheap
>booze.
>
>The change comes amid growing concerns about the impact of
>round-the-clock drinking on urban life and a culture of casual
>violence and anti-social behaviour that is blighting many city centres
>packed with bars and clubs.
>
>Councils will be allowed to intervene in cases where happy hour stunts
>are designed purely to get people drunk. It is expected to be based on
>a code of practice drawn up by the pub trade outlawing such stunts as
>offering free drinks during football matches if England score.
>Although voluntary, bars that refuse to join could be denied licences.
>
>The move comes as a Commons inquiry is expected to warn this week that
>while a boom in the nation's nightlife - with changes in the licensing
>laws meaning pubs could open 24 hours a day from 2005 - could create
>jobs and help regenerate inner cities by drawing people back in, it
>must also be carefully controlled to avoid havoc on the streets.
>
>Figures in the brewing industry welcomed the idea. 'We undoubtedly
>recognise that there are some cowboys out there who run irresponsible
>promotions,' said Mark Hastings, spokesman for the British Beer and
>Pub Association. 'Anything that is directly encouraging people to
>drink to excess is an irresponsible promotion, as is anything that
>encourages widespread drunkenness.'
>
>However, an outright ban on happy hours is impossible, Ministers say,
>because it would be considered price fixing.
>
>The new guidance on happy hours is to be published by the Department
>for Culture, Media and Sport this autumn and reflects growing concern
>over drinking culture. Last week doctors last week demanded health
>warnings like those found on cigarette packets be placed on bottles of
>alcohol.
>
>Two out of five Britons aged 18 to 24 are classified as 'binge
>drinkers' - downing more than eight units a night (men) or six
>(women). Doctors are now seeing twentysomething women already
>suffering from liver problems because of alcohol.
>
>It is not just drinkers' health that is at risk. Recent Home Office
>research found binge drinkers three times more likely to commit
>criminal offences, particularly violent ones.
>
>The Government argues its plan to scrap early closing times will
>encourage a Continental culture of measured consumption, ending the
>frenzied rush to drink as much as possible before last orders. The
>Association of Chief Police Officers backschange, arguing that
>staggering closing times throughout the night will ease the pressure
>on police when the pubs shut.
>
>But critics argue it may only encourage bingeing. The report from the
>Commons Urban Affairs Sub-Committee, 'The Evening Economy and the
>Urban Renaissance', to be launched this week in Manchester is expected
>to argue that booming nightlife could put new strains on citydwellers,
>warning local residents should not have to pay for extra policing,
>night buses and street cleaning to cope with drunken revellers.
>
>The MPs are also expected to demand better late-night transport to
>ferry drinkers home. In smaller towns, taxi queues are flashpoints for
>trouble as too many people fight over too few cabs, while in cities
>women risk sex attacks by resorting to unregistered minicabs.
>
>Crucially however the MPs - who heard from Minister Kim Howells that
>central Manchester became 'like a war zone' when its nightlife took
>off in the 1990s because of overcrowding - are also expected to
>recommend letting councils set 'capacity' limits, stopping new bars
>opening in areas saturated with them.
>
>It is the sheer volume of bars fighting for punters that lies behind
>the ever more frenzied 'happy hour' discounts, says Simon Milton,
>leader of Westminster council, which covers London's booming West End.
>
>'Happy hours per se needn't be a problem. What is a problem is when
>you have an oversupply of premises, there is price competition, and
>you get ridiculous, very low prices,' he said.
>

[Adam Meadows]

"Cartman" <omar_adebisi@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0j-dnXHMB-1he76iRTvUpQ@speakeasy.net>...
> "Clough" <inuit@canoemail.com> wrote in message
> news:m0j7ivst6bqcndkvsuhe6gfr3u1nlch2bf@4ax.com...
> > Open legal cannabis cafes instead. Keep the price of pot low and the
> > price of booze high. This way everybody wins, jobs are created, people
> > can enjoy nightlife and the streets are filled with happy, smiling,
> > peaceable people...........................
>
> And then.....opium dens and crack houses.
>
> - Cartman

I hate slippery slope arguments. To me it reveals that the person
making that argument really has no good reasoning against the point in
question, so he tries to link it to something worse. Its like we
would somehow lose all common sense or our ability to vote our
conscience once we admit the benign behavior.

Utter nonsense.
Adam

[Shawster]

>
> Nope. Tus, the rest of your post has nothing to do with what I said.
Please do
> try not to be so illiterate.
>

and that would be the reason not to cross post.

there really is no reason to be rude, and I am not illiterate, your meaning
is truly unclear to someone that has not had the misfortune to cross your
path before.

plonk

Thankfully I won't have the misfortune to cross your miserable path again.


>
>
>
>

[zzz]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:16:14 GMT, "Shawster" <shawster@tampabay.rr.com>

>> > > I'm constantly cross-posting these alcohol stories but no one ever
>> > > seems to comment. Even the people at the very busy newsgroup:
>> > > <news:alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism> don't seem to be able to
>> > > summon the enthusiam to demand a ban on booze.
>> > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>> >
>> > "We are careful never to show intolerance or hatred of drinking as an
>> > institution. Experience shows that such an attitude is not helpful to
>> > anyone. Every new alcoholic looks for this spirit among us and is
>immensely
>> > relieved when he finds we are not witchburners. A sprit of intolerance
>> > might repel alcoholics whose lives could have been saved, had it not
>been
>> > for such stupidity. we could not even do the cause of temperate
>drinking
>> > any good, for not one drinker in a thousand likes to be told anything
>about
>> > alcohol by someone who hates it."
>> >
>> > "alcoholics Anonymous" pg. 103, 3rd ed.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> So, where it the spirit of tolerance and the acknowledgement that all
>> prohibition ideology is nothing more than witchburning and intolerance so
>that
>> those who demonstrate pathological use of other drugs can also seek
>recovery in
>> an atmosphere free from hate?
>
>Are you asking why they don't like to talk about drugs at an AA meeting?
>it's because we are a program of recovery from the use of alcohol. we do
>this through the stories of other drunks like us. NA spun off so that those
>who used drugs more than alcohol

Shouldn't that be "used drugs other than alcohol"?


> can connect and help each other. I know an
>OA that likes to go to AA meetings, as there aren't enough OA meetings a
>week for her taste.
>
>During those meetings she uses AA language *out of respect for us.*
>Language like "clean, bingo's, jackpot's, clean time, using, addict..." have
>no place in an AA meeting, in the same way that I don't use "drunk,
>alcoholic, drink..." during an NA meeting.

So alcoholics aren't addicts?

>It's out of respect for the
>other peoples' programs. I am also active in the Young peoples' group of AA,
>where drugs are a part of most members' stories. However even at YPG
>meetings, an apology is made before talking about any drugs, and it is kept
>to a minimum, as we are trying to work a program of recovery from alcohol.
>
>I'm sorry if you were shut down during an AA meeting. It happens sometimes;
>sometimes for the right reasons, and sometimes for ego's sake. Please
>remember that we are all sick individuals trying to get well. Resentments
>only hurt those that hold them.
>
>I am in alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism (I don't wish to crosspost
>anymore).
>
> I wish you all the best that life has to offer you Richard.
>
>Shaw
>
>>
>>
>>
>

[rosie readandpost]

> I am also active in the Young peoples' group of AA,
> where drugs are a part of most members' stories.


been to any ICYPAA conventions?

rosie

[Phil Stovell]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 06:56:26 GMT in talk.politics.drugs, Jasbird
<jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>Although voluntary, bars that refuse to join could be denied licences.

Ah! The 1984 version of "voluntary".
--
Phil Stovell
South Hampshire, UK

[Phil Stovell]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:51:55 -0400 in talk.politics.drugs, "Cartman"
<omar_adebisi@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Clough" <inuit@canoemail.com> wrote in message
>news:m0j7ivst6bqcndkvsuhe6gfr3u1nlch2bf@4ax.com...
>> Open legal cannabis cafes instead. Keep the price of pot low and the
>> price of booze high. This way everybody wins, jobs are created, people
>> can enjoy nightlife and the streets are filled with happy, smiling,
>> peaceable people...........................
>
>And then.....opium dens and crack houses.

Straw man fallacy.

>- Cartman

--
Phil Stovell
South Hampshire, UK

[Phil Stovell]

On 27 Jul 2003 09:01:21 -0700 in talk.politics.drugs, nonsmoking1@comcast.net
(Steady Eddy) wrote:

>Jasbird <jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<6gt6iv4m3slaq2rhrau9k3h6c8kdscsvs3@4ax.com>...
>> I'm constantly cross-posting these alcohol stories but no one ever
>> seems to comment.
>
>Because nobody cares what a nittwitt like you has to say or what
>articles you think we should read. Why don't you post your own work.
>Why do you think we care?

Then why the fuck did you read it? Perhaps you didn't and are supplying one of
your content-free trolls, as per usual.
--
Phil Stovell
South Hampshire, UK

[Jamie Gaffney]

Phil Stovell <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message news:<43hcivon6vuvqltq5qrghel7o5ou1189no@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 06:56:26 GMT in talk.politics.drugs, Jasbird
> <jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >Although voluntary, bars that refuse to join could be denied licences.
>
> Ah! The 1984 version of "voluntary".

BB 31072003 alcohol malreporting doubleplus ungood verging crimethink
rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling

unpass go uncollect 200 bottles victory gin report immediate room 101

....Not that our great and good would have anything so inelegant
planned for us, of course. It's all for our own good... isn't it?

[Jim Blair]

>>Jasbird <jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<6gt6iv4m3slaq2rhrau9k3h6c8kdscsvs3@4ax.com>...

>>> I'm constantly cross-posting these alcohol stories but no one ever
>>> seems to comment.

Hi,

I'll offer two comments.

In the USA we tried alcohol prohibition during the 1920's. It just didn't
work. It maded criminals like Al Capone rich, filled the jails, and
destroyed respect for the law. But at least people then were smart enough
to recognize a failed policy, and repealed Prohibition. Unlike marijuana
prohibition today.

Here in Madison, there is much concern over "happy hours" in the UW campus
area. But attempts to ban them just result in students driving out to
bars in other towns that do have them. Better for the students to walk to
campus bars than drive to ones out of town. When I came to the UW in
1958, the beer drinking age was 18 and no one made a big deal of it. It
was the only university in the US to serve beer in the student union, and
there was no serious drinking problem.

During the 1980's Wisconsin raised the drinking age to 21, and binge
drinking on campus has been a problem ever since.


,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834

[The Madd Hatter]

I suppose discerning = doped out brain dead fuck, in your dictionary
eh?


On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:01:46 GMT, Clough <inuit@canoemail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:51:55 -0400, "Cartman"
><omar_adebisi@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Clough" <inuit@canoemail.com> wrote in message
>>news:m0j7ivst6bqcndkvsuhe6gfr3u1nlch2bf@4ax.com...
>>> Open legal cannabis cafes instead. Keep the price of pot low and the
>>> price of booze high. This way everybody wins, jobs are created, people
>>> can enjoy nightlife and the streets are filled with happy, smiling,
>>> peaceable people...........................
>>
>>And then.....opium dens and crack houses.
>
>Opium dens would be rather quiet and torpid places, but crack houses
>would be as noisy, raucus and potentially violent as a lot of pubs and
>bars.
>
>No, cannabis cafes would be the pleasant and peaceable alternative for
>discerning people.
>
>Clough

[Clough]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 05:12:24 GMT, The Madd Hatter
<themaddhatter@rogers.com> wrote:

>I suppose discerning = doped out brain dead fuck, in your dictionary
>eh?
>

Nah, I'd keep idiot bullshit out of my dictionary.

Clough