Alcohol Limit (not drivers)

[JamesMorgan]

It isn't though, is it? It would help if you put your cards on the table. Is your aim to reduce pedestrian casualties, or to stop people getting a bit too pissed?

My primary aim is neither - it is mainly to avoid the government passing a whole set of legislation that impact on my lifestyle on the false premise that it prevents binge drinking.

I would have thought from society's view, stopping binge drinking would be good from a number of perspectives, including;

a) reducing anti-social behaviour in the streets
reducing crime
c) reducing NHS costs
d) reducing road traffic accidents

There is a lot of difference between getting a bit too pissed and completely inebriated. If you want to achieve the latter, do it in your own home so the public are not affected.

 

[marinyork]

Get rid of the countless laws that do nothing to address the real problem and introduce a few key laws that really sort things out. If the problem is some people drink too much alcohol, pass a law saying that it is illegal to drink more than a certain amount. Then get rid of all the other laws around pricing, licencing hours etc etc.

I think that's actually the problem in this country. We have liberal laws in terms of how many shops sell alcohol, offers and how prominently it is displayed at the entrances to shops. Then there are crackdowns, usually on the quieter and less troublesome people drinking to make it look like they are doing something when business as usual continues elsewhere.

 

[JamesMorgan]

I can drink more then my mate Matt but not as much as my mate Adam.
How much is too much? It's unworkable nonsense to legislate.

I agree it isn't perfect but then neither are the drink-driving laws. We could throw them out as unworkable nonsense because your mate Adam is fine to drive with 80mg (and he probably is, but it's just his tough luck that that is where the line is drawn)

 

[marinyork]

I agree it isn't perfect but then neither are the drink-driving laws. We could throw them out as unworkable nonsense because your mate Adam is fine to drive with 80mg (and he probably is, but it's just his tough luck that that is where the line is drawn)

The drink driving laws aren't nonsense. It's catching people that's the problem.

 

[JamesMorgan]

I think that's actually the problem in this country. We have liberal laws in terms of how many shops sell alcohol, offers and how prominently it is displayed at the entrances to shops. Then there are crackdowns, usually on the quieter and less troublesome people drinking to make it look like they are doing something when business as usual continues elsewhere.

I am not convinced that liberal laws are the problem. As an individual I make a conscious decision to get inebriated. I have to take ownership for that decision. I shouldn't blame other parties for my decisions. The current drink-driving laws have influenced people's decisions on drinking. After one or two drinks they (largely) stop drinking. My sugestion is that for non-drivers in public they should also make a decision to stop after 6 or 7 drinks (or wherever the line is drawn).

 

[Dan B]

I would have thought from society's view, stopping binge drinking would be good from a number of perspectives, including;

a) reducing anti-social behaviour in the streets
reducing crime
c) reducing NHS costs
d) reducing road traffic accidents

And as I said earlier, the problem in "drunk and disorderly" is "disorderly", not "drunk". That's the cause of (a), ( and (d) in your list, and as far as (c) goes I am not convinced your proposal will do much to fix it - it'll just move the problem drinkers into their own homes (or more likely their mates' parents' homes)

 

[Rhythm Thief]

My sugestion is that for non-drivers in public they should also make a decision to stop after 6 or 7 drinks (or wherever the line is drawn).

Er, no: your suggestion is that our wonderful government legislate to make people stop after 6 or 7 drinks. Which is a different thing. Would it be illegal to have six pints over the course of a relaxed day's pub crawling? Or would there be a time limit, so that six drinks in four hours was ok, but six drinks over three and a half hours wasn't? Would a double Laphroaig count as two? Would a measure of Highland Park count the same as a Vodka Mule? Or ... oh, it's unworkable. Another piece of toothless, absurd and utterly unnecessary legislation of the kind you professed yourself against earlier in the thread.

 

[JamesMorgan]

Er, no: your suggestion is that our wonderful government legislate to make people stop after 6 or 7 drinks. Which is a different thing. Would it be illegal to have six pints over the course of a relaxed day's pub crawling? Or would there be a time limit, so that six drinks in four hours was ok, but six drinks over three and a half hours wasn't? Would a double Laphroaig count as two? Would a measure of Highland Park count the same as a Vodka Mule? Or ... oh, it's unworkable. Another piece of toothless, absurd and utterly unnecessary legislation of the kind you professed yourself against earlier in the thread.

The same set or arguments can (and frequently do) get used for the current drink-driving laws. Whatever we think about the drink-driving laws they have reduced drink-driving.

 

[marinyork]

I am not convinced that liberal laws are the problem. As an individual I make a conscious decision to get inebriated. I have to take ownership for that decision. I shouldn't blame other parties for my decisions. The current drink-driving laws have influenced people's decisions on drinking. After one or two drinks they (largely) stop drinking. My sugestion is that for non-drivers in public they should also make a decision to stop after 6 or 7 drinks (or wherever the line is drawn).

I'm all for people taking responsibility and not turning major towns into some small village shop in terms of alcohol sales but I do think it is in a fair part due to how liberal the licensing is. By that I mean not the pub end of things but the shop/supermarket end of things.

I think where you're really going wrong is placing too much emphasis on it being drunken pedestrians' fault in terms of road collisions.

I would say that the regular drink drivers are rather more hazy than that about how much they should drink. Many people don't even understand the units system.

 

[marinyork]

The same set or arguments can (and frequently do) get used for the current drink-driving laws. Whatever we think about the drink-driving laws they have reduced drink-driving.

Historically. More recently I think it's quite harder to say. The problem with the drink driving laws is that if you do drink and have an accident you're very, very, very likely to get caught. If you don't have an accident you're very unlikely to get caught.

 

[JamesMorgan]

And as I said earlier, the problem in "drunk and disorderly" is "disorderly", not "drunk". That's the cause of (a), ( and (d) in your list, and as far as (c) goes I am not convinced your proposal will do much to fix it - it'll just move the problem drinkers into their own homes (or more likely their mates' parents' homes)

I don't disagree with this, and if the current drunk and disorderley laws were effective none of us would be having this discussion. One of the problems with 'disorderley' is that is is very subjective. To one person it is just a few mates having a laugh, to someone else it is anti-social behaviour. The other problem is that once you are completely inebriated yuo tend to have little control over your behaviour. To say you can get inebriated but don't do anything disorderley is unlikely to be effective. The only decision you can reliably make is not to get inebriated. Re c), I also agree with you in part, but some NHS costs eg from fights, RTA's would be reduced.

 

[sunnyjim]

Most amusing thread. Next time I want to get out of my mind, I think I'll forget drinking & try whatever mindbending substance the OP is on.

 

[JamesMorgan]

Historically. More recently I think it's quite harder to say. The problem with the drink driving laws is that if you do drink and have an accident you're very, very, very likely to get caught. If you don't have an accident you're very unlikely to get caught.

Certainly true. In 2008, there were a total of 430 fatalaties from drink-driving RTA's. This has been steadily falling from 1979 when there were 1640. We know that in 2008, 22% of drivers killed in RTA's had excess blood alcohol. As far as the percentage of the total driving population who are over the limit it is very difficult to say with any accuracy as you quite rightly highlight that unless you have an accident (and stay around long enough to be breathalised) you won't get caught. All we can presume is that falling casualty rates probably suggest lower incidences of drink-driving.

 

[marinyork]

Certainly true. In 2008, there were a total of 430 fatalaties from drink-driving RTA's. This has been steadily falling from 1979 when there were 1640. We know that in 2008, 22% of drivers killed in RTA's had excess blood alcohol. As far as the percentage of the total driving population who are over the limit it is very difficult to say with any accuracy as you quite rightly highlight that unless you have an accident (and stay around long enough to be breathalised) you won't get caught. All we can presume is that falling casualty rates probably suggest lower incidences of drink-driving.

It could mean several things. It's not just percentages. It could be distances. I'm sure that drink driving goes on on quite a scale, much larger than people think but that the drink driving laws have constrained this behaviour down to driving 3 or 4 miles or less in most cases. There's very little chance of catching these people due to no go areas for the police and that police tend to drive on the same roads for many of their journeys. What makes it worse it that the few breathalising crack downs that go on are usually in the same places and in incredibly predictable places.

 

[Origamist]

Certainly true. In 2008, there were a total of 430 fatalaties from drink-driving RTA's. This has been steadily falling from 1979 when there were 1640....All we can presume is that falling casualty rates probably suggest lower incidences of drink-driving.

Possibly, but we also need to factor in the considerable improvement in trauma care in the last 30 years or so.