|
They should abolish last call in Ontario (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
But again i ask... what does time of night have to do with behaviour?
whats the diff if everyone is drunk and on the street at 10 am or at 5am? Does a time clock suddenly go off in people's brains that says "BE EXTRA STUPID AT 5AM"???
I dont think so...
Think about this, people have the option of drinking from 10 am to 2am yet they dont get any drunker than if the law were 10pm to 2am. Sadly people have had this law all their life and many will now swear by the false illusion that it serves. |
|
|
| PartyHarlequin |
| Not to mention it doesn't stop those with well stocked liquor cabinets, beer fridges and wine cellars from getting pissed whenever they please! |
|
|
| MarkT |
time of night has EVERYTHING to do with it! Clubs open at 10, people really start to show up between 11 and 12 (for the most part). You serve until 2 vs. you serve all night, can you honestly say that people won't be drinking more and for longer? Come on now ;)
with no last call, clubs may see some people showing up a bit later and staying later, but most will still show between 11-12, but now they'll be drinking later into the night (good for the club, not so good for police, people on the street, etc. I would suggest).
the logic that you guys are using kills your own argument of why clubs would even want last call abolished If, as it seems you're suggesting, people aren't going to really drink any more than they do now (I say that's crap)...then why bother aboloshing last call? Bars and clubs would be seeing the same (or similar) revenue as they do now, but have now have to pay for their bar staff to stick around for the whole night? that's just silly, isn't it?
Restaurants probably won't see much difference in business because most close before last call anyway, and the ones that don't aren't going to stay open all night just because people can drink.
Abolishing last call simply because a few people don't appreciate our overly paternalistic gov't is not going to happen either ;) I think last call could be extended to 3 or 4 am without much fuss, but I just don't see widespread support for abolishing it, regardless of whether or not it would be a good thing...there's just no demand for this change to take place amongst the bulk of our society, wouldn't you say? |
|
|
| liquidchick |
| I agree...extend drinking hours but don't abolish last call. I know sometimes Walter Mindz and I get to a party really late and we only have enough time for one beer...that sucks. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
First of all the bulk of society is over 40 so you are right, there is not much use for it.
Second, im not saying liquor sales would go up or down. ALl im saying is that it would be more paced rather than drinking yourself silly to beat last call which is what many people do now. Thirdly, this law is outdated due to the fact that when i started going to clubs the average time a club filled up was 930-10. Now its 1130-1. Id say that the laws need to keep up with that change. Fourth, if we extend last call, people can go home on their own accord. Do you honestly think that just because people can drink at 5am means they are going to stay up that late? Some will, most wont.
Lastly, if we are to call ourselves a socially progressive nation this is definately something that would fall in line with it. Imagine telling a european that he cant drink at 5am. Trust me, in my line of work i have to tell many europeans that very often and all i get is a look of bewilderment and the question "why?" to which i cant answer. |
|
|
| disko-kandi |
well, let's see what's going on in England as we speak:
Panorama: "Cldnt Give a XXXX 4 Lst Ordrs" will be broadcast on BBC One on Sunday, 6 June 2004 at 22:15 BST
Every weekend city centres across Britain are transformed. When the shoppers leave, the clubbers move in, in their thousands.
For young drinkers, the High Street at night has become an alcoholic nirvana. But for many others it's seen increasingly as a vulgar, intimidating battleground to be avoided at all costs.
With 1.2 million incidents of alcohol related violence each year, even the government is now talking of some town centres as 'no go' zones.
So how did this happen and who is responsible? Panorama reveals how the drinks industry drove a legal coach and horses through the liquor licensing system taking on the country's once feared liquor licensing authorities and breaking them down with devastating effect.
As one of the trade's new breed of high powered specialist lawyers tells the programme: "It wasn't an equal contest at all".
The breakthrough case was in Nottingham, where Panorama spent a night following the emergency services as they struggle to deal with 50,000 drinkers on the square-mile drinking circuit (which now boasts a total of 356 bars).
These young drinkers would have been part of the constituency courted by the government three years ago with the text message: Cldnt give a XXXX 4 lst ordrs? Vote Labour 4 extra time'.
But, as the programme explores, is the government's decision to call time on last orders at 11 really the best way to deal with this country's growing drink problem?
Or will it, in the words of one Chief Constable, backfire and create "a 24 hour version of what we've got now - and that is my idea of hell".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programm...ama/3742481.stm
further to the topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programm...ama/3766637.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programm...ama/3766275.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3702587.stm |
|
|
| Goashem |
| yes definately! last call ruined a supposably unforgetful evening!!! |
|
|
| malek |
there's a stretch of 200m on a street called crescent where's theres about 30 clubs/bars. when everything closes at 3am, everyone comes out at the same time and it creates lots of heat.
356 bars in a square mile? !!?!?!?
thats the real problem i think... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by disko-kandi
give the peoples the choice, they (the majority) will make the right choices for themselves! ;) |
Ahahaha that's a good one. :D :haha:
Even if we are to assume this to be true, people are worried about the minority who do not make the right choices and endanger other people at the same time.
Jay, every city is not equal, in spite of what the Liberal airheads love to tell us about every single thing on the planet being equal to every single other thing. The Toronto downtown core is a VERY different area from London or even Montreal. There may not be 356 bars in a square mile but there are a load, and it already gets rough out there on some nights.
The layout is different, the demographics are different, and the general attitude is different from other world cities. You can't simply make an analogy between two of them when there are so many fundamental differences. It just doesn't work that way, and that very same attitude is what's responsible for so many of the existing problems in our city (crime, traffic congestion, crappy schools, etc.).
That said, I think the last call is stupid for the majority, but there are probably still a small minority who would very quickly show us the reason we had last call in the first place if we chose to abolish it. |
|
|
| malek |
the only point you make is that everything from everything else is different...
thats some major hot air :p |
|
|
| disko-kandi |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
the only point you make is that everything from everything else is different...
thats some major hot air :p |
HAHAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p :p :toothless |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| Im still not convinced that Torontonians would not be able to handle an abolishment of last call. The only thing it would do is make the cops work later to patrol the downtown district. |
|
|
|
|
