|
AGCO appeals its OWN decision on Circa Licence (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
What business does the government have in telling us adults when we can and cannot drink in the first place? |
point of order... the government does not put any restriction on when one can or cannot consume alcohol, only when and how one may supply it. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Maybe if they extended last call till 5 am or something, our scene wouldn't be so polluted with people doing pills and . I mean I'm sure there'd still be a lot of crackheads, but I bet it'd eliminate the need to do drugs to stay awake. And let's face it, substance abuse, whether it's legal or not, is part of what makes partying fun.
But then again, are drunks any better than crackies? |
I generally find that most people have an intoxicant of choice... making one more readily available would do little to change the consumption habits of those who prefer another. Kind of how giving an heroin addict free access alcohol won't cure his addiction nor would giving a crackhead unlimited access to alcohol keep him from smokin' da rock. |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I generally find that most people have an intoxicant of choice... making one more readily available would do little to change the consumption habits of those who prefer another. Kind of how giving an heroin addict free access alcohol won't cure his addiction nor would giving a crackhead unlimited access to alcohol keep him from smokin' da rock. |
doing pills is a little different from doing crack and heroin.. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
doing pills is a little different from doing crack and heroin.. |
Exageration to make a point.... it's a rhetorical device.
My point is; unless alcohol is your drug of choice extending the period in which bars can serve alcohol will have little impact on your consumption of intoxicants. |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Exageration to make a point.... it's a rhetorical device.
My point is; unless alcohol is your drug of choice extending the period in which bars can serve alcohol will have little impact on your consumption of intoxicants. |
that's not the main reason why many choose "pills", mostly it's because its much cheaper to do one pill than to buy 10 drinks and spend a 100 dollars at a bar, plus there is obviously many people that do both, depending on a night/event. |
|
|
| Zentac_75 |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
that's not the main reason why many choose "pills", mostly it's because its much cheaper to do one pill than to buy 10 drinks and spend a 100 dollars at a bar, plus there is obviously many people that do both, depending on a night/event. |
People who choose to do drugs do them because they want to get high. PERIOD.
"It's cheaper" or "It's too late to buy alcohol" are just rationalizations that people use to justify their use of 'said' substance.
If you don't like getting high, you won't no matter what.
If you do, don't sugar coat it by saying things like "I wouldn't do it if I could drink all night for the same price" because it just not true. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zentac_75
People who choose to do drugs do them because they want to get high. PERIOD.
"It's cheaper" or "It's too late to buy alcohol" are just rationalizations that people use to justify their use of 'said' substance.
If you don't like getting high, you won't no matter what.
If you do, don't sugar coat it by saying things like "I wouldn't do it if I could drink all night for the same price" because it just not true. |
+1. I'm sure you would find making alcohol more available would not decrease the amount of drugs consumed. Truthfully, most of the users I know don't drink. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zentac_75
People who choose to do drugs do them because they want to get high. PERIOD.
"It's cheaper" or "It's too late to buy alcohol" are just rationalizations that people use to justify their use of 'said' substance.
If you don't like getting high, you won't no matter what.
If you do, don't sugar coat it by saying things like "I wouldn't do it if I could drink all night for the same price" because it just not true. |
Yeah that's true. Good point.
Welp, see ya later!  |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
The liability issues with allowing bars/clubs to decide when they want to stop serving alcohol would be an even bigger concern. As it is, bars have a high level of liability when it comes to making sure patrons are not intoxicated and driving. If you allow 24/7 drinking that level of liability is going to sky rocket.
I can just imagine what the cost of liquor liability insurance would be if this was the case. |
How does staying open later = more drinking? This arguement always baffles me. Most people i see are playing "beat the clock" which actually gets them more intoxicated. It's not about the volume of drinking. Its about the volume of drinking related to timespan. One would think that someone who drinks 5 drinks over 5 hours would be much less intoxicated than one who drinks 5 within 2 hours.
Some people will still get retardedly drunk. But they would anyways. I know personally that my friends and i will be casually drinking until we notice its 1:30 at which point we load up the shots as fast as we can. This wouldnt happen without last call.
Want to reduce liability? Abolish last call. Sadly this will never happen because the ontario government uses this as yet another method to make money (ie big fines if you happen to serve a drink at 2:01 on THEIR watch) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
point of order... the government does not put any restriction on when one can or cannot consume alcohol, only when and how one may supply it. |
Same diff to me. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Want to reduce liability? Abolish last call. Sadly this will never happen because the ontario government uses this as yet another method to make money (ie big fines if you happen to serve a drink at 2:01 on THEIR watch) |
Given that the Province of Ontario earns a great deal of money off the taxation of alcohol one would imagine the longer the period it can be sold the better for the province financially. While fines may be stiff I would suggest it is more likely to act as a deterant then as a revenue source. I suspect that this would be well born out if one were to compare the cost to monitor compliance contrasted with the revenue generated through fines (note the word suspect, I have no data on this). |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Same diff to me. |
There is a fundamental difference. If the government were to say one can only drink between the hours of 11am and 2am then they are putting a restriction on personal freedoms, which are protected by the charter. If they say that one can only serve alcohol between 11am and 2am then they are putting restrictions on the business practices of a commercial entity, which is not protected under the charter. Your freedoms are not resticted, if you want to continue drinking you may do so, you just have to purchase the alcohol before hand and consume it on your own property. |
|
|
|
|
