|
AGCO appeals its OWN decision on Circa Licence (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Zentac_75 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
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) |
I agree.
"Pre-drinking" is not just a result of people wanting to save money, its because people like to show up 'groovin' when a party is 'bumping'.
A party is always best between 12 and 2. It's late enough to be out but before last call.
Without last call people wouldn't feel the need to be at 'maximum intoxication' between those hours.
Without last call 'afterhours' would not exist.
If anyone has travelled to parts of the world that don't know what the phrase "last call' means, then they know how well it works.
HOWEVER, I don't see it happening here.
As a culture, we are used to it. We are used to binge drinking. Aboloshing last call works, but it won't here. Not for a long time.
I believe that even if they liquor laws changed, the majority of the public(drinking public) would still get faced by 2am and stumble drunk out of the venue because that is what is routine. The minority('just of age crowd') would drink themselves 'stupid'.
It works, but I don't think it will here.:( At least not this generation. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
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). |
fines for afterhours serving act as both a revenue source (direct) and and an arm of control (which is basically an indirect revenue source)
My point is, last call is NOT about regulating your drinking as they claim. Its about control and revenue.
All it takes is to find ONE empty beer bottle in a corner after 2:45 and the fines are unbelievable. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
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. |
But they are restricting my freedom to buy alcohol. Also the government tells me WHERE i can drink alcohol. A free society wouldnt place these social engineering controls on full grown adults. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zentac_75
I agree.
"Pre-drinking" is not just a result of people wanting to save money, its because people like to show up 'groovin' when a party is 'bumping'.
A party is always best between 12 and 2. It's late enough to be out but before last call.
Without last call people wouldn't feel the need to be at 'maximum intoxication' between those hours.
Without last call 'afterhours' would not exist.
If anyone has travelled to parts of the world that don't know what the phrase "last call' means, then they know how well it works.
HOWEVER, I don't see it happening here.
As a culture, we are used to it. We are used to binge drinking. Aboloshing last call works, but it won't here. Not for a long time.
I believe that even if they liquor laws changed, the majority of the public(drinking public) would still get faced by 2am and stumble drunk out of the venue because that is what is routine. The minority('just of age crowd') would drink themselves 'stupid'.
It works, but I don't think it will here.:( At least not this generation. |
Not true... when last call here was 1 people used to go to clubs at 9. Now they go at 11 or later. That trend changed within about a year. I think the same would happen if we abolished last call altogether. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
But they are restricting my freedom to buy alcohol. Also the government tells me WHERE i can drink alcohol. A free society wouldnt place these social engineering controls on full grown adults. |
We are not a free society, never endevored to be... we are a just society (or at least we try). |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
My point is, last call is NOT about regulating your drinking as they claim. Its about control and revenue.
All it takes is to find ONE empty beer bottle in a corner after 2:45 and the fines are unbelievable. |
Unless you can document that is is policy or it is recognized in the preamble to the legislation then you are mearly posturing a theory based on anectdotal evidence. |
|
|
| Zentac_75 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Not true... when last call here was 1 people used to go to clubs at 9. Now they go at 11 or later. That trend changed within about a year. I think the same would happen if we abolished last call altogether. |
I wish that you are correct. I still have my doubts in the general population.
Furthermore, extending last call an hour and aboloshing it altogether are a little different. |
|
|
| Zentac_75 |
Originally posted by Jayx1
My point is, last call is NOT about regulating your drinking as they claim. Its about control and revenue.
All it takes is to find ONE empty beer bottle in a corner after 2:45 and the fines are unbelievable.
You point makes sense.
Yet I look at it from a different perspective. It is about regulation.
Are all the anti-smoking by-laws about 'control and revenue'?
Alcohol is clearly one of the largest contributors to ignorant behaviour EVER!!!!
Most people are dumb. Most people NEED a governing body to tell them what they can/can't do and when they can/can't do it.
You will probably disagree. I wish that we had more liberties. But (I'm not always this cynical) I sincerely believe that as a society, the majority can not handle it.
I'm sad that I feel most people are not inteligent/capable enough to make these decisions for themselves. |
|
|
| Dr. DAS |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
But they are restricting my freedom to buy alcohol. Also the government tells me WHERE i can drink alcohol. A free society wouldnt place these social engineering controls on full grown adults. |
:rolleyes:
Don't confuse a freedom with a right. You have the freedom to buy alcohol, but not a right to do so whenever you please. You have a freedom to play loud music, but not a right to do so at ridiculous hours. You have a freedom to do whatever drugs you may, but not a right to carry them - they are a controlled substance, simple as that. So is alcohol. Controlled substance = CONTROL. Don't play this up as the government opressing you because you can't get a beer at 3am.
I agree that abolishing last call would be the best thng to happen for all parties concerned, but I also agree it's not going to happen. Not anytimje soon, anyways. |
|
|
| Dr. DAS |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
We are not a free society, never endevored to be... we are a just society (or at least we try). |
Go live in North Korea and then tell me about our lack of freedoms.
Freedom isn't absolute, it can't be. People aren't smart enough to handle absolute freedom.
Imagine if there were no controls on driver's licences. Sure, we'd be even more free, but consider the impact THAT would have on our society.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you don't like our systems, nobody is forcing you to live here. |
|
|
| Zentac_75 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. DAS
People aren't smart enough to handle absolute freedom.
|
That is my entire point!!!:) |
|
|
| Dr. DAS |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zentac_75
That is my entire point!!!:) |
We must have typed it at pretty much the same time.
Great minds...:toocool: |
|
|
|
|
