It is actually an offence to serve someone who is drunk. Obviously there is the problem of interpreting what 'a drunk' is.mcmadhatter said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Brits: who's staying out longer for a drink then?
- Thread starter Blue Velvet
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Some parts e.g. here have not only had 24hr pubs but off licenses,clubs,sheebangs,blues etc ad infinitum.iGav said:Parts of London have always had (legal) 24 hour drinking in pubs, so it won't really make the slightest bit of difference to me
There are a few occasions when I've been with large groups of people and we drank from 7-2:30am (bar/club-hopping) when they kicked us out, but on the whole I usually don't drink much past midnight.
I don't think that later hours will have a huge impact - I don't think it's a big problem here in the states.
I don't think that later hours will have a huge impact - I don't think it's a big problem here in the states.
It's all well and good asking to be treated like adults but as people in this country prove time and time again, they can't behave like adults. People like the freedom to do wht they want but still want to be able to blame others when things don't turn out right for them and if steps are taken to help regulate behaviour this is regarded as interference and molly-coddling. We have a lot of freedom in this country and yet people will always ask for more and abuse the privileges that we have. If our healthcare system wasn't free perhaps they'd be somewhat more care taken on Fridays and saturday nights - instead time and resources are wasted on idiots too sloshed to know where the are or to realise that their bed isn't a toilet. I don't have sufficient faith in the good people of our country to imagine that any relaxation of the licensing laws will suddenly allow them to drink responsibly.
russed said:is it just me who finds it a bit hipocritical that hte government wanted to apply the "police advice" when it was the terrorism laws but not when it comes to the 24 hour drinking thing? humm... funny that!
Not sure that you can really compare 90 day detention without trial or substantial evidence to 24 hour drinking, although it seems that you just have. At any rate these seem so far removed that shouting hypocrisy seems a tad unwarranted.
jimN said:
no, all i meant that on the terror bill the government were making a big thing about the police wanting this and saying how if the police want it, they much have it, but then on the drinking the police have been vocal since the beginning saying it will make their job far harder etc and the government ignores them, i would say that stating that isnt hypocrisy, its fact
jimN said:
The trouble with this is you can call people stupid,pikeys,chavs etc until the cows come home but when its your turn you'll relise your f**ked and that alcohol is a filthy and very dangerous drug,by comparison Heroin is benign,not that I'm advocating Heroin but in its pure form is perfctly harmless(yes I know you can OD on it but not as easily as alcohol)and as I said before the alcohol fuelled teenage crap that goes on in town centres around britain is merely the visible bit,the real dark underside of alcohol is located in homes across the entire spectrum of Brit society.Alcohol kills folks.
russed said:
The government has to balance what the police want with what the public want and with what is legal. In the case of the terror laws that legislation would have been thrown out in europe. Maybe 24 hour drinking will make the police's life tougher but if the police said they'd like a curfew to make things easier that wouldn't be a reason to do. I think that the government can stress the police's input on one and not the other without being called inconsiderate hypocrits.
As for where i stand on the matter. I couldn't care much either way. I don't drink myslef and the liuttle people that i see drunk wouldn't get served in pubs anyway.
the pub next door to us tried to get a 24 hour license but us locals were all dead set against it! would have been alright though. the youngest people who go have been in at least one world war.
I dont know what to make of this. I dont drink so the times don't bother me, but as somebody who doesn't want to get woken up by yobs at 3am i'm dead set against it.
hopefully, in a strange way, i hope something tragic happens and Mr. Blair announces the end of this putting a lid on the subject for another 50 years.
I dont know what to make of this. I dont drink so the times don't bother me, but as somebody who doesn't want to get woken up by yobs at 3am i'm dead set against it.
hopefully, in a strange way, i hope something tragic happens and Mr. Blair announces the end of this putting a lid on the subject for another 50 years.
L
Lau
Guest
Do you guys who don't drink ever go to pubs though? A couple of times I haven't been drinking (for whatever reason) but it still annoys me to be kicked out when the conversation's flowing well....
russed said:
.. people on all night benders, take a taxi home, but drive to the next morning! Basically still over the legal drink-drive limit.
BIG problem during Xmas/New years, in the past I've seen the police pulling people over for random breath-tests first thing in the morning around Xmas and New Years.
Your Bull_s_ometer is broken.Care to show some reliable sources that disprove what I said.
Overdoses were virtually unheard of when addicts could legally buy all of the pharmaceutically pure heroin, cocaine, opium and anything else they wanted at the corner drugstore.
The responsibility of drug prohibition for heroin deaths is beyond dispute. In the Swiss Heroin Maintenance Program there were zero overdose deaths among the 1,146 participants receiving pure heroin in the three-year program. This proves addicts can safely use pure heroin in known doses. Drug prohibition puts bootleg poisons on the street that kill.
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread454.shtml
Diamorhpine(heroin) is the strongest analgesic available to the medical profession and is used daily by NHS doctors and patients in there own homes.Heroin very quickly changes to morphine in the human body so except for the initial effects are the same drug.I have read case history's including one of a 85 year women with 6 children and many grandchildren who had using large doses of heroin all her adult life with no obvious ill effects.This was published in a text book which is now out of print but the case is well known in drug rehabilitation circles.I,m not advocating the use of Heroin.It is a addictive drug that can cause serious problems to people when they try to withdraw from it (as is alcohol)what I did say was Heroin in its pure form is relatively benign and as long as the addicted have a source of the pure drug they can manage their lives well.This has been used in Holland,Switzerland and other places.It was the normal treatment in England up until the early seventies and it held the problem in check very well.It was after it stopped that the problems of crime and overdoses started when users had to use drugs of dubious quality from the street.Heroin(pure form) will not cause liver damage or damage to other organs,alcohol definitely will.If you had talked to people with Wet Brain or one of the many other diseases caused by alcohol you too may see it as the filthy drug I do.Its fine in small doses at irregular intervals and so is Heroin.I repeat I am not talking about what is sold on the street as Heroin uses of that have a pretty bad prognosis.
If you are worried the site I quoted as it it connected to the legalise cannabis people do a quick search there are many including academic studies
Overdoses were virtually unheard of when addicts could legally buy all of the pharmaceutically pure heroin, cocaine, opium and anything else they wanted at the corner drugstore.
The responsibility of drug prohibition for heroin deaths is beyond dispute. In the Swiss Heroin Maintenance Program there were zero overdose deaths among the 1,146 participants receiving pure heroin in the three-year program. This proves addicts can safely use pure heroin in known doses. Drug prohibition puts bootleg poisons on the street that kill.
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread454.shtml
Diamorhpine(heroin) is the strongest analgesic available to the medical profession and is used daily by NHS doctors and patients in there own homes.Heroin very quickly changes to morphine in the human body so except for the initial effects are the same drug.I have read case history's including one of a 85 year women with 6 children and many grandchildren who had using large doses of heroin all her adult life with no obvious ill effects.This was published in a text book which is now out of print but the case is well known in drug rehabilitation circles.I,m not advocating the use of Heroin.It is a addictive drug that can cause serious problems to people when they try to withdraw from it (as is alcohol)what I did say was Heroin in its pure form is relatively benign and as long as the addicted have a source of the pure drug they can manage their lives well.This has been used in Holland,Switzerland and other places.It was the normal treatment in England up until the early seventies and it held the problem in check very well.It was after it stopped that the problems of crime and overdoses started when users had to use drugs of dubious quality from the street.Heroin(pure form) will not cause liver damage or damage to other organs,alcohol definitely will.If you had talked to people with Wet Brain or one of the many other diseases caused by alcohol you too may see it as the filthy drug I do.Its fine in small doses at irregular intervals and so is Heroin.I repeat I am not talking about what is sold on the street as Heroin uses of that have a pretty bad prognosis.
If you are worried the site I quoted as it it connected to the legalise cannabis people do a quick search there are many including academic studies
Peterkro said:
what apart from all of the people that die from heroin??? all the people that are addicted to it and it ruins their life?
i would beleive that it takes far less heroin to kill you.
if you have proof to show that heroin is better than alcohol, show us, otherwise what you said is irresponsible.
isnt the fact that heroin is a class a drug and alcohol isnt proof enough?
Let's not get totally OT and discuss the relative benefits/dangers of alcohol v heroin.
Most drugs can be argued to be safe when taken in moderation but unfortunately, there are some which have a worse reputation than others, which are easier to become addicted to (and then not taken in moderation) and which are easier to get hold of than others.
I don't belittle the problems of alcoholism or the dangers that it can pose but the majority of people will not use the later opening of pubs (for the most part an minor extension of an hour or two until midnight) as an excuse to go on a drunken rampage; just as a way to finish off an evening in a little more leisurely fashion with perhaps a single extra drink.
Most drugs can be argued to be safe when taken in moderation but unfortunately, there are some which have a worse reputation than others, which are easier to become addicted to (and then not taken in moderation) and which are easier to get hold of than others.
I don't belittle the problems of alcoholism or the dangers that it can pose but the majority of people will not use the later opening of pubs (for the most part an minor extension of an hour or two until midnight) as an excuse to go on a drunken rampage; just as a way to finish off an evening in a little more leisurely fashion with perhaps a single extra drink.
i dont beleive that the longer opening hours will create more alcoholics, as just because they can buy alcohol more often, it doesnt mean that they can buy more. this is because their disposable income wont have suddenly increased over night.
however, i do beleive that occasionally, people will go on bigger and better benders and then that is where the trouble will arise.
however, i do beleive that occasionally, people will go on bigger and better benders and then that is where the trouble will arise.
I was editing my post as you posted so hopefully you will see my point of view.The class of the drug has no relevance to what I said.I didn't say Heroin was better than Alcohol but that in its pure form was relatively benign.Alcohol is a very dangerous drug on the other hand and the cost in human and economic terms is huge.I'm not saying everyone who has the odd drink is in danger of becoming an alcoholic but a surprising number of users will.Incidently I'm quite calm I hear this all illegal drugs are the devils work and will kill you at first sight and alcohol is a safe and useful social lubricant stuff all the time.If for no other reason maybe consider how much of your tax money goes to fighting the problem.Cheers,russed said:
I live in Blackpool UK, all the pubs,clubs and bars here have been given the permission, although im only 16 i still go up town clubbin', i don't think this will have an affect tbh wih you all, you go home when your mates do, or when you feel like you can't be arsed anymore, for about 2 weeks it will be mental, people will go on 24hr binges, but it wil soon were off, theres a lot of trouble in 2 clubs in b/pool Walkabout nad The Syndicate, which they are now trying to close both, if they do this it will just squeeze an extra 200-300 'clubbers' in more smaller bars, which will cause more confilict, which i think is stupi, give it 2 weeks everything would have calmed down
Does the fact that none died say more about the level of care and supervision that the toxicity of heroin? From a simplistic point of view the control of drug supply by criminals does indeed increase the possibility of overdose and death but to say just because that people on a supervised project didn't OD means that heroin is safe or benign.Peterkro said:
Diamorphine is prescribed almost exclusively to terminally ill patients with extreme pain. Usually cancer pateints. Here the fact they will soon die ameliorates concerns over addiction.
As does codeine so are you claiming codiene, morphine and heroin are the same? If they were so equivalent we'd give cancer patients codeine not heroin wouldn't we?
So lovely pure white heroin under highly controlled circumstances is great yet uncontrolled self-destructive addiction to alcohol is bad. Well bugger me that's a shock.
I'm not denying that alcohol abuse is bad nor that alcohol is a harmful substance. Alcohol is an addictive CNS depressant that can cause irrevocable damage when abused. What I object to is your claim that heroin is a perfectly safe and lovely drug and it's only because it's illegal that it causes the damage it does. If it were legal, pure and cheap it would still kill people. People know that too much alcohol is bad for them it doesn't stop some becoming alcoholics. What makes you think that without adequate supervision heroin users would be any different?
And as to the financial cost of alcohol... how much of the cost of a drink is tax? On beer it's about £3.70 of alcohol duty and £1.30 of VAT (total £5) on a £8.99 special offer pack of 24 stubbies of Stella in the supermarkets. Maybe drinkers have paid for the damage their habit has caused. They have paid already for adequate policing and programmes to rehabilitate alcoholics. The fact that doesn't happen is more to do with government prioritities than lack of contributions by drinkers. What have the users of heroin contributed?....oh, that's right, nothing.
i compleatly disagree with the argument that applies both the smoking and alcohol, that the high level of tax that is paid by the consumers of it more than pay for the treatment later in life. this may well be the case, however, if the doctors did not need to treat the patients as a result of their abuses then they would have far far more free time to treat other non-related illnesses.
i am all in favour of the one help policy - we will treat you first time, but if you do not change, you are on your own.
i am all in favour of the one help policy - we will treat you first time, but if you do not change, you are on your own.
russed said:
Bang on the money!
Just look at George Best...what a waste of a perfectly good liver that would have saved someone who was just that little more willing.
Maxiseller said:
Speaking of whom, is anyone else sick and tired of seeing his current status as a headline on the BBC news site? Sure, it's a shame that he's dying but the Royal style status bulletins are a little OTT.
- Status