No sense at all

Lets get this straight. The plan is to bring in 24 hour drinking in city centres and elsewhere. Now, however, the plan is to ban drink on buses & trains. How about controlling source rather trying this finger in the dyke approach. Sure, its sensible to encourage responsibel drinking, but at the same time you encourage round the clock wall to wall drinking. It just not rocket science that this cockeyed from the very start.

4 Comments so far

  1. PFC (unregistered) on October 31st, 2005 @ 12:21 am

    I disagree…why do you need to drink on the bus or train…

    I dont drink, and I am sick to death of getting alchol spilled on me, putting my hand in a puddle of beer, and the stench. I have no problem with social drinking, ie people drinking in their homes, or in a bar… but I find that those drinking on public transport, 99% of the time are rude, a nuisance and generally pissheads.

    Im made to not smoke for others comfort, its about time I have the same consideration given to me.


  2. Sean (unregistered) on October 31st, 2005 @ 7:18 am

    You fail to see my point. The goverment is encouraging the very people who do cause trouble on buses and trains by giving them more time to get shit faced. Is this really such a big problem? Probably not, but it looks good in the news and makes the govt look its doig something.


  3. Jared (unregistered) on October 31st, 2005 @ 9:59 am

    I’ve never understood the arguments for 24 hour drinking; I mean, I’m sure there are some, but I’ve never really picked up on them.

    My biggest problem with it is that the after-hours public transport is already sorely limited. Unless they quadruple the number of black cabs, and double the number of night busses, there’s going to be a real problem. That, or make the tube 24 hours (my preference).

    Banning drinking on public transport just seems common sense. It is definitely only chasing after a symptom of the whole problem, but it’s a messy symptom, and we’d be better off without it…


  4. Flora (unregistered) on November 1st, 2005 @ 1:38 pm

    Laws should not be brought in merely because you find something irritating.

    The smoking ban is a poor analogy:
    You are not made to forgo smoking for others’ comfort, you are made to forgo smoking because it affects others’ health. If drinking near someone on a bus caused them to feel the ill health effects of drinking, then a ban could be argued for. Thus belching, farting, smelling, talking on mobiles, etc. are not banned although they may be uncomfortable for others.

    As it is, a ban on public drinking does not address what is having a negative impact on others (violent/abusive/dangerous behaviour); instead, it restricts the freedom of all people, regardless of behaviour.

    Legislation should be a last resort, not a sledgehammer to be weilded against anything the majority finds irritating or inconvenient.

    (Aside; if you are genuinely interested in the argument for how flexible licensing laws would reduce the negative social impact of drinking, the government publication is here: http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_2001/time_for_reform.htm)



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.