to think the problem lies with people drinking too much

[Northernlurker]

To explain: recently a young man disappeared in our city after a night out. It has been reported that he'd drunk in a number of pubs and likely was somewhat intoxicated. A few days later his body was found in the river.

This is a terrible tragedy for his family and I can understand they feel a need to do something - however what they've chosen to do is speak out calling for large sections of the river to be fenced off. We are talking here about a shallow river with next to no current (waterlilies grow in the summer!) that any adult falling in to should be able to extricate themself from assuming usual health. It doesn't need to be fenced off for public safety because the vast majority of the public are at no risk whatsoever.

AIBU to feel really sad that an opportunity to point out to people exactly how much danger being drunk can put you in is being missed here?

[Rebeccaruby]

The only problem with charging people if they end up in A and E drunk, imagine the following:

Your teen gets out of their face on alcohol. They lose consciousness. Their friends discuss whether to call an ambulance or just let them "sleep it off". Now, people do (rarely) die from alcohol poisoning. Teens are currently encouraged to call an ambulance. Now, suppose they know that your little darling will get stung for £60 or whatever. They might feel a bit reluctant to get help.

Or, your child is a student. They get a glancing blow from a car when they misjudge crossing the road after a few sherbets. They hit their head, but manage to stand up. Their friends suggest they go to hospital, as they are bleeding and groggy, but they decide to go in the morning, as they are obviously drunk and £60 is a lot of money for a student. The head injury is more serious than they thought, they lapse into a coma overnight. Well, it happens all the time on Casualty!

And what about homeless people who are alcoholics? These people are often assaulted, or have severe health problems. They will never feel they can go to hospital, as they will always be drunk. Yes, I know they don't have any money to take away, but it will be taken out of their benefit every week.

[expatinscotland]

Oh, there was a guy a few years back who tried to climb up Castle Rock in Edinburgh for the side going up King Stables Road whilst utterly bladdered.

Sadly, he fell to his death.

You know, there's a really good reason the top of that rock has been a fortress since before the time of the Picts.

[JackBauer]

OP YANBU. I live in a city with a marina and river, a few years ago there was a well published campaign to get railings put up around the marina after a young man fell in and drowned. The campaign was high profile and veyr aggressive, the people who worked at the marina (who I know) were intimidated and made to feel as if it was all their fault that it was unsafe.
Unfortunately, what they all seemed to miss was the fact that he fell int eh river. And all the stats they pulled out of deaths in the water were from people who had fallen in up the river near the docks, where they are never going to put railings in, or who had climbed the railings and then fallen in, or in one case fell off his boat. Railings would not have saved any of them apart from teh idiot who decided to piss over the egde of a 12 foot drop into open water while pissed and fell(and luckily was pulled out anyway)

Yes it's sad, and I feel for the families, but ffs, have a bit of sense. Open water is not safe. I have more sympathy to the people close to me that have to remove the bodies and have nightmares/flashbacks about it than the people who fell in in the first place.

[southeastastra]

what you mean!

sorry posted too soon

[southeastastra]

i do understand

[expatinscotland]

Make me, south . Because to be quite honest I don't know how else to put such behaviour without a lot of people getting het up and offended .

[southeastastra]

stop saying acting ghetto expat

[expatinscotland]

'The whole drunk town centre thing is something I never saw but I'm sure some aspects of it go on.'

Not really. Because if one person got hold of a camera and taped it, then the police did nothing, it would be all over the place. Lawsuits, too.

Again, not saying that's right or the right approach for here.

But it is what it is. And part of it is that if you call the police about people acting ghetto whilst drunk it's usually taken seriously.

That's not to say it doesn't go on, just that if people complain you have to stop behaving like that most of the time.

Or you really do face some unpleasant consequences.

[expatinscotland]

'In the US wine is sold in supermarkets but other booze in special off liceneces only.'

In some states. In others, it's all sold in a liquor store, usually located next to the supermarket .

In others, it is sold, but only 3.2% beer and wine. For the regular stuff, you have to go to a liquor store.

California and Nevada are noteable exceptions.

But of course, the liquor store isn't open as often as the supermarket, and because they only sell booze, mixers, snacks and Lotto tickets, it's easier for them to catch out underage buyers or those buying for minors.

The other issue is that, in most states, a person who buys to supply a minor can get into very, very serious trouble and even be charged the same as a perpetrator if in fact a perpetrator is a minor who was supplied by the person (in the case, say, of a minor who then drives a car drunk and kills someone).

Of course, this approach may not work for the UK, but this is how it is handled.

[expatinscotland]

The problem is people who make town centres no-go zones like Riven pointed out.

We've got a friend whose partner is Slovakian. She says people drink there a lot, but you don't get no-go zone town centres (excepting the Brits there ).

It's a Brit problem, but how to solve it?

On the one hand, no one wants the nannying that also penalises sensible drinkers or even those who drink to excess but do so at home or without causing any disturbance or harm to anyone else.

It's also clear that all these nanny laws are having no effect on these violent drunks.

But the only way to put a kabosh on this is more policing and stiffer laws/punishments.

So on the other hand there might be a need to stop hand-wringing and trying to rehab or give people who behave violently whilst abusing alcohol chance after chance at reform.

It is a fine line to tread, but the cost is either what some perceive as a loss of human rights/civil liberties/police state or continue on as we are.

Riven and ski are right, though, nothing seems to be anyone's own fault now. There are always extenuating circumstances or someone or something else to blame.

So the £64,000 question is: what do you do with significant segments of society who are brought up with no sense of personal, and by exension, societal, responsibiity?

[Miggsie]

Perhaps every place that sells alcohol and allows people to get razzed on the premises should be forced to breathalyse all customers as they wish to leave.
Those who have enough alcohol in their veins to be potentially violent or insensible should be thrown in a "drunk tank" attached to the premises until sober.
Then everyone would know where to look for the drunks every night and they wouldn't be able to fall into water or drive dangerously.

And they have to pay to get out of the tank, and the money raised can go to the local hospital.

[EggyAllenPoe]

lest we forget that though people talk about 'pubs' as a single monoglot item, there is a fairly wide range - 'old mans' pubs, country pubs, as well as town watering holes - forcing pubs to up prices will only put the out-of-towners out of businss (even more than the smoking ban already has). And just who thinks £3 a pint is cheap? (standard price in these parts)

I think banning sale of booze fom shops would be a terrible piece of over-government, and one that would penalise the person who enjoys a glass of red with their dinner without doing anything about the person who likes to go out, get off their heads in town and get into a fight every friday.

this always sems to be discussed with massive conflation of some very different issues - the health damage caused by ordinary everyday overindulgence by adults drinking in their own home and not causing anyone any bother - the public order problems caused by people out on a night on the tiles - two issues with different causes, different problems.

the only underlying similarity is that both groups (both teens/young adults and grown-up householding types) have more disposal income that allows more over indulgence.

in answer to the OP, YANBU - if you wrap everyone in bubble wrap, we'll suffocate..

[BertieBotts]

When I was at school/college teenagers would smoke weed because it was easier to get hold of than alcohol, especially since they have tightened the laws on what counts as ID.

Of course we they would all go out and drink in pubs at the weekends anyway, but the only way to get hold of alcohol as a young teen is for someone older to buy it for you. Not many 18 year olds really want to buy alcohol for younger teens, unless it's a group of friends who are all 17/18 years old. Weed is easier because it's more discreet/easily smuggled, it is (or was) legal to an extent - though there must have been an age limit on it?

[ItsGraceAgain]

I'm in favour of massive de-regulation of human behaviour. We have so many laws now, the police waste time enforcing them and people are losing the sense of personal responsibility (and responsibility towards others, for that matter.)

At the same time as de-regulation, the structure of 'damages' awards should be changed to make awards more appropriate. "No Win No Fee" has a lot to answer for, and the awards culture gives the idea that money can solve all problems.

I seriously don't see why pubs should be made responsible for customers drinking too much.

[expatinscotland]

'Don't teenagers smoke weed because it is easier to get hold of than alcohol?'

No more than they smoke skunk here, IME.

Personally, I'd rather see marijuana production legalised and regulated than more open-drinking laws.

[skihorse]

Riven, reminds me of the one at christmas - his parents ranted and raged that the locals must've kidnapped him or the like or that there was a massive cover-up - because boys like him didn't do things like that.

[MathsMadMummy]

will read this properly later. aaah it's nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this. we really need to combat the drinking culture, no idea how to do it though as, apart from a couple of rowdy teenage sleepovers I've never been into it myself.

[Screensaver]

I didn't mean that judgementally, more as a deterrent.

[Screensaver]

Ex-Pat, I don't agree or disagree, that is the case in the US. Don't teenagers smoke weed because it is easier to get hold of than alcohol?

[expatinscotland]

'i think it's simpler to raise the age to 21.'

They don't police or punish under-age drinking as it is here, if they raise the age and don't enforce it it's a useless measure.

The problem is that a) people have no self-control AND don't have any sense of societal responsibility so they act out whilst drunk b) they know whatever they do, they'll get away with it.

Because they do!

Article in The Times today about how 2 out of 3 of the fines handed out for behaving anti-socially and even assault whilst drunk are never paid after a yea.

No one chases it up, and the offenders don't get in trouble. So no reason not to go get drunk and act ghetto is the message they get.