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?

YANBU.

I remember seeing one of those reality police/paramedic programmes once in which a drunk person had fallen into some water in a marina which was surrounded by pubs and restaurants. They interviewed members of the public who were out and about and I was astonished at the number who blamed the authorities for not making the marina safe enough. Many of them also felt it was stupid to put pubs and restaurants next to deep water

Why can't people just take responsibility for themselves and their behaviour?

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think that if you take safety measures to an extreme, you run the risk of robbing children of the skill of assessing and avoiding risk for themselves.

Sadly there will always be a minority of people who can't be protected from themselves in any event. Years ago DH and I visited Niagara Falls, and I was horrified at the numbers of people climbing over the railings to pose for pictures standing on the ice that had formed from the spray (so the ice had formed a smooth slippery shelf hanging over the edge, not on top of a wall or anything). They were inches from death, slipping around and shoving each other - people holding their kids over the edge - we had to leave because I just couldn't watch it.

Groundhogs for Prime Minister!

The NHS resources my alcoholic ex has burnt through must add up to a six-figure sum.

YANBU.

YANBU.

That's why, even though I'm a non-drinker, I despise the idea of minimum pricing of alcohol. It just punishes responsible drinkers and encourages people to further abscond personal responsibility for themselves.

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

bet someone will come on now-well pubs should have stricter rules on how much drink you can have blah blah blahhhh.

Yes, someone will come on with their personal anecdote/justification as to how they or someone they know is an exception to any discussion of change/reform needed in governing drinking, how they were depressed/mentally ill and that's why they did it, they are not to blame, etc.

We had a fella a few years ago get too drunk at night, reverse his car off a pier and drown.

His family were all over, actioning for barriers on the pier, it was unsafe, etc.

Well, yes, dumb ass, it's unsafe because it's for fucking boats and you live near the sea.

Sorry, I missed the quotation marks.

'bet someone will come on now-well pubs should have stricter rules on how much drink you can have blah blah blahhhh.'

I'm completely depressed about the excessive drinking culture.

I have a ds and I know that a. he will probably experiment, not just with alcohol, but with getting v. drunk b. will be a target for the violence associated with too much alcohol.

It's depressing. I'll do what I can but it'll be me versus peers/culture.

Hardly drink myself, and I just can't understand it. Would freak me out to be that out of control. But I think with young people, they are experimenting with being adults, and the forms of adult behaviour - and drinking alcohol (excessively) is, apparently, associated with that.

(Dd is still small, and I think I'll worry about her possible fate as that bridge comes into view).

'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.

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?

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

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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?

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..

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.

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?