Govt. closing "Early Houses"

Sam Vimes · 26-04-2008 08:55AM

flanum wrote: »

Data or gtfo

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~cronews/geog/census/copop.html

yes i was sad enough to put the data in excel, separate the counties by coastline or not and add them

even though i didn't count meath and leitrim as having coastline because only a small portion of their land is on the coast, the figures came up as 4,136,264 in coast line counties and 1,322,572 in non-coast line.

those figures are from 2002 but i doubt they've changed enough to swing it

Maximilian · 26-04-2008 10:21AM

ninty9er wrote: »

This isn't sabout kids, it's about everybody. The statistics (somewhere, I can't be arsed finding them again) show that binge drinking is a greater problem in the 35-49 age group than the 16-24 age group. Bet you didn't see that one coming.

For Christ's sake, if you want to drink when "the mood takes you" have a stock at home like any normal person!

The 35-49 year olds are going home to drink though, not hanging around a park and acting in an anti-social manner. What social ills are caused by mature people buying drink from an off-license after 10, presumably to drink in the privacy of their own home.

syklops · 26-04-2008 11:20AM

dublindude wrote: »

The vast majority of people do not drink in moderation. They can't stop after 1 or 2. They want to keep drinking until they get tired or the pubs close.

I think the vast majority of the members of Boards would disagree with you.

In the UK, they introduced 24 hour pubs - that has been a total disaster: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/03/nbooze103.xml

The reality is we are not too culturally dissimilar to the Brits, so it makes sense that if we have shorter off licence and pub opening hours, we'll have less problems.

Your dead right, our culture is very similar to the brits. And our government is very similar to the Brits, in that they are turning into a nanny state just as this country is. Have a law that says you can not be drunk or disorderly in public, and ENFORCE THE DAMN THING!

from the article:
The introduction of 24-hour drinking laws has been a catastrophic "mistake" which has turned Britain's town centres into no-go areas during the evening for everyone except young drunks, council leaders say today.

Then why the feck weren't the young drunks arrested and taken off the streets.

And as for your comment that because it was a disaster in the UK it makes sense that shorter hours will cause less problems: thats is just bollox. The reason they brought in 24 hour drinking was because they had already tried shortening and restricting and it didnt work.

Sam Vimes · 26-04-2008 11:35AM

Maximilian wrote: »

The 35-49 year olds are going home to drink though, not hanging around a park and acting in an anti-social manner. What social ills are caused by mature people buying drink from an off-license after 10, presumably to drink in the privacy of their own home.

ah but you see this isn't about social ills. this is about the government preventing their populace from damaging their health, because they're too stupid to look after their health themselves

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 26-04-2008 11:57AM

dublindude wrote: »

Can someone please suggest an alternative solution to our current alcohol problem?

I cannot think of anything apart from restricting alcohol sales.

If you cannot think of anything apart from restricting alcohol slaes, you must be one seriously limited and unimaginative indivudual.

There are loads of other ideas throughout the thread

GOVT
1 - Apply laws already in existance, especially in relation to teenagers.
2 - Adopt a continental approach whereby people are introduced to alcohol in a more responsible manor rather than being forced to abstain.

SOCIETY
1 - Bring in forms of social life that DON'T revolve around getting hammered - what ever happened to coffee bars?

Why do people think banning or restricting something automatically works? Doen't work with drugs, doesn't work with fireworks and those are things that people think SHOULD be banned or restricted.

halfinch · 26-04-2008 12:53PM

What I think we should do is actually lower the drinking age to sixteen. Most european countries adapt such a law and it results in less abuse. I dont think this generation will benefit from it as you are bound to have a heap of hem out the first week it comes into place but within five years it could make a huge difference......

Also I think there should be more non-alcholhol places open...i.e eddie rocketts is usually fairly busy on a saturday night

Hitchhiker's Guide to... · 26-04-2008 01:25PM

flanum wrote: »

Data or gtfo

considering that Dublin is a coastal county, this could be the most stupid request for proof that boards.ie has ever seen.

well done, you win the internet.

AARRRGH · 26-04-2008 02:07PM

syklops wrote: »

I think the vast majority of the members of Boards would disagree with you.

I agree, however boards.ie users are nothing like the average person!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If you cannot think of anything apart from restricting alcohol slaes, you must be one seriously limited and unimaginative indivudual.

Why the insult??

I have a very good imagination thanks very much.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

1 - Apply laws already in existance, especially in relation to teenagers.

What they doing now is aimed at problem drinkers, not teenagers.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

2 - Adopt a continental approach whereby people are introduced to alcohol in a more responsible manor rather than being forced to abstain.

That's the long term plan and will take generations.

I'm talking about what can they do NOW.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

1 - Bring in forms of social life that DON'T revolve around getting hammered - what ever happened to coffee bars?

It would be worth a try, however I think Irish people like and want to get hammered.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Why do people think banning or restricting something automatically works? Doen't work with drugs, doesn't work with fireworks and those are things that people think SHOULD be banned or restricted.

The problem with drugs is that the laws are too lax.

Drugs will never, and should never, be legalised. Maybe you're intelligent and responsible but the average person isn't. Drugs and alcohol are responsible for the majority of crimes in Ireland.

The only solution is to either:

1. Get people to drink less and not take drugs. This will take many generations.
2. Restrict alcohol and drugs. This is a short term solution and will provide some results. IMO drug users should go to prison. (Do you think all those middle class coke users would be comfortable going to prison for a few months? No, they'd sharply rethink their lifestyle.)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 26-04-2008 02:41PM

dublindude wrote: »

I agree, however boards.ie users are nothing like the average person!

Why the insult??

I have a very good imagination thanks very much.

What they doing now is aimed at problem drinkers, not teenagers.

That's the long term plan and will take generations.

I'm talking about what can they do NOW.

It would be worth a try, however I think Irish people like and want to get hammered.

The problem with drugs is that the laws are too lax.

Drugs will never, and should never, be legalised. Maybe you're intelligent and responsible but the average person isn't. Drugs and alcohol are responsible for the majority of crimes in Ireland.

The only solution is to either:

1. Get people to drink less and not take drugs. This will take many generations.
2. Restrict alcohol and drugs. This is a short term solution and will provide some results. IMO drug users should go to prison. (Do you think all those middle class coke users would be comfortable going to prison for a few months? No, they'd sharply rethink their lifestyle.)

It wasn't meant as an insult, hence the use of the word 'if'. However, if you're imignative, why are you restricting your thinking to bannign things?

My point remains: restricting supply will not deal with the problem, as people will always find a way to get what they want.

Anyway, as I've said before, this is more society's responsibility than the govenrment's. The govt. only steps in (in theory) if it needs to, and they obviously feel the need to, and I'd agree with them. But firstly: educartion is the way forward and yes, it might take time, but it'll take even more time if they don't start now. Secondly: if society doesn't see a problem or is unwilling to change, then there's only so much you CAN do.

Phantasm · 26-04-2008 02:49PM

They should just let the kids drink.
By the time you're a teenager you should be well aware of the damage that you could be doing to you body, so it's your own fault if anything does happen.

AARRRGH · 26-04-2008 02:59PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The govt. only steps in (in theory) if it needs to, and they obviously feel the need to, and I'd agree with them. But firstly: educartion is the way forward and yes, it might take time, but it'll take even more time if they don't start now. Secondly: if society doesn't see a problem or is unwilling to change, then there's only so much you CAN do.

We agree in general, the difference (I think) is that I am ok with the Government doing some restrictions to see how it works out.

nobodythere · 26-04-2008 03:05PM

elviscostello wrote: »

That really is f*cking incredible ... They just don't have a notion what they are at. It's extremely unfair for those working folk you mention.

They know what they're doing. Trying to drive people to the pubs. It's good economically for them in that it makes you feel like you're richer than you are (pay you high wages and then tax the living **** outta you).

Nobody is stupid enough to come up with suggestions like that, they're actually quite clever in the way that they appear like they're having a positive benefit but have only one real agenda.

AARRRGH · 26-04-2008 03:11PM

grasshopa wrote: »

They know what they're doing. Trying to drive people to the pubs. It's good economically for them in that it makes you feel like you're richer than you are (pay you high wages and then tax the living **** outta you).

Nobody is stupid enough to come up with suggestions like that, they're actually quite clever in the way that they appear like they're having a positive benefit but have only one real agenda.

That sounds a bit too conspiracy theory for me...

Sam Vimes · 26-04-2008 03:42PM

dublindude wrote: »

It would be worth a try, however I think Irish people like and want to get hammered.

if irish people want to get hammered, why should the government bring in laws to try to stop them?

dublindude wrote: »

Drugs will never, and should never, be legalised. Maybe you're intelligent and responsible but the average person isn't.

i have always been fervently against restrictive laws that affect everyone to stop stupid people from hurting themselves. I should not be prevented from doing something because some other **** wit does it wrong. no matter what the substance or activity, some **** wit will find a way to do it wrong. you can't ban everything

dublindude wrote: »

Drugs and alcohol are responsible for the majority of crimes in Ireland.

Drugs cause a lot of crime because the only way to get drugs is to buy them off a criminal. this leads to criminal gangs as we've seen which leads to crime. so it's not drugs that cause crime, it's making them illegal, thereby pushing a product for which there is a huge demand into the hands of criminals which causes crime

alcohol doesn't cause crime. stupid people who abuse alcohol cause crime. and as i said, you shouldn't punish everyone for the supid actions of the few. some drivers are terrible and are a menace on the roads, be it by speeding or drink driving or whatever. does that mean we should ban driving since sometimes allowing people to drive will get them and others killed?

dublindude wrote: »

The only solution is to either:

1. Get people to drink less and not take drugs. This will take many generations.
2. Restrict alcohol and drugs. This is a short term solution and will provide some results. IMO drug users should go to prison. (Do you think all those middle class coke users would be comfortable going to prison for a few months? No, they'd sharply rethink their lifestyle.)

or 3. remember that we're in a deomcracy, where people are supposed to be allowed do what they want as long as they don't harm others.

you say that restricting alcohol and drugs is a short term solution. well drugs have been completely illegal for many many years and if anything drug use is increasing. if banning drugs and giving prison sentences to people for using them hasn't prevented their use, how on earth will closing the off licences a few hours earlier miraculously stop people drinking?

answer: it won't. it'll just inconvenience the thousands of people that the law is not intended to affect, ie those that have a relaxed attitude to drink. the people with the problem will just get their drink a bit earlier

and why do you think drug users should be given prison sentences? what have they done that is so wrong? is possibly damaging their health in the privacy of their own home so offensive to you that you think they should be punished for it?

latenia · 26-04-2008 03:54PM

There's a hint at the real reasons behind this in a feature in today's Times.
Quote:

'"There's no element of public disorder about these at all," admits Dr. Gordon Holmes, who chaired the Alcohol Advisory Group whose report fed into the new bill, "but they are very sordid."

So there you have it-some snobby self-righteous doctor with no public mandate decides that these establishments aren't to his personal taste, ergo the whole country must follow suit. If I was the owner of an early house I would be taking this all the way through the courts.

Davidius · 26-04-2008 03:59PM

You know I'd never actually heard of an 'Early House' up until now. Are you guys sure you're not just making them up?

AARRRGH · 26-04-2008 04:21PM

Davidius wrote: »

You know I'd never actually heard of an 'Early House' up until now. Are you guys sure you're not just making them up?

I've been in a few of them. They're full of (I'm not joking) transsexuals, alcos, and in particular people off their heads on drugs.

I've never seen any "normal" people in them.

They're mad places.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 26-04-2008 04:21PM

dublindude wrote: »

We agree in general, the difference (I think) is that I am ok with the Government doing some restrictions to see how it works out.

We do!
I've not problem with Govt making laws, just against restrictions, because, as history will tell you, restrictions don't work. This is a muddled knee-jerk reaction.

Sam Vimes wrote:

if irish people want to get hammered, why should the government bring in laws to try to stop them?

Lots of reasons: if it leads to mass public disorder, for a start (not saying it does, but if it did, the govt is obliged to step in). If it infringes on someone else's liberties, the law should step in. If it becomes a massive burden on public services (police, health, etc.) then the govt should step in.

Just because we have the right to so something, doesn't mean you MUST do it, and it doesn't give you the right to abuse other people.

latenia · 26-04-2008 04:41PM

dublindude wrote: »

I've been in a few of them. They're full of (I'm not joking) transsexuals, alcos, and in particular people off their heads on drugs.

I've never seen any "normal" people in them.

They're mad places.

You sound just like the doctor I quoted above. What's wrong with transsexuals?

Fremen · 26-04-2008 04:45PM

dublindude wrote: »

I've been in a few of them. They're full of (I'm not joking) transsexuals, alcos, and in particular people off their heads on drugs.

I've never seen any "normal" people in them.

They're mad places.

That's absolutely true, I've only been to one once and it was pretty much as you described. The thing is, just because they're distasteful doesn't mean they should be shut down.

AARRRGH · 26-04-2008 04:49PM

latenia wrote: »

You sound just like the doctor I quoted above. What's wrong with transsexuals?

Well for a start they have psychological issues, but that's a different topic altogether.

My point was this: early houses are not full of people coming out of the coal mine having a quick pint before they come home. They are full of people who have been drinking all night.

Fremen wrote: »

That's absolutely true, I've only been to one once and it was pretty much as you described. The thing is, just because they're distasteful doesn't mean they should be shut down.

I agree 100%. In fact, I like that our city has this sort of thing.

I think the Government's thinking is "there's no healthy reason to be drinking at 8 in the morning". Early houses, at the moment, only exist to help people continue binge drinking.

colly10 · 26-04-2008 04:52PM

Maximilian wrote: »

Another example, banning 10 packs of cigarettes. I don't have any stats to back up what I'm saying but I seriously doubt that the lack of 10 packs has stopped a single person from smoking. If anything, it has probably led to an increase in consumption. Just a bull**** measure for show.

+1 - For months I used to buy a 10 box in the morning, smoke a few then throw them away and put on a patch when I got to work, when they got rid of 10's that went out the window straight away.

As for the new laws, just enforce the old ones and introduce the one that allows guards to send young people in as a test. Penalising everyone cause of a few is stupid imo

Fremen · 26-04-2008 04:54PM

dublindude wrote: »

Early houses, at the moment, only exist to help people continue binge drinking.

I think that's true for the most part. My problem is, I absolutely do not want the government telling me whether or not I should binge drink. It's not their place. I'll leave that up to my doctor, my friends and my family.

I may not want to binge drink, but so help me god, I want the right to binge drink.

JavaBear · 26-04-2008 05:15PM

flanum wrote: »

aah, after re-reading ops post. i think i get it. so an "early house" is a licenced premise that opens at 7am apparently and is associated with harbour towns/coastal counties. well theres 15 coastal counties, which leaves 17 counties not affected by this! so who gives a fcuk? not the majority of ireland then so.... a resounding FAIL!

At least I wasn't the only one who didn't know what an early house was :pac:

*Tripper* · 26-04-2008 05:21PM

Before you know it the countries growing problem with obesity is going to result in no Mc D's breakfast and no late night munch. Well....there baxtards anyway!

nlgbbbblth · 26-04-2008 06:56PM

Has anybody here ever scored (in the sexual sense) at an early house?

Tigger · 26-04-2008 07:19PM

we used to drik in the place in smithfield after coming off night shift and i was known for stealing girls from their passed out fellas
sometimes there be nice girls there in the mood to talk to a nice fella with only a couple of pints on him

Maximilian · 26-04-2008 07:39PM

latenia wrote: »

You sound just like the doctor I quoted above. What's wrong with transsexuals?

Simple, they dress up as women. I'd say about 95% of everyone thinks they are weirdos.

AARRRGH · 26-04-2008 07:46PM

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

Has anybody here ever scored (in the sexual sense) at an early house?

Haha, never personally, but you definitely could.

My druggie friends who go to early houses fairly regularly, they're all quite promiscious.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 26-04-2008 07:50PM

Maximilian wrote: »

Simple, they dress up as women. I'd say about 95% of everyone thinks they are weirdos.

Maybe, but if you've got the right to binge-drink, then they've got the right to dress up in any manner they choose. I've never been verbally abused or pissed off by a transexual.

Govt. closing "Early Houses"

Comments