Province looking at setting minimum prices for drinks to curb violence outside bars

[MaxPower]

What about "cutting someone off"? Aren't bars/servers already obligated, by law, to stop serving someone who's "too drunk", you know, drunk enough to start some crap when they normally wouldn't? Server Intervention or something like that....

I wouldn't mind a little more enforcement of that to help solve the problem. By implementing the minimum drink price rule, aren't lawmakers acknowledging that their server intervention laws are a) not going to be enforced or b) useless/ineffective? Why the F does said law exist?

/above post based on assumption that Server Intervention laws exist, of which I am not 100% sure.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

What about "cutting someone off"? Aren't bars/servers already obligated, by law, to stop serving someone who's "too drunk", you know, drunk enough to start some crap when they normally wouldn't? Server Intervention or something like that....

I wouldn't mind a little more enforcement of that to help solve the problem. By implementing the minimum drink price rule, aren't lawmakers acknowledging that their server intervention laws are a) not going to be enforced or b) useless/ineffective? Why the F does said law exist?

/above post based on assumption that Server Intervention laws exist, of which I am not 100% sure.

Well... given that it's a bar, it may be hard to tell who is 'too drunk' to be served. Seems like a lot of responsibility to put on the server/waitress/bartender to accurately judge the level of intoxication in a customer. Not to mention bars/clubs want to sell as much liquor as possible... it might be a conflict of interest to have the sellers of the product be the ones who are also judging when someone's had too much of it.

I clubbed for years when I was younger, wasted out of my mind, and I was never refused a drink anywhere, at any club, due to intoxication.

[CrispyGriz]

The problem with trying to curb the violence outside bars is that there are so many people who go to them looking to start crap. They dont need to be overly drunk because they are going to walk that line regardless and in a way hope for something to happen. I have a few friends like this. If you go out with them, you are expected to pull your weight if something goes down, which with those guys normally does. How do you fix that problem? Raising drink prices wont do it IMO.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

I hate these money grabs. do higher taxes on drinks really make people drink less? A case of beer costs more here than it does in the states; yet we're known as a beer drinking country. ???

Yeah, near as I can tell there's no mention of increaseing taxes in this article. Only making it illegal for bars to charge less than a minimum for drinks.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

What about "cutting someone off"? Aren't bars/servers already obligated, by law, to stop serving someone who's "too drunk"

Lol, some bars do this. A friend of mine broke his ankle a while back and it didn't heal the way it should've, so now he walks a little strange...almost like he's dragging himself. Anyway, he's been cut off at bars because he looks completely smashed, when he's actually only had a couple drinks. And the bar tenders never buy his story when he explains why he walks that way.

It's hilarious

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... given that it's a bar, it may be hard to tell who is 'too drunk' to be served. Seems like a lot of responsibility to put on the server/waitress/bartender to accurately judge the level of intoxication in a customer. Not to mention bars/clubs want to sell as much liquor as possible... it might be a conflict of interest to have the sellers of the product be the ones who are also judging when someone's had too much of it.

I clubbed for years when I was younger, wasted out of my mind, and I was never refused a drink anywhere, at any club, due to intoxication.

It's the same as the clerk of a store being forced to ID someone to buy cigarettes or liquor. It doesn't matter if there's a conflict of interest, it's the law.

I can walk into a bar when sober and it's pretty easy to tell who's drunk.

[sadora]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Stupid idea. People will drink to excess whether its $2/drink or $5/drink. That is the nature of alcohol consumption. Or they'll pre-drink more. This solves nothing in typical incompetent PC fashion.

###

People want to get drunk. Plain and simple. Regardless of how expensive it is to drink, people will still find ways to get drunk. Whether they get drunk at home before going out or overspending on their credit cards, people will still get drunk. It's funny how they think that a price hike will act as a deterrent.

If prohibition didn't work, something as simple as a price hike will have no effect at all.

[ken0042]

To all the people who say this won't work- can you show me an example of a city where it hasn't worked?

Because they brought it in to Winnipeg, and it worked. And when people balked at first there, they cited some other city as an example and it also worked there.

(Trying to find a link, but that was back in the 90's they did it.)

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ken0042

To all the people who say this won't work- can you show me an example of a city where it hasn't worked?

Because they brought it in to Winnipeg, and it worked. And when people balked at first there, they cited some other city as an example and it also worked there.

(Trying to find a link, but that was back in the 90's they did it.)

I don't mean to sound condescending or anything, so please don't take it as such... but how exactly did it work? Is Winnipeg free of alcohol related violence and drunken misconduct? Is there sizable reduction in violence? Have Liquor Store sales increased due to this, or stayed relatively static?

[iggypop]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I still contend that the solution is more booze, not less

O yes, the solution... no matter the problem... is always more booze!

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I don't mean to sound condescending or anything, so please don't take it as such... but how exactly did it work? Is Winnipeg free of alcohol related violence and drunken misconduct? Is there sizable reduction in violence? Have Liquor Store sales increased due to this, or stayed relatively static?

There's an area called the "Warehouse District" in Winnipeg; for example. Very much like the stretch we have along 9th ave and down 1st street. Same issues; 75¢ highballs until 9:00, people order up a tray of them, get smashed instead of just drunk. Then 2:00 hits and everybody goes staby-staby on each other.

Are there still stabbings there now? Of course; it's Winnipeg. But not nearly to the extent that it was before.

A big catalyst in Winnipeg was the number of bars near the rivers. People get drunk, fall into the river, and drown. After a university kid died about 8 or 9 years ago they decided enough was enough.

The big thing is there really weren't any losers in the situation. Bars sold fewer drinks but for more money; so they still made the same money. People get less drunk and go home and order pizza instead of puking on their own shoes or stabbing people.

The problem of not enacting this kind of law; and "staying out of private companies business" (which is a valid point BTW)- is that it forces all bars to do it at the same time. If left up to the bars, Coyotes would raise their prices but Ceili's wouldn't, so Coyotes would lose business to another bar.

And we see these types of safety issues in other businesses. For example, airlines. New safety standards come out, and everybody is given until X date to bring them in. That way Westjet doesn't bring them in; and have to raise ticket prices to pay for it, while Air Canada decided not to and leave their prices lower than WJ.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

It's the same as the clerk of a store being forced to ID someone to buy cigarettes or liquor. It doesn't matter if there's a conflict of interest, it's the law.

I can walk into a bar when sober and it's pretty easy to tell who's drunk.

Well... if you think detecting that someone's drunk by looking at them is as easy as finding out someone's age by looking at their licence, you've got an amazing eye for drunks.

What exactly constitutes 'too drunk' to be at a bar drinking? Exactly? How would you eyeball someone and 'know' that they're definitely too drunk? Sounds pretty subjective to me. One person's drunk is another person's tipsy... I'd expect most people in a bar/club at midnight to be a some level of drunkeness.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ken0042

There's an area called the "Warehouse District" in Winnipeg; for example. Very much like the stretch we have along 9th ave and down 1st street. Same issues; 75¢ highballs until 9:00, people order up a tray of them, get smashed instead of just drunk. Then 2:00 hits and everybody goes staby-staby on each other.

Are there still stabbings there now? Of course; it's Winnipeg. But not nearly to the extent that it was before.

A big catalyst in Winnipeg was the number of bars near the rivers. People get drunk, fall into the river, and drown. After a university kid died about 8 or 9 years ago they decided enough was enough.

The big thing is there really weren't any losers in the situation. Bars sold fewer drinks but for more money; so they still made the same money. People get less drunk and go home and order pizza instead of puking on their own shoes or stabbing people.

The problem of not enacting this kind of law; and "staying out of private companies business" (which is a valid point BTW)- is that it forces all bars to do it at the same time. If left up to the bars, Coyotes would raise their prices but Ceili's wouldn't, so Coyotes would lose business to another bar.

And we see these types of safety issues in other businesses. For example, airlines. New safety standards come out, and everybody is given until X date to bring them in. That way Westjet doesn't bring them in; and have to raise ticket prices to pay for it, while Air Canada decided not to and leave their prices lower than WJ.

Maybe the average CPer is significantly more intelligent than the average barstar, but what really stops a bunch of guys from slamming a 26 of vodka, and then going to the bar and resulting in the same thing? Thats what I've done when I've felt its time for a good bender, but don't feel like paying $6 a drink to do it. Go to Superstore liquor, pick up a bottle of hard alcohol, maybe some mix, take 'er down... then go and spend $6 on a couple maintenance beers. Of course, I don't go all ######ed and stabby, so we're not exactly talking target demographic.

Plus, don't most bars have unequal costs for their drinks to cater to different crowds? I've found a pint of domestic can range from $3.50 to $6.50 depending on the bar and time of day. I see a lot of places abusing this new law, especially nightclubs, cause they bank on the plastic tub tarts and "coolness" of the club to coerce people to spend $7+ a drink.

Also, in both political science and psychology classes... alcohol and tobacco have been classified as having a demand curve that doesn't mix with the typical supply/demand economic cost structure. Essentially, there's enough people out there who crave a beer and a smoke, and will pay anything to get it. Its almost akin to paying a ransom, or a man dying of thirst overpaying for water. Therein lies the logic for sin taxes being so high and yet having no effect on sales. Therefore, if some ######bag wants to get stabtastically drunk, they don't care if it costs $20 or $200 to do it. That's where I question if these implementations actually work... or if its simply implemented at a time that other safety features and laws are enacted.

[Harbourmouth]

This is nothing but the agenda of a bunch of bible thumpers. Stelmach is doing his best to turn Alberta into "Jesusland". If I want to get smashed, a minimum drink price is not going to stop me, neither is it going to stop a bunch of "rig pigs" that are on there week off with a pocket full of cash.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

but what really stops a bunch of guys from slamming a 26 of vodka, and then going to the bar and resulting in the same thing?

This law does nothing to stop that. But along the same lines, one could argue that Checkstops don't work, because they only target people driving down main roads, and miss they guys driving down side streets. So, why even bother with the Checkstops?

And at least the guy who goes into the liquor store to buy a bottle is doing some sort of planning; and the choice of how much to drink is usually made while still somewhat sober. Go to a bar for a few cheap drinks, then the person says "fata it" and orders up 2 trays of drinks.

This is also one of the major reasons we now see weddings having either a cash bar or at least a ticket system; to cut back the amount of unsafe drinking that happens.

For me, I'm with Fotze as being an old fart who it really doesn't affect. However having been the young kid getting so drunk he pukes, to being the older guy who knows his limits a bit better, I see the positives of this being greater than the negatives.

If its a cost issue, then get yourself pre-juiced. If you are in the "I don't care what it costs" camp, then now worries.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ken0042

This law does nothing to stop that. But along the same lines, one could argue that Checkstops don't work, because they only target people driving down main roads, and miss they guys driving down side streets. So, why even bother with the Checkstops?

This is also one of the major reasons we now see weddings having either a cash bar or at least a ticket system; to cut back the amount of unsafe drinking that happens.

The idea with Checkstops is to take the drunks off the main roads where they are most likely to end up on. That is done because of manpower limitations. If they could have 2000 cops a night on 500 stretchs of road, they would. Say you're driving from Downtown to the deep SE... good luck not hitting a main road at some point. Perhaps a main road with a checkstop.

As for weddings having cash bars/tickets... In practice I've seen that more of people being too cheap to pay for an open bar than a genuine concern for overindulgence. In my experiences, most weddings/functions I've been to that featured an open bar were either in a hotel, or near enough to some. There were often rooms offered up for guests, taxi chits or both. Of the last four weddings I attended, three were cash bars... two of which were subsidized with a couple free tickets and/or reduced cost for the liquor. I can tell you for a fact the three that didn't have open bars did not do it for safety. I was privy to the planning process for two of those, and the reason was made very clear.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... if you think detecting that someone's drunk by looking at them is as easy as finding out someone's age by looking at their licence, you've got an amazing eye for drunks.

What exactly constitutes 'too drunk' to be at a bar drinking? Exactly? How would you eyeball someone and 'know' that they're definitely too drunk? Sounds pretty subjective to me. One person's drunk is another person's tipsy... I'd expect most people in a bar/club at midnight to be a some level of drunkeness.

I'm not saying cut-off anyone who is in any way intoxicated, nor did I mean to imply that I could identify anyone who was in any way intoxicated. Just a lot of the ones who are "drunk enough to start some crap they normally wouldn't."

I understand even then, you can't get rid of all the people causing problems, but reading your post above, where you state:

"I clubbed for years when I was younger, wasted out of my mind, and I was never refused a drink anywhere, at any club, due to intoxication."

Identifying someone who is wasted out of their mind is pretty easy and cutting those people off wouldn't be a bad place to start. But like you said, you were never refused a drink, my experience is no different. Therein lies the problem.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by CrispyGriz

The problem with trying to curb the violence outside bars is that there are so many people who go to them looking to start crap. They dont need to be overly drunk because they are going to walk that line regardless and in a way hope for something to happen. I have a few friends like this. If you go out with them, you are expected to pull your weight if something goes down, which with those guys normally does. How do you fix that problem? Raising drink prices wont do it IMO.

no kidding, from the scraps i've seen rarely is it the totally hammer guys who are involved. Usually it's guys who go there to start something, not go to get smashed and have a good time. Maybe they should start enforcing mandatory drinking.

[Burninator]

I think the last time I was at a place that had really cheap drinks was Cowboys on their 25 cents draft night. And that was probably over 2 years ago. The only other place I can think of is the Den at the UofC which have cheap jugs nights, $9 I think? But I don't think they would qualify for this.

Either way, it won't curb my drinking. Nope, the only thing that will cure that will be a good old dose of growing up and personal responsibility. Which I don't expect anytime soon...

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I think the last time I was at a place that had really cheap drinks was Cowboys on their 25 cents draft night. And that was probably over 2 years ago. The only other place I can think of is the Den at the UofC which have cheap jugs nights, $9 I think? But I don't think they would qualify for this.

Either way, it won't curb my drinking. Nope, the only thing that will cure that will be a good old dose of growing up and personal responsibility. Which I don't expect anytime soon...

###.

I'm with you. Although I will be some pissed if beer gets more expensive.