November 21, 2005
CRANKING OUT THE SOMA:
Happy hour never ends with no closing time (Al Webb, November 21, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
More than nine decades after Britain curtailed pub hours to get wartime munitions workers back to their jobs, round-the-clock public boozing is about to become a fact of 21st-century life.
Wouldn't meaningful lives be better? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 21, 2005 7:50 AM
Yes, but you can't force people to immigrate.
On the brighter side, this does give us some reason to hope that in only 30 or 40 years, temporary WWII rent control might be phased out.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 21, 2005 8:15 AMI do hope all those Brits who will now be exposed 24/7 to drunkeness, vandalism, assaults and the triumph of yobbism will take solace in knowing they will soon be spared the terrors of second hand smoke.
Posted by: Peter B at November 21, 2005 8:35 AMWon't smokers stop going to bars and pubs if they can't smoke there? Running outside to grab a puff doesn't quite to it for smooth sophistication.
I like that places are smoke free, although I don't like that it's been mandated from upon high.
Posted by: erp at November 21, 2005 9:51 AMI like that they're shooting free, though that too is mandated from on high.
Posted by: oj at November 21, 2005 9:54 AMQuien es mas pneumatica? Margarita Thatcher? O Cherie Booth?
Si, si! Correcto! - Cherie Booth es mas pneumatica.
Posted by: Juan Salvage at November 21, 2005 11:49 AMThat's all just fine, let 'em enjoy it while they can, as their Muslim masters will permanently close the pubs in a few decades. (The same for French vinyards...)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 21, 2005 12:24 PMWhen I read Brave New World when I was 13, it actually seemed kind of fun. Eat some soma, play a round of centrifigal bumblepuppy and screw a "pneumatic" gal like Lenina Crowne. Sounded like a fun time to me. Of course, I'm older now, so I only want to spend a three-day weekend there before coming back to reality.
Posted by: Bryan at November 21, 2005 12:49 PMThere will be less drunkenness.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at November 21, 2005 2:17 PMJim:
Wanna bet? Can you name one instance where restricting the use or availibility of alcohol increased its use or abuse, or where tightening it up led to its proliferation?
Posted by: Peter B at November 21, 2005 4:57 PMI'd argue that changing the drinking age from 18 to 21 in the mid80s in the US increased rather than decreased drunkenness among kids. This is purely anecdotal, but I'm in the age group affected by the change. That is, I watched as the ability to drink legally was snatched from my very hands just before I reached legal age. I drank much more when I was 17-18 when it was catch as catch can. You got booze, any kind, you drank it, pounded it. Once one is old enough to drink legally, there isn't the necessity to "get drunk". And I don't think it's merely a case of maturity either.
As for Britain, I've spent a good deal of time there and witnessed the culture of "getting one's drinks in" before closing time, nd the frenzy of buying 4 pints per person at last call and the pounding them before the barman kicks you out. I've not seen anything like it in the US. Closing the pubs so early encourages this.
We'll see how it turns out.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at November 21, 2005 7:55 PMJim is right OJ: moderation is the enemy of excess.
Besides, pub life is a feature, not a bug.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 21, 2005 8:59 PM