Govt. closing "Early Houses"

flanum

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!

bleg

RIP charlies in cork. will be sorely missed, i have made it 4 times during my 3 years in college very drunk and worth the great times my friends and i had there. we were always messy but we mainly kept to ourselves. they watched us and wouldnt serve us if we were too drunk and told us to go home if we were. my friends and i will dearly miss our yearly trip to charlies, which has inspired some of the best stories, conversations and tales ever.

i hope dockers get to keep their licence because charlies is an institution that all cork students must experience.

AARRRGH

stevec wrote: »

OK it's now just after 2am and I'm just finished work. hmmm I fancy a pint what do I do?

Better not be seen going to a club or an early house because then I'd be a chronic alcoholic right? I'd probably start a fight or 2 on the way as well.

If only I had thought of going to the offie earlier.....

You can apply your situation to nearly anything.

"I'm just finished school. Hmmm I fancy doing medicine. Oh no, wait, I need 600 points for that. If only I had of thought of that earlier..."

"I'm just finished work. Hmmm I fancy going to the bank. Oh no, wait, the bank closed one hour ago. If only I had of thought of that earlier..."

Etc.

Having rules and regulations is a fact of life.

Can someone please suggest an alternative solution to our current alcohol problem? Don't say "solve the root problem" because I know the Government have a plan in place for that (they've tackled tobacco; alcohol is next.) So while we wait for the root problem to be solved, what can we do in the meantime?

I cannot think of anything apart from restricting alcohol sales.

If the off licences closing an hour early and the pubs not opening at 8 o'clock is a big problem for you, then you're the exact person the Government is trying to target.

Steve

flanum wrote: »

so who gives a fcuk? not the majority of ireland then so.... a resounding FAIL!

Majority of the population lives in coastal counties, not ceaavan - so take your fail elsewhere.

Steve

dublindude wrote: »

"I'm just finished school. Hmmm I fancy doing medicine. Oh no, wait, I need 600 points for that. If only I had of thought of that earlier..."

What I'm saying is, I have 1000 points but can't get in because it's the wrong time of day to apply...

dublindude wrote: »

I cannot think of anything apart from restricting alcohol sales.

If the off licences closing an hour early and the pubs not opening at 8 o'clock is a big problem for you, then you're the exact person the Government is trying to target.

If alcohol sales were restricted to - say 1pm to 2 pm then there would be chaos for an hour every day as people got their daily 'fix'. society would change very little because of it.

Which do you think is better?
Enforce the existing laws on underage drinking and public disorder
- or -
create new laws and apply the current level of non enforcement?

AARRRGH

stevec wrote: »

What I'm saying is, I have 1000 points but can't get in because it's the wrong time of day to apply...

So apply earlier

stevec wrote: »

Which do you think is better?
Enforce the existing laws on underage drinking and public disorder
- or -
create new laws and apply the current level of non enforcement?

I'm with you on enforcing current laws, but I do think reducing the availability of alcohol (i.e. you can still get it but you have to make an effort) is worth a shot.

Cianos

I'm living in Berlin and have been since December. Throughout this time I'm pretty convinced that Berliners drink about the same amount as Irish people. Every day while commuting I see people on the trains drinking a bottle of beer, during the afternoon or evening. Usually looks like guys on their way home from work etc.

Does there ever seem to be any trouble? No. Since all my time living here I have not seen one fight or even one scuffle or stand off or sizing up or anything like this.

There are clubs here that open at 10am on Sunday mornings and go on until 6pm on Sunday.

Is the place falling to pieces with people causing havoc at all hours? No. Everyone here is very fcking civil and seems to have a very mature approach to drinking and partying in general.

The way I feel sometimes about the whole thing is that in Ireland, people are told exactly when they can socialise/party, and under what conditions. This creates a threshold of entertainment, in that if they don't succeed in being fulfilled in those 4 or 5 hours, they better neck a few pints in the last hour and hope that the night is going to get better. If after doing so they haven't scored, they are then more likely to vent their frustration on some poor fvcker on the street, or be so pi$$ed that they can hardly stumble their way in to a taxi.

Without this "threshold of entertainment", like in most other European countries, if someone doesn't feel their night is over, they can just mosey on to the next bar or club even if it is ,gasp, 3 or 4am, have a few more drinks at their own pace because they're not racing against a curfew, take the night at their own pace, and head on home when they are either too tired, too pissed, or just bored.

Would the same thing succeed in Ireland? Maybe not for the first few months, but eventually people will have to adapt a more mature approach to alcohol if their jobs and general livelihood depended on it.

Are the government actually afraid that the country would degrade towards Armageddon if 24 hour licensing was brought in?

flanum

bleg wrote: »

i hope dockers get to keep their licence because charlies is an institution that all cork students must experience.

wtf do students have anything to do with a law that permits a premises to open outside of normal business hours to cater for dock workers, shippers, night shift operatives etc????

flanum

stevec wrote: »

Majority of the population lives in coastal counties, not ceaavan - so take your fail elsewhere.

Data or gtfo

Sam Vimes

dublindude wrote: »

Not totally true. Restricting the supply of drink will reduce the amount of drinking.

not necessarily. it'll just mean that people will buy a truck load more when the place is open because they know they can't go back later.

now they might buy 6 cans and say to themselves "sure i can go back if i want more after". then they might and they might not go back. if the off licences close earlier they'll say "i can't come back if i want more so i'll buy 12 just in case". then they'll end up drinking 12 where they would have drank 6

it's the same affect as banning ten boxes. people who used to smoke ten a day are now forced to buy a 20 box and since they're there, chances are they'll end up smoking more than they used to. any smoker i've talked to has said a 20 box never lasts much longer than a ten box

in short, restricting opening hours will just make people change the time they buy alcohol, not the amount they drink. the only way to affect drinking in this way is to make it illegal to drink after pubs close

dublindude wrote: »

Apart from the long term strategy of tackling the root cause of the problem, what do you think they should be doing in the meantime?

i think they should mind their own business tbh. the government's job is not to make laws preventing people doing what they want when they want with a legal substance

Sam Vimes

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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*

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

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

Tigger

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

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

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

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.

latenia

Maximilian wrote: »

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

He said transsexuals not transvestites. Funnily enough out of the 4 or 5 times I've been to early houses, one time I was dressed as a chick. (It was in the Galway Hooker in Heuston Station the morning after Hallowe'en.)

AARRRGH

I wasn't trying to insult transsexuals, I was saying if you go to an early house you will see it's mostly druggies, transsexuals and alcos. These are not "regular" folk who just finished work. They're drunk/drugged up.

Honestly if you don't believe me go to an early house yourself tomorrow morning and see for yourself. Early houses are not "innocent" pubs where "innocent" people drink. They exist for people who want to continue binging into the following day.

Sam Vimes

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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.

that's more of a reason why something generally should be banned. alcohol doesn't do any of those things. occasionally some stupid people do stupid things after drinking but that doesn't mean alcohol should be banned. really it means stupid people should be banned.

the link between alcohol and anti social behaviour isn't like the link between smoking and cancer, your level of intelligence doesn't affect your chances of getting cancer from smoking. the thing is:

alcohol+normal person=a good time

alcohol + stupid person= mayhem

of course:
car + stupid person= mayhem
gun + stupid person= mayhem
stapler + stupid person= mayhem
child + stupid person= mayhem
can opener + stupid person= mayhem
etc etc

the common element here is not alcohol, it's stupid people doing stupid things. you can't ban everything that it's possible for stupid people to misuse because we'd effectively have to go back to living in caves

of course you'll never see someone calling for everything to be banned. you pretty much only ever see people calling for something to be banned etc when they don't use said item themselves anyway and the ban won't affect them at all

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

that's more of a reason why something generally should be banned. alcohol doesn't do any of those things. occasionally some stupid people do stupid things after drinking but that doesn't mean alcohol should be banned. really it means stupid people should be banned.

the link between alcohol and anti social behaviour isn't like the link between smoking and cancer, your level of intelligence doesn't affect your chances of getting cancer from smoking. the thing is:

alcohol+normal person=a good time

alcohol + stupid person= mayhem

of course:
car + stupid person= mayhem
gun + stupid person= mayhem
stapler + stupid person= mayhem
child + stupid person= mayhem
can opener + stupid person= mayhem
etc etc

the common element here is not alcohol, it's stupid people doing stupid things. you can't ban everything that it's possible for stupid people to misuse because we'd effectively have to go back to living in caves

of course you'll never see someone calling for everything to be banned. you pretty much only ever see people calling for something to be banned etc when they don't use said item themselves anyway and the ban won't affect them at all

Oh, of course I was generalising: but only in order to answer your original question: when would restrictions (on anything) be acceptable? And people being stupid when drunk (IF they were) was not the only reason I gave.

The other probelm there is that we're assuming that people in this city/country are intelligent and responsible. The problem is, however, I'm not so sure....

nobodythere

dublindude wrote: »

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

It's really not... Alcohol (and tobacco) are dubbed 'the old reliables' in economics because they can be upped in the budget to generate more revenue for the government.

The government is divided in its interests, on one hand the revenue they generate from it is massive, on another it's the cause of so many societal ills and is a drug that has done more damage in this country than anything else. The way the government is organised favours short term economic gain over long term consequences, for example the TDs needs to get re-elected to keep their jobs, so whatever generates profit is what they will go with.

Put 10 average people in a room and ask them to come up with new measures to combat the alcohol problem, they would come up with staggered closing times and things like that, not closing offies early (it doesn't make and sense people!!!). They wouldn't come up with things designed to take offies and supermarkets out of the game and drive people to the pubs.

Organisations like VFI have a lot of influence, a significant number of councillors at the local level are publicans (not sure about the dail) and even by the economic importance of pubs the VFI surely have an influence on politics...