Conference kaosws::canada

    Well let's see.
    	1. I go to a bar usually once a week. I go there to get away from
           my studies at home. I like to put in a good days work, then pack
           it in at about 2230. I take a shower, etc., and get to the bar
           at around 2400--just in time for one before last call and one
           at last call. I don't see in change in my behavior resulting 
           from changes in bar hours.
    
        2. Since I tip really well and am just an all round easy going
           person, I am sometimes invited to stay after hours with the 
           staff to gossip, drink water (euphamism alert) and just
           generally wind down with them. These after hour sessions 
           have been fun and interesting and now that the hours will be
           extended I don't know how willing the staff will be to do this
           kind of thing anymore.
    
    	3. Since I work a night shift over the weekend, I appreciate that 
           places stay open late at night during the week. So that is a
           good thing.
    
    In general, I don't really care--I think the only people whose word
    means anything on this topic are the people who will most affected,
    ie., the workers.

    
    None of this matters. Once people read the proposed new warning
    labels on their alcoholic beverages as they are served, they will
    immediately turn around and go home. This assumes that they can read,
    or they have someone with them that can read, of course.
    
    /PR

    NOTE: This reply is coming from a person who doing graduate work in Addiction
    Counselling, and I might add NEVER has operated a vehicle drunk, 
    so it might be a little bias. 
    
    	The fact that the bars are being allowed to stay open 1 hour later
    to me is the stupidest act of the Harris government since coming into
    power. I have enjoyed so far the changes implemented by Mike Harris,
    but this is just another example of a Special Interest Group lobbying a
    government. All I see out of this is more drunks on the road. Although,
    Hull is just 5 mins away from most Ottawa bars, a lot of people do not
    go there due to the rowdyness and physical altercations that are frequent
    in a Hull bar. So a person who typically goes home at 1:00am will now
    stay until 2:00am and will increase their alcohol consumption, and
    possible drive drunk. I am not saying that this will be the case for
    all people in attendance, but even if there is just one extra person on
    the road drunk, then the new law has failed society.
    
    	Another point is the increased costs of the RIDE programs being
    implemented by our local law enforcement officers. Instead of
    operating usually 11:00pm to 2:00am, they will have to increase the time 
    they spend at a checkpoint by an hour (3:00am). Although, tax revenues
    will increase due to more people drinking later, will the Harris
    government increase funding for these programs. I think not! The money
    will end up in the government coffers to fight the NDP's Debt, and the
    poor sucker driving home one night from work will get smacked by a
    drunk fool.   
    
    I could write a Thesis on this topic, but my rambling must stop now.
    
    Cheers
    
    Sean
    

    I cannot see how one extra hour is going to put more drunks on the
    road. It will only put the ones who will drive drunk on the road an
    hour later. If you're going to drink and drive, you're going to do it
    when the bars close, whether it be 1 or 2 makes no difference.

Are you kidding?

I don`t understand the problems you have with open bars later than 1.00 o`clock.
We in Germany have open bars all day and all night long and the problems with
drunk drivers are not more than in other countrys. 

A person who decides to drive drunk doesn`t care if the bars are closed at
11pm or later. He just drinks. It`s just that he has more time to become drunk.


As I said before, in Germany we have no special law how long a bar can be open.
Some are closing at 11pm, some are closing at 5am, depending where they are
located. And usually drunk people are taking a taxi or driving with a friend 
who decided not to drink alcohol because of being the driver that evening. 

The ones who are driving while being drunk don`t care anyway. 

Stefan�

P.S. Good bar-keepers in Germany have an eye on people who are deciding to
drive drunk. And advertising against drunk drivers is placed in many locations.
It seems to work, expecially for the young generation. 

    No I am kidding.
    
    	Canada has a big problem with drinking and driving. A report issued
    last year by Stats Canada indicated that after 1:00am, 30-40% of
    drivers had consumed alcohol. So we have a problem. Unlike Germany, our
    advertising campaign has had a little effect on the reduction of
    drivers but there is still a major problem. In Canada, bars are suppose
    to refuse drinks to anyone who is intoxicated, but when is the last
    time anybody has been refused when they are drunk. I myself have been
    blasted at some bars and the waitress still serves, only if you are
    stumbling on the ground in the bar do they refuse you.
    
    	Concerning the later hours and increasing drunks on the road. The
    University of Michgan did a study about 4 yrs back. The purpose was to
    look at dropping the age of limit for consumers and increasing bar
    hours to 3am. (aside: Detroit has a problem with people going to
    Windsor to drink where the age limit is 19). They found when the open
    hours where increased to 3am, alcohol consumption had increased by 15%.
    The conclusion was as time went on, alcohol clouded the judgement of
    the patrons, and had almost a doubling effect in the rate of
    consumption. I know you might be saying 'so what', but I find that you
    are looking at the issue as a personal one. I assume you are all
    responsible, but we are really talking about is the mass public not
    yourselves. 
    
    	The  liver on average can neutralized one
    standard drink per hour, BUT you cannot drink 6 drinks in 6 hours
    and have no alcohol in the blood. The liver slows its enzyeme
    production after one drink, and every drink after this lowers this
    production. So if I have a drink a hour from 9 to 1, I would be able to
    drive legally, if I had 5 from 9 to 2, I would be legally drunk, and
    drinking and driving. Most people usually go by the 'well I had this
    many drinks in this amount of hours' and not how they feel. So I think
    there will be an increase in people drinking and driving. Not because
    they are irresposible, but because they are ill informed.
    
    CHEERS
        
    Sean

    
    "I think they are iresponsible not ill informed"
    First of all,drinkerss know very well what's gonna happen
    after taking so much alcohol"getting drunk" therefore,according to
    my experience in other countries i have resided,extended hours is not
    a basic impact on drink driving.Although here in Canada it does in one
    way or the other.

    The net result is, there will be less drunk drivers at 1 AM and more at
    2 AM. BFD.

When I was in Canada last summer, I had the feeling, that alcohol is something
special. I was in BC and the only place you could buy alcohol was in special
shops (liqueur stores). The pubs had some strange laws to deal with (no kids
allowed and no alcohol outside (garden) ).

In Germany kids are allowed in bars because the bars are not for the purpose
of drinking alcohol. You can drink alcohol but you also can drink water or
cola. The shops where you can buy alcohol also sell fruits, bread, cola etc.

When I was in Sweden you also could buy alcohol only in special shops AND only 
during certain hours. 

According to some studies Sweden has a major problem with people who drink 
alcohol. Alcohol is more often used to become drunk. 

It`s not that Germany hasn`t a problem with alcoholics but we are not trying
to make something special out of alcohol. So in my view, alcohol in Germany 
is less used to become drunk. I like a glass of beer and that`s it in most of
the times. If it would be more difficult to get I certainly would drink more
when drinking.

In the Netherlands hashish is allowed for your own purpose. Instead of having
more drug problems, the Netherlands have less problems with drugs as we have
in Germany, where it`s forbidden. There are less cases where hashish is the 
beginning of a drug career, when you can count the days where hashish users
are trying other drugs like heroin or cacaine.   

So I guess, if Canada would irreg the laws there wouldn`t be more problems with
alcohol. I`m sure the problems would decrease after a while when the "secret"
is out of it.

Stefan�

    Overhere in the Netherlands we also have some drunk drivers but
    currenlty a test is running that lets young people, that just have
    passed their drivers test, drive a car on an enclosed premisses .
    First they have to do it sober and then after the had a pint of ornge
    juce with wodka.
    The effects are very clear to everyone except to the drivers who still
    think the did pretty weel.....untill they were shown the video of it.
    Tp them this looks like a real eyeopener and I think to a lot of
    peoplethat have seen this on TV.
    So let us hope this help a bit

    Ok. So here it is: Bar owners and alcohol servers will now be held
    responsible for drunk people leaving the establishment where they were
    drinking. This 'law of responsibility' has always been in effect but
    apparently now the cops will be harder on the enforcement of such law.
    	The bar owners in the Ottawa area were all visited by the police
    and told to show up at a meeting a hotel (Lord Elgin?). The police made
    a point of encouraging the bar owners to attend the meeting, not that
    there would be any side-affects to not showing up to the meeting. At
    the meeting owners and staff reps were told about the new kinds of
    things that would be expected. For instance, last call will no longer
    be called out. Bars that continue to notify there customers of last
    call and get caught will be watched closely. Apparently announcing last
    call induces people to drink more. I personally think this is a good
    idea--if you don't know what time it is you should probably stop
    drinking. Underage drinking will not be tolerated and servers will bew
    scared pooless to serve any body who looks even slightly drunk.
    	So apparently the relaxing of drinking hours will be coupled with
    an increase in surveillance and stiffer fines. But this of course
    remains to be seen. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fairly large
    court case this summer that will involve a server and a patron;
    something to set the tone, and precedence.
    	The bar where I drink has taken the new regulations, suggestions
    very seriously, and I look forward to seeing more people have more fun
    getting less drunk. The hardcore drinkers don't like these rules very
    much as one can imagine, but it just means that they will have bar hop
    morre than ever to get their fill--and hey the fresh air might do them
    good.
    cheers
    
    Sean: please don't write a thesis on this topic, unless of course you
    can fully bridge the gap between erudite observation and participation
    in barroom culture--let us artists do that, it is what we are
    traditionally best at.

    Ya we can get drunk both side of the river.
    
    
     Mus.

    
    Apparently bar business in Hull is way down, and
    those lecherous cabbies are suffering a loss
    in cross border business as well.
    
    Interesting times.
    
    /PR

We have something called  "social host liability" down here in the
States. I became aware of it because I'm involved in planning an annual
reunion for a bunch of Sailors. We attended a seminar for reunion
planners where the Attorney General of Connecticut made a presentation
about social host liability. Several legal precedents have been set in
the past decade, that have serious implications for anyone pouring
drinks.

Example: you leave my party, where there was an open bar. You're involved
in a fatal accident; you're dead. Your *son* sues me, because the party
was at my house -- he wins (actual case). 

Another example: I attend a reunion of my old shipmates at a hotel. The
old shipmates have set up a "hospitality suite" of their own at the
hotel, to avoid paying hotel bar prices. They get ice from the ice
machine down the hall, and bring in a few bottles of booze and some
setups. I have two drinks in an hour, leave the hotel and drive into an
accident. My blood alcohol content is .10 - I don't FEEL drunk, but
legally I am. The other person in the accident sue the reunion
planners(!) and wins (another actual case).

One of the important implications to these two suits is that the
precedents have been set, making it easier now (it becomes almost
automatic) for plaintiffs in similar circumstances to sue and win.

So, yes, bartenders, waitstaff, planners, and party hosts are being put
on notice that they're responsible for the actions of their guests. So I
drink a couple of T & T's then switch to just tonic with lime... and stay
away from steering wheels.

Art

    MR.Herbert, do you stay away from the wheels just because of taking
    lime and tonic or you stay away coz. you are drunk?

Mr. Kyobe, I stay away from steering wheels (for a few hours after
imbibing) because I'm fearful of the wrath of BAC kit wielders. At my
portly weight two T&T's don't do much to my brain, but a cop with no
sense of humor can write bad things down on paper.

My point was, I'm definitely not a teetotaler, but I'm now VERY sensitive
to Social Host Liability precedents.

Later,

Art

    I SEEEEEEE......... MAKES SOME SENSE:-)

    It seems that not only did Ontario get extended bar hours, we also got 
    the Ontario slime balls who used to fight in Hull. Yes, the clientele
    has suffered here in the big 'O' because of the new hours. I saw 4 
    fights on thursday night, and I haven't seen a fight in almost 9
    months. Perhaps the spring winds have a bit to do with it too, i dunna
    know.

    
    
    I have to disagree with you Sean, this was probably the only good thing
    that Mike Harris has done. Finally Ontario bars owner's are getting the
    business they deserve, since they can now compete with Hull. Bars in
    Ottawa have always suffered because they had to close at 01:00 while
    Hull was oppened until 03:00. Now that the gap has been significantly
    reduced, people are staying in Ottawa and don't bother with Hull. Your
    theory that people will drink more because bars close at 02:00 is
    poorly founded. On the contrary people now drink less since they only
    drink until 02:00 instead of 03:00. 
    
    Your theory on police enforcement is also fallacious. Ottawa police had
    to set up road blocks and what not to greed the crowds comming back
    from Hull, probably operating until 04:00. Now they get the work done
    by 03:00 since they don't have to deal with the people comming back
    from Hull.
    
    And as for the drinking and driving, I think that may even diminish.
    Since people don't have to go as far to be able to consume, they may not
    take their cars at all. Parking in the market area is also limited and
    I'm sure there's a few souls out there, who like me, would rather avoid
    the hassle of bringing the car downtown.
    
    Of course that's just my opinion. Though it's always important to look 
    at both sides of the medal.
    
    ciao
    
    Marise                                                     
    
    

    Sorry your reading into what I am trying to convey is poorly founded. 
    I really do not care about the people that previously transversed to Hull
    to drink. They are hooligans, trouble makers, and hard core drinkers. 
    I was talking about  the people who use to leave Ottawa bars (the
    general population) at 1:30 am are now leaving at 2:30 am. These people 
    have increased their alcohol consumption and drinking time. 
    
    	As for the bridge checkpoints, they have not disappeared. They 
    still monitor the traffic every weekend, until 4:00 AM. Actually, 
    even if these police stops were eliminated, you still have the rest of 
    the region's police checkpoints opened 1 hour longer. So, there is no
    validity in your cost saving theory. Ask a Police Officer, who is on
    the front lines, what she thinks of the new hours. We will see in a 
    year if the economic benefits outweigh the social/human costs. Of course, 
    are any economic benefits greater than the possibility of losing one 
    person's life to Drinking and Driving?
    
    Regards,
    
    Sean
    
    Regards,
    
    Sean