Ban on alcohol on Scotrail between 9PM and 10AM

[nedchester]

Not sure how I feel on this, you can't board a train or coach drunk so why should a train be different.

Most trains out of major towns after 10.30 to 11pm on a Friday/Saturday would be empty if that were really true but they are in fact very very full!!

 

[reb0118]

As I said, the intended targets of the legislation won't care; they'll just see that their super-strength rocket fuel has gone up, so make sacrifices elsewhere.

That is sadly quite true. However I don't think the legislation is primarily targeted at the alkies and jaikies of society - we have plenty laws already that are not enforced enough for those types!!

I think the minimum pricing is aimed at the binge drinkers ( one of which I was on Saturday night at the Madonna concert, shhh!). If we can remove the differential between supermarket booze and that charged in the pubs then more drinking will take place in pubs (supervised) and potentially less in the home (unsupervised).

I do not claim that minimum pricing will work, or that Scotrail's no drink after 9pm will also - but something has to be done. Note well that I am not anti drink and I enjoy a good scoop every now and then, however I can see both sides having to work late weekend trains. One think I do notice ontrain is that large groups of men, although they do not intend to be I am sure, have a tendency to become loud & obnoxious after a good few drinks - this behavior does intimidate other people and can put them off travelling.

When you go into a pub you are choosing to go into that environment when you travel by train you are in the main trying to get from A to B you should not have to put up with foul & abusive language and other loud & boorish behavior.

I suppose in the end it's not the drink that's the problem but the attitude of the person drinking it.

Cheers

(pubs open in 45 mins so have to get dressed now )

 

[scotsman]

I could write a big long post about minimum opricing, but I've got a good one here

 

[SS4]

50p a unit is still considerably cheaper than you are in a pub.

For instance, one of my haunts is £3.90 for a pint of Deuchars; I can get a 500ml (0.9 pint) bottle in Asda for £1.50, which is over-priced with respect to the legislation (at 50p a unit, it would be just over £1).

As I said, the intended targets of the legislation won't care; they'll just see that their super-strength rocket fuel has gone up, so make sacrifices elsewhere.

Hence it is a money-making scheme by whoever is in charge. I cannot fathom that whoever brought the scheme in wouldn't have known that the neds would drink less, the clever bit is appealing to the romantic attachment to pubs.
Yet if I use the example I've quoted then it is still 2.6 times cheaper to get at Asda so the pubs will still be affected.
Lastly I dislike the implication that anyone who drinks at home is not considered a social drinker even when with friends. Maybe I've gone overboard in this but I get a vibe of snobbery/elitism when someone says they're a social drinker (with it connotation of drinking only in pubs)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the minimum pricing is aimed at the binge drinkers ( one of which I was on Saturday night at the Madonna concert, shhh!). If we can remove the differential between supermarket booze and that charged in the pubs then more drinking will take place in pubs (supervised) and potentially less in the home (unsupervised).

(pubs open in 45 mins so have to get dressed now )

I understand a need to drink during a Madonna concert

Your comment about supervision is an unusual one, I've been in pubs which have served drunk eople. But since when did people need to be supervised when drinking? Especially the moderates that both minimum pricing and this ban hurts most. Someone who drinks at home doesn't need to get home

 

[krisk]

It's a harsh approach to say you can't have a couple but it should be you dont get on a train when hammered much like the same way you would be denied boarding a plane

 

[Sadsmileyface]

All of these anti-ban arguments are the exact same as the ones used to criticise the ban on smoking on buses twenty years ago. And now- look, it's basically stamped it out. It's not 100%, but the culture, the awareness of the rule has been established and it works.

It's not about infringing on rights or enforcing other already existing laws, but about TOCs finally getting their balls back and actually asserting the authority they've had eroded over the last few decades with all the "customer is always right" bullshtt. Would you think drinking a bottle in a GP's waiting room is ok? A primary school? Blockbusters? No, of course not. But for some reason, there's a pervading atmosphere of "Trains? Stations? ANYTHING GOES, I DO WHAT I WANT!".

Frankly, I'd rather have this go further and ban other antisocial or undesirable elements that have effects on the experience of other passengers or the level of service TOCs are trying to deliver.

 

[Chapeltom]

Can anyone tell me where I stand with this one please?

Me and a mate of mine are intending to travel on a rail replacement service, the 0005 from Kilmarnock to Dumfries on Thursday morning and were likely to have a quantity of alcohol on us, as we've a wait overnight for the rail replacement service to Carlisle at 0456. Will I have any problems? We've advance tickets and don't want to be refused entry! We obviously don't intend to drink on the bus!

Anyone know exactly where rail replacement buses leave from? I presume just outside the station?

 

[Train Pilchard]

All of these anti-ban arguments are the exact same as the ones used to criticise the ban on smoking on buses twenty years ago. And now- look, it's basically stamped it out. It's not 100%, but the culture, the awareness of the rule has been established and it works.

It's not about infringing on rights or enforcing other already existing laws, but about TOCs finally getting their balls back and actually asserting the authority they've had eroded over the last few decades with all the "customer is always right" bullshtt. Would you think drinking a bottle in a GP's waiting room is ok? A primary school? Blockbusters? No, of course not. But for some reason, there's a pervading atmosphere of "Trains? Stations? ANYTHING GOES, I DO WHAT I WANT!".

Frankly, I'd rather have this go further and ban other antisocial or undesirable elements that have effects on the experience of other passengers or the level of service TOCs are trying to deliver.

What a load of pish.

 

[142094]

Can anyone tell me where I stand with this one please?

Me and a mate of mine are intending to travel on a rail replacement service, the 0005 from Kilmarnock to Dumfries on Thursday morning and were likely to have a quantity of alcohol on us, as we've a wait overnight for the rail replacement service to Carlisle at 0456. Will I have any problems? We've advance tickets and don't want to be refused entry! We obviously don't intend to drink on the bus!

Anyone know exactly where rail replacement buses leave from? I presume just outside the station?

AFAIAA as long as it is unopened and in a bag of some sort then there shouldn't be a problem. I also wouldn't expect the driver of the replacement bus to care much about it.

 

[Butts]

I saw a guy being kicked out of Haymarket Station at 0730 this morning whilst I was outside having a burn.

The BT Police were directing him towards the nearest Bus Stop, and he staggered off in it's general direction

 

[142094]

All of these anti-ban arguments are the exact same as the ones used to criticise the ban on smoking on buses twenty years ago. And now- look, it's basically stamped it out. It's not 100%, but the culture, the awareness of the rule has been established and it works.

It's not about infringing on rights or enforcing other already existing laws, but about TOCs finally getting their balls back and actually asserting the authority they've had eroded over the last few decades with all the "customer is always right" bullshtt. Would you think drinking a bottle in a GP's waiting room is ok? A primary school? Blockbusters? No, of course not. But for some reason, there's a pervading atmosphere of "Trains? Stations? ANYTHING GOES, I DO WHAT I WANT!".

Frankly, I'd rather have this go further and ban other antisocial or undesirable elements that have effects on the experience of other passengers or the level of service TOCs are trying to deliver.

You're missing a few key points:

1) Drinking doesn't necessarily have the same effects as smoking, i.e. passive smoking can't be avoided but you are not necessarily going to be harmed by sitting near someone having a drink.

2) Railway companies sell alcohol for consumption on their trains anyway, so having a full ban seems rather pointless.

3) It is no doubt much easier to enforce the ban on smoking than it is on drinking.

 

[Butts]

You're missing a few key points:

1) Drinking doesn't necessarily have the same effects as smoking, i.e. passive smoking can't be avoided but you are not necessarily going to be harmed by sitting near someone having a drink.

2) Railway companies sell alcohol for consumption on their trains anyway, so having a full ban seems rather pointless.

3) It is no doubt much easier to enforce the ban on smoking than it is on drinking.

What do you mean passive smoking can't be avoided - do you mean inside ?
The case for the effects of passive smoking has not been tested in Court, so you may not be harmed by that either.

A drunk is far more likely to cause you harm than someone having a smoke.

 

[Greenback]

Cracking open a can in Blockbusters or a GP surgery is completely different to having a drink on a train, and it is impossible to compare smoking with drinking for the reasons already set out by 142094.

It really isn't a case of 'IANYTHING GOES I DO WHAT I WANT'. For the vast majority of people who drink on trains and cause absolutely no problem whatsoever, the ability to consume alcohol enhances the experience of a train journey. And it is invariably those who are already heavily under the influence before boarding the train that cause trouble, for which there are already adequate provisions that have simply not been enforced.

With the possible exception of some Royal Marines travelling from north east Scotland to the south west, I don;t think I have ever seen anyone actually get drunk on a train after boarding completely sober!

 

[Butts]

Cracking open a can in Blockbusters or a GP surgery is completely different to having a drink on a train, and it is impossible to compare smoking with drinking for the reasons already set out by 142094.

It really isn't a case of 'IANYTHING GOES I DO WHAT I WANT'. For the vast majority of people who drink on trains and cause absolutely no problem whatsoever, the ability to consume alcohol enhances the experience of a train journey. And it is invariably those who are already heavily under the influence before boarding the train that cause trouble, for which there are already adequate provisions that have simply not been enforced.

With the possible exception of some Royal Marines travelling from north east Scotland to the south west, I don;t think I have ever seen anyone actually get drunk on a train after boarding completely sober!

By virtue of your argument about "enhancing experiences" and tolerance do you feel it would be unreasonable to allow patrons to smoke on uncovered areas of platforms specifically dedicated for smokers - to avoid non-smokers inadvertently stumbling into them. It seems to work in Scotland so why not England and Wales as well.

 

[Greenback]

By virtue of your argument about "enhancing experiences" and tolerance do you feel it would be unreasonable to allow patrons to smoke on uncovered areas of platforms specifically dedicated for smokers - to avoid non-smokers inadvertently stumbling into them. It seems to work in Scotland so why not England and Wales as well.

I do think there should be smoking zones on open air platforms. It seems to work well in Europe, I was recently in Verona where there was a smoking area on the covered section of the platforms, and similar areas seem quite popular in the Netherlands.

 

[142094]

What do you mean passive smoking can't be avoided - do you mean inside ?
The case for the effects of passive smoking has not been tested in Court, so you may not be harmed by that either.

A drunk is far more likely to cause you harm than someone having a smoke.

Yes, on a train.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

I do think there should be smoking zones on open air platforms. It seems to work well in Europe, I was recently in Verona where there was a smoking area on the covered section of the platforms, and similar areas seem quite popular in the Netherlands.

Yes, I agree with that. There is no proven case that 'passive smoking' is harmful and when it comes to the open air, the argument is really weak. I am amazed that virulant anti - smokers will quite happily sit in 'Beer Gardens', in fine weather, happily breathing in the filth of diesel and petrol fumes from passing traffic.

 

[SS4]

the last few decades with all the "customer is always right" bullshtt. Would you think drinking a bottle in a GP's waiting room is ok? A primary school? Blockbusters? .

I'll have a drink please Bob

I wonder how many people have to chug their drink between last orders and 9pm instead of drinking over a more sensible time frame?

As for passive smoking the Americans did a study in 2006 with the line
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/executivesummary.pdf

As did the WHO
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/index.php

 

[Butts]

I do think there should be smoking zones on open air platforms. It seems to work well in Europe, I was recently in Verona where there was a smoking area on the covered section of the platforms, and similar areas seem quite popular in the Netherlands.

If ultimately Network Rail own all the Stations and the Railway Byelaws are the same how did the diveregence of policy occur between Scotland and the rest of the UK ?

I suppose this is whats happened with this drinking ban on Scotrail

 

[reb0118]

I think it would be a lot easier to just ban passengers.

Oh!, except me!

 

[Greenback]

If ultimately Network Rail own all the Stations and the Railway Byelaws are the same how did the diveregence of policy occur between Scotland and the rest of the UK ?

I suppose this is whats happened with this drinking ban on Scotrail

That's a good question. I wish I knew the answer!

 

[yorksrob]

It's not about infringing on rights or enforcing other already existing laws, but about TOCs finally getting their balls back and actually asserting the authority they've had eroded over the last few decades with all the "customer is always right" bullshtt. Would you think drinking a bottle in a GP's waiting room is ok? A primary school? Blockbusters? No, of course not. But for some reason, there's a pervading atmosphere of "Trains? Stations? ANYTHING GOES, I DO WHAT I WANT!".

Firstly, if this is all about TOC's asserting Authority that they've supposedly had "eroded" in the last few decades, how come Railway companies have been selling alcohol on trains since as long as restaurant cars have been around ?

Secondly, this is nothing like the smoking ban. Passive smoking is a scientifically proven danger over which the smoker has no control regardless of how he behaves. Problems caused by drinking are down to the behaviour of the individual, for which several laws already exist. (and for the record, I still believe the refusal to allow mechanically ventilated smoking rooms in pubs away from the bar area is an unjustified imposition on individual freedom, as well as damaging the licensing industry and causing a nuisence to neighbours living near beer gardens - and I don't even smoke!).

Thirdly, when was the last time a buffet trolley turned up in your doctors surgery or primary school ?

 

[Butts]

Firstly, if this is all about TOC's asserting Authority that they've supposedly had "eroded" in the last few decades, how come Railway companies have been selling alcohol on trains since as long as restaurant cars have been around ?

Secondly, this is nothing like the smoking ban. Passive smoking is a scientifically proven danger over which the smoker has no control regardless of how he behaves. Problems caused by drinking are down to the behaviour of the individual, for which several laws already exist. (and for the record, I still believe the refusal to allow mechanically ventilated smoking rooms in pubs away from the bar area is an unjustified imposition on individual freedom, as well as damaging the licensing industry and causing a nuisence to neighbours living near beer gardens - and I don't even smoke!).

Thirdly, when was the last time a buffet trolley turned up in your doctors surgery or primary school ?

With regard to your remarks about passive smoking if it is scientifically proven why has there never been a successful prosecution in a Court of Law in the UK ?

With regard to the "smoking rooms" in pubs you have partially redeemed yourself. Do you agree with Greenback and myself about smoking areas on open platforms?

Alcohol is a far bigger evil (at least socially) than tobacco

 

[michael769]

With regard to your remarks about passive smoking if it is scientifically proven why has there never been a successful prosecution in a Court of Law in the UK ?

You can only prosecute people for things that are illegal!

 

[Gwenllian2001]

You can only prosecute people for things that are illegal!

Has anyone ever considered where all the extra revenue would come from if the consumption of tobacco and alcohol were made illegal? Petrol; Diesel and Train Fares spring readily to mind.

 

[Holly]

Has anyone ever considered where all the extra revenue would come from if the consumption of tobacco and alcohol were made illegal? .

Fines imposed for illegal drinking and smoking.

Making it illegal isn't going to stop it, it will only create outlaws and further undermine respect for laws generally.

 

[michael769]

Fines imposed for illegal drinking and smoking.

But most of that money would be swallowed up by enforcement costs.

As you point out any ban would result in non-compliance on a vast scale, and effective enforcement would be cripplingly expensive for the country.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Fines imposed for illegal drinking and smoking.

Making it illegal isn't going to stop it, it will only create outlaws and further undermine respect for laws generally.

You would need an astronomical number of convictions to replace the lost revenue and the cost of enforcement would be huge.

 

[rail-britain]

Has anyone ever considered where all the extra revenue would come from if the consumption of tobacco and alcohol were made illegal?

The effects can be seen already, from the increasing restrictions on tobacco and alcohol as each has been applied in Scotland

Tobacco sales are down due to the compound restrictions including the increase of age restrictions, retailers applying higher age ID requirements, by about 6%

A similar drop in Alcohol sales has also started to be recorded, but not as significant

The offset of tax revenue will eventually be matched by reduced costs in the public services (example NHS, police, etc), but it will take many years
People will spend their money on other items, so there will be little overall change in tax revenue
The main people affected are those that do not smoke and/or drink, as other taxes will be increased slightly, and they will notice it the most

 

[yorksrob]

With regard to the "smoking rooms" in pubs you have partially redeemed yourself. Do you agree with Greenback and myself about smoking areas on open platforms?

Considering the amount of pollutants that are released outdoors by so many other activities, I find the concept of smoking bans outdoors frankly ridiculous (except for places where there is a danger from inflammable substances of course !)

Alcohol is a far bigger evil (at least socially) than tobacco

Nevertheless, alcohol has been part of the warp and weft of British culture since the times when our hairy ancesters first started hacking away at the forests, whereas tobacco is merely an imported fad