Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" <quigonginger at y...> wrote:
> 
> The rest seem to be social drinkers.  I don't know anything about 
> British drinking, but I have gotten the impression that they drink 
> socially more than we do here in the US.  Is this correct, British 
> friends?  I am, of course talking in broad generalities.  I'm 
> certainly not labeling them as slush-hounds and booze-hags.  I 
> reserve that title for myself ;o)
> 

Kneasy:
As dear old Oscar once put it "Work is the curse of the drinking classes."

Sure, booze plays a fair part in Brit social life - though that's been
tempered somewhat by the drink/drive laws. Fortunately they only
apply to the driver, not the car-full of legless inebriates who spent
the night getting blasted on multi-pints of Old and Nasty. A slight
exaggeration, but you'll get my meaning.

Generally speaking, if visitors arrive at your house in the evening a
drink is offered as soon as they get their coats off - sometimes before.
Visitors around lunch-time are often given the opportunity of popping 
out for a pub-lunch. It's considered quite unexceptional. 

Boozy Brits have been around for a long time;  the Normans were quite
shocked at the unrestrained habit among the locals; monasteries had
enormous booze-ups open to all which used to go on for days, with a
competitive aspect to them - last man standing didn't  have to pay
for what he'd consumed. Then there's Hogarth's 'Gin Lane' - "Drunk for
a penny, dead drunk for twopence, clean straw for free." Strict licensing
laws governing the times that premises could sell drink were introduced
during the First World War - it was found to be the only effective way of
getting munitions workers out of the pub and back to the war effort.

The government currently seems bent on turning the clock back by
allowing premises to serve 24 hours a day; this despite the mayhem
found in town centres now - mostly younger drinkers who have yet to
learn that if a couple of drinks make for a pleasant evening out, five times
as much does not increase the enjoyment proportionally.

The town where I live has (reputedly) more pubs per head of population
than anywhere else in the UK. Even that is a mere pale reflection of its
past - at one time one house in three was an ale-house or wine-shop.
Probably helps explain why those of a puritanical bent upped-sticks
and sailed to America.

Mind you, other places have, or have had, interesting drinking habits too:
the '6 o'clock swill' in New Zealand; any Aussie pub at 5 pm on a Friday, and
why bother waiting 'til Friday? Never go drinking with Finns, Norwegians 
or Swedes, you'll regret it. May be significant that for decades in these 
countries  booze has been a government monopoly, with few outlets 
(comparatively speaking), lots of anti-drink propaganda and it's bloody 
expensive. Doesn't seem to have affected consumption though.

But to answer your question, yes, alcohol is regarded as a social lubricant,
though drunks, habitual or occasional, are regarded as tiresome and 
anti-social.

FYI government stats claim that alcohol related deaths (all categories -
liver failure, binge drinking, road accidents, other accidents, suicide etc)
total about 20,000 a year.  That's approx 0.05% of the adult population.
I've no idea if that's a lot by international comparison.

Kneasy