Banning the use of glass in pubs and taverns....

[Ian]

Taverns? What century are we in?

I dunno. I could go for more buxom tavern wenches.

Ohhh!! Good Halloween costume idea!!

I tried to talk my wife into that one several times. She was a buxom pirate wench one year though.

[MrJonno]

MrJonno, can you think of anything that is definitely riskier than using glass that you wouldn't accept a ban on, and that is not also considered an essential where essentials are things like dangerous forms of transportation?

If so, how would you argue against a ban on that thing?

Not sure I really understand the question, don't think glass should be banned in normal circumstances but there is a good case for crowded areas with lots of drunk people especially pubs with a poor track record of violence. Don't know if you are British but a typically British pub will probably be smaller than an American house and will have several hundred people in it. You absolutely won't be able to sit (no room) and will be standing cheek to cheek with people there. The 'you spilled my drink' becoming a fight isn't fictional its a daily reality

[klr]

It's already very common in for plastic to be used instead of glass in any outdoor gathering.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Taverns? What century are we in?

I dunno. I could go for more buxom tavern wenches.

I'd be fine if you couldn't tell...

[Sean Hayden]

Not sure I really understand the question

I'll try to explain. You've made it clear that the reason for banning glass in this instance is because it is dangerous and has caused harm. This is very general. It is a useful rule to help distinguish between what may be banned and what it would make no sense to ban. However, it can be insufficient on its own to justify banning any particular thing.

I tried to demonstrate this by asking you to think about other things which would be picked up by this general rule and therefore susceptible to banning, but which ought not be banned. If we have two things which could be banned and we know this for the same reason e.g. both are dangerous and can harm people, but for one we will not accept a ban, then we must have something more than that they are dangerous to justify banning the one but not the other.

An example of something more in this case would be to claim that "glass" is not essential to the activity, or not in any way a significant part of the ritual of gathering in pubs. Therefore removing it will reduce harm while not doing away with a common practice which has otherwise been deemed acceptable.

People will argue against this as well, but that's fine.

Of course you may reject this. You did not provide an example and you did repeat yourself i.e. it's dangerous and has been harmful. If this is the case then I hope you don't believe that all that separates us on this issue is your ability to understand harm, and either my not seeing it or not understanding it. I am capable of seeing harm and not banning a thing because of it.

I'm sorry if this is tedious, and mostly obvious to you. (I think my silliness in general is enough to avoid being taken as pompous here -I hope) I like to believe that if I'm going to support something as contentious as restricting another's behavior that I've really got it down pat.

[Feck]

I was told by a facial surgeon that the hard plastic glasses (the solid ones not the collapsing' pour your beer up your sleeve' type) cause horrific wounds, jagged and almost impossible to stitch, in comparison to glass when used as a weapon .
but hey I drink Newcastle Brown if you break the bottle you know you have hit them too hard !

[PsychoSerenity]

I was told by a facial surgeon that the hard plastic glasses (the solid ones not the collapsing' pour your beer up your sleeve' type) cause horrific wounds, jagged and almost impossible to stitch, in comparison to glass when used as a weapon .
but hey I drink Newcastle Brown if you break the bottle you know you have hit them too hard !

There are different types of plastic, and certainly if any laws are introduced they should make good use of material science.

[pErvinalia]

yeah, I don't know how you would break the plastic ones we have here.

[Feck]

yeah, I don't know how you would break the plastic ones we have here.

Stamp on one !

[pErvinalia]

The ones in Oz that I'm familiar with wouldn't break if you dropped a brick on them.

[PsychoSerenity]

[MrJonno]

I'll try to explain. You've made it clear that the reason for banning glass in this instance is because it is dangerous and has caused harm. This is very general. It is a useful rule to help distinguish between what may be banned and what it would make no sense to ban. However, it can be insufficient on its own to justify banning any particular thing.

To determine something legal status show be a combination of the following factors

1) danger to society
2) danger to user (killing yourself is generally legal these days but its quite common to restrict things that make it easier)
3) benefit to user
4) benefit to society
5) cost to society by banning it

So with glass
1) moderate danger to society, broken glasses on the floor, crime etc
2) same for user
3) incredibly useful in many cases
4) as 3
5) much of the economy is based around glass, if alternatives are available going to cost a lot in money and possibly in fossil fuels

Hence probably a bad idea to have blanket ban glass, but in more restricted areas this can be justified (lots of danger to the user/society in a crowded drunk pub), very limited benefits and not economically unreasonable to use plastic

Everything in 1-5 to up for debate, say whether we are talking about glass,car, or a gun, but notice what I don't include anything that involves 'freedom' that is simple irrelevant

[Sean Hayden]

Thanks MrJonno, I don't disagree with any of that.

[Seth]

It's already very common in for plastic to be used instead of glass in any outdoor gathering.

That's more about efficiency and cost than safety. 200 people at a barbecue would have a difficult time finding enough glasses to fill the need. Not so at a pub.

[Seth]

MrJonno, can you think of anything that is definitely riskier than using glass that you wouldn't accept a ban on, and that is not also considered an essential where essentials are things like dangerous forms of transportation?

If so, how would you argue against a ban on that thing?

Not sure I really understand the question, don't think glass should be banned in normal circumstances but there is a good case for crowded areas with lots of drunk people especially pubs with a poor track record of violence. Don't know if you are British but a typically British pub will probably be smaller than an American house and will have several hundred people in it. You absolutely won't be able to sit (no room) and will be standing cheek to cheek with people there. The 'you spilled my drink' becoming a fight isn't fictional its a daily reality

In the US we have fire regulations that limit the maximum number of people who can occupy such a structure at one time, and it's up to the owner to make sure that the venue is safe by limiting the crowd and ejecting and banning unruly patrons. If they don't do so, and fights become common, they yank the bar's liquor license.