This one is particularly difficult for me in that it strikes at the heart of a pastime that, in my youth, I was heavily immersed. It is difficult to say what the charm is for the average Trini standing one foot on a grimy pavement, the other in a drain writhing with glistening roaches. There is something that charms us men about standing at a rudimentary urinal which is little more than an indoor drain to relieve ourselves. You zip up and hurry back to the conversation hoping that everyone will buy the story that the wet patch on the front of your pants is a spilt drink and not backsplash from the poorly designed urinal that puts at least half of the pee you put into it right back onto you.
It seems perfectly acceptable to, when space is at a premium in a bar, simply spill out onto the open road and stand amid the traffic like stubborn sheep not expecting to be knocked down. No one can lime quite like a Trini. I am always amazed passing through Ariapita Avenue on a Tuesday or Wednesday night to see arms hanging over railings and the glow of cigarette embers piercing the night out from the relative anonymity of darkly lit watering holes. State of emergency: lime, hurricane warning: lime, Barack Obama becomes first black US President: lime, Warriors win: lime, Warriors lose: lime. It is probably for this reason that the onslaught against this very way of life by the Port-of-Spain mayor is going down like puncheon without the Guinness chaser.
Mr Lee Sing obviously took office with some firm ideas about changing the way things are done in ye old metropolis. You may not agree with all of them; I have already registered my criticism of his vagrunt disposal policy. When you mess with people's booze, their Friday night lime and their Saturday morning vamit, Mr Mayor, unpopularity will be the least of your worries. Let's first look at the plan on merit. It is the long-awaited recognition of a serious problem. Woodbrook residents are under siege, there is the constant din of music, chatter, the screeching of car tyres; people park freely in front of driveways and they cussway residents who carelessly register complaints with the offenders.
I can just imagine how frustrating it is for Woodbrook residents having as the view from their homes a wobbling lush at your front gate, pants at ankles, cigarette hanging from bottom lip. So unsteady is he on his feet that it almost looks as though he is trying to paint your wall with pee. It is of course too dangerous to say anything to these people, you just have to endure and come out the next morning with the hose and the black "disinfek." So the idea in the short-term is to have the bars start playing the theme music to wrap up the lime at 2 am. Have your last drink at 2 am, then depart for the spinning ceiling of whatever hole you emerged from at 3 am. What has the drinking set raging is the proposal that any renewal of licences come with a stipulation that last call be set at midnight.
The television reporters found the most crazy looking characters to offer their opinions on this ludicrous proposal. "Nah! He maddawat! Disisdecitydatnevahsleepsssss!" At least one interviewee had been drinking already for the day so pushing past midnight for him is pushing past mere recreation and into the realm of proper addic-tion. The reason that the plan is flawed and potentially dangerous should be fairly obvious. The response to such a measure by the average limer will be to drink more and drink faster to beat the clock. As we say in this country, they will "buy and put down." This has implications for what happens on the streets as the bars close their doors and unleash their now hyper-drunk clientele upon the rest of us sober citizens with rosaries clutched in our hands.
There will not be enough room in the courts for all of the people who blow high figures on the breathalyser test. Additionally, the potential for alcohol-fuelled fighting is dramatically increased because of the rapid binge drinking that shorter hours will likely inspire. OK, just like you have "instant coffee just add water," so too do you have "instant a--h---, just add liquor." There will always be those types.What this policy is likely to trigger however is a wave of violent incidents inspired by the pernicious influence of heavy drinking. Many of you are aware that this was precisely the problem identified in the UK where it was discovered that drinkers were speed drinking to beat the midnight last call of English pubs. This was identified as the main cause of the bouts of hooliganism, vandalism to public property and extremely violent brawling in the streets.
While the response has been mixed, extended pub hours seem to have reduced alcohol consumption and incidents of violence. In reviewing the legislative changes, the UK is now moving to make the bar owners responsible for the disruption they help to create. One way for us to go might be to make, as part of licensing laws, a system of determining which establishments create the greatest offence to their neighbouring communities and stipulate as a governing condition of the licence the responsibility to control these disruptive factors. No plan however could prevail without enforcement. What the mayor could have considered before resorting to such puritanical measures would be nightly patrols of police officers in these social hotspots. What the mayor is essentially trying to do is put the drunken genie back in the bottle, but these areas are already well established as commercial centres (something which zoning could have addressed before the mess got this big).
I do not understanding why parking is a problem because up until recently a new wrecker, which does not require a crew to hitch the vehicle to the truck, was towing people's cars as they turned their backs on them. Where did the wrecker go? I am sure that the mayor could come up with a more workable plan that is less deleterious to the business interests of people who have invested in Ariapita Avenue and St James. I hold no brief for any bar owner in those places but in these tough economic times the last thing you want to do is discourage people from entrepreneurship. Perhaps the mayor, the business people and the residents could all sit down over a couple hundred pitchers of beer and work something out. We don't have much in this country. Take away our right to fall down in a filthy canal after a night of copious drinking, then what do we have?
THOUGHTS
• When you mess with people's booze, Mr Mayor, unpopularity will be the least of your worries.
• The reason that the plan is flawed and potentially dangerous should be fairly obvious.
• What this policy is likely to trigger is a wave of violent incidents inspired by the influence of heavy drinking.