|
This city law is long overdue. It regulates the
selling and serving of liquor and alcoholic beverages in licensed
establishments. In many countries worldwide, the sale of alcohol is
heavily monitored. Alcohol licenses are limited and difficult to
get. In the Philippines, anyone can just start selling alcohol to
anyone, anytime. In fact, our babies learn to drink from their bib
bottles before they walk.
The Taguig ordinance prohibits
the sale and delivery of alcoholic drinks between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
of the next day except when given a special permit that extends
allowable trade hours to 2 a.m. Of course, all establishments will
request for, and be granted, a special permit. Who wants to stop
drinking at 10 p.m.?
In the case of restaurants, café,
bars, nightclubs and similar enterprises, the 2 a.m. deadline means
that’s the time for the last order. Let’s order a dozen beers in
a bucket and a row of shots at 1:59 a.m. But then again, we have to
finish them all as such establishments are to wrap up operations by
2:30 a.m. Can they reopen at 3 a.m. for stubborn (and drunk)
customers? No, they have to remain closed until 6 a.m.
Statistics show that the most
dangerous time to be on the streets of Manila is between 3 a.m. to 5
a.m. when party-goers are heading home stoned. They either kill
themselves or end up hurting innocent others. Lampposts and flower
pots may be victims too. This ordinance then rightly closes the
“danger zone.” Driving under the influence of alcohol needs to
be heavily penalized. Traffic authorities ought to stay awake and
apprehend zigzagging vehicles at unholy hours rather than prey on
motorists with ambush “no left turn” signs.
Although the city law was passed
as a reaction to the violent incidents at the drinking clubs at the
Fort, it is better now than never and speaks of a progressive and
enlightened government. The right to party and the calls for more
business made city hall turn a blind eye to the rising
alcohol-related crimes—fights, drugs, racing and juvenile
delinquency.
How does the ordinance propose to
protect minors? In the WeHo district of L.A. with a high
concentration of bars and clubs, minors can party but cannot drink
alcohol. Minors are tagged with red wristbands to alert waiters.
Those of age need to show I.D. and are served alcohol with blue
stirrers as markers. Heavy fines are imposed on the establishments
which have a higher stake in staying open and are in a better
position to monitor. Why not do the same here? The drinking youth is
not the hope of the fatherland.
It becomes a question of
enforcement again, a cat-and-mouse game every weekend. City
officials can take turns and test compliance with the city law and
its laudable purpose. Entrapment should be done over and over until
keeping minors dry becomes a practice and a culture. Only then can
we get serious in saying that studying is the province of the youth
and the goal of minors is to finish school. Drinking the night away
is not the excuse for stress or from homework after a long week in
school. Drinking heavily is less than an arm’s length from party
drugs and the more lethal kinds.
Finally, workers at night
establishments like the party people can rest earlier. From the
working parents to the struggling migrant, all will benefit from
shorter drinking hours and more sober clients and safer streets.
In leading cities in mature
democracies, healthy lifestyles are edging out the
drink-and-party-till-you-drop mindset. Protecting minors from
senseless deaths and eroding priorities is especially significant.
Government is doing its part this time. Ordinance No. 36 regulating
the right to party is a step in the right direction.
mabinihall@gmail.com
|
