Went out to a restaurant for the first time since the lock down last night.  The server said they were only allowed to sell alcohol between 11 - 2 and 5 - close for customers to take home.  Now that is not likely to ever occur.  I know rational thinking and governments are oxymorons but what possibly reason could be presented for allowing a restaurant to serve you a meal, and a beverage but not a beverage that contains alcohol.  Certainly for the restaurant owners the policy is killing them since alcohol is where they make their money plus without serving alcohol the number of customers would drop.  Has anyone ever heard a government official explain what logic there is to no alcohol while eating? 

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Has anyone ever heard a government official explain what logic there is to no alcohol while eating? 

They doubtless have no idea why they are doing it - just doing what they are told! for rewards and promises no doubt.

I can explain - social engineering - playing out the agenda from a hijacked CV19 farce, welcome to the New World Order. ????

People who are living in fear and debt are so much more subservient ????

I agree. What's the problem with an adult having just one or two alcoholic drinks with their meal?

If you can't have one meal without booze, there's a thread out there for you:

 

 

The logic is that they can control you. Just preparation for the NWO.

99% of these new regulations are total sheiete, Global  House temp check when in officially Im dead at 35c  but then  you have the girl on the till mauling everything youve  bought (  no gloves on) the girl next to her helping put it in a plastic  bag the man at the exit mauling your receipt and then inside the  plastic  bag mauling that ( they're supposed to stop giving out plastic bags)

At least 3  people touching your stuff, total farce and waste of time, my  biggest gripe  with all of these measures is IT"S USELESS,

I guess the rationale is that people are less likely to congregate in larger groups if there is no alcohol.  Whether that's true or not is hard to determine.

1 minute ago, tomazbodner said:

If you can't have one meal without booze, there's a thread out there for you:

 

 

Sir I will lay money on betting your a reformed raging alcoholic.........And now need to save the world to make up for all the years of your life you drank away...

3 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

f you can't have one meal without booze, there's a thread out there for you:

tomazbodner

 

I have no problem not having a meal without alcohol.  I just wondered if there was any logic whatsoever to the policy.  As mentioned it would seem as likely that you would get coronavirus sipping a glass of water as you would sipping a beer.  Yet the ban was instituted as part of the coronavirus response.  This one sounds as logical as banning people from the beaches where it has been incontrovertibly shown that sunlight, fresh air, and warm temperatures kill the virus yet the government locked the beaches down. 

Even though I think its a crazy idea to still ban it, is it not for the reason that if you eat out, you finish your meal and leave? The ban means your not going to stay for a few more pints? 

 

I dont really know if its the reason, but seems a logic one.

 

I dont agree with it though.

4 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

I guess the rationale is that people are less likely to congregate in larger groups if there is no alcohol.  Whether that's true or not is hard to determine.

Baht Simpson

 

That is like not selling gasoline because a person MIGHT SPEED.  I can see a rule which I believe is already in place of no groups larger than 8 in a restaurant and tables must be 1 meter apart and no round tables.  I just seems as though the government and not just here are making rules up that bear no semblance of common sense.  In the USA specifically California, you can be on the beach and walking but not on the foot path.  You can sun bathe so long as the blankets are 2 meters apart, but you cant play tennis where you are standing 20 - 25 meters apart.  In order to go to a store you must wear a mask but you can remove a mask if you are eating at a restaurant.  DUH

11 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

I guess the rationale is that people are less likely to congregate in larger groups if there is no alcohol.  Whether that's true or not is hard to determine.

Thais will definitely gather in larger groups once alcohol is available. Some I know already are meeting up at a couple of restaurants where there are private rooms etc. where alcohol can be served discreetly. There have been a couple of big nights this week with 10-15 people getting together. You have to remember that the regulations are not aimed at the lone diner who just wants to enjoy a couple of drinks with a meal. 

people have proved countless times they are just not to be relied upon while under the influence of this drug..

2 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

Thais will definitely gather in larger groups once alcohol is available. Some I know already are meeting up at a couple of restaurants where there are private rooms etc. where alcohol can be served discreetly. There have been a couple of big nights this week with 10-15 people getting together. You have to remember that the regulations are not aimed at the lone diner who just wants to enjoy a couple of drinks with a meal. 

KhaoNiaw

Again that is pre -supposing something 'MIGHT" happen.  If the purpose is to make sure there are no large gatherings then make the restaurants enforce a rule that no room or table can have more than 6, 8, 10, 12 or whatever number.  Or make it a rule that alcohol can be served but only to groups fewer than 6, 8, 10 people.  

 

The jump to envision that serving alcohol somehow encourages large gatherings in no more factual than banning Tom Yum soup because serving it encourages people to gather in large numbers. 

Certainly last time in Soi Buakhao Pattaya i saw some restaurants packed with drinkers, if they weren't so stupid it's possible it would be allowed by now

6 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

KhaoNiaw

Again that is pre -supposing something 'MIGHT" happen.  If the purpose is to make sure there are no large gatherings then make the restaurants enforce a rule that no room or table can have more than 6, 8, 10, 12 or whatever number.  Or make it a rule that alcohol can be served but only to groups fewer than 6, 8, 10 people.  

 

The jump to envision that serving alcohol somehow encourages large gatherings in no more factual than banning Tom Yum soup because serving it encourages people to gather in large numbers. 

Perhaps but it's partly a cultural issue. You need to look around you at how Thais socialize and how alcohol plays a part in that. I agree you could introduce other rules but allowing restaurants to serve alcohol makes it a little bit more difficult. It doesn't mean that I agree with it but I can see the thinking.

1 minute ago, from the home of CC said:

people have proved countless times they are just not to be relied upon while under the influence of this drug..

CC

 

Glad that you were never engaged to be Confucius.  I guess according to your logic people can be relied upon if they drink within the confines of their home or at work but not at a restaurant. 

 

4 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

Perhaps but it's partly a cultural issue. You need to look around you at how Thais socialize and how alcohol plays a part in that. I agree you could introduce other rules but allowing restaurants to serve alcohol makes it a little bit more difficult. It doesn't mean that I agree with it but I can see the thinking.

KhoNiaw

 

That still makes no sense.  "if" they are worried about large groups then you ban the gathering of large groups.  Not allowing restaurants to serve alcohol with meals makes about as much sense as banning them from selling Tom Yum soup or chicken pattay because doing so 'MIGHT" encourage people to gather in large groups.   That is like banning bamboo poles because people MIGHT use them to beat each other or banning bags because people might use them to go into stores and steal. 

Posters who make three consecutive stupid pedantic posts in a row should be banned.

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

KhoNiaw

 

That still makes no sense.  "if" they are worried about large groups then you ban the gathering of large groups.  Not allowing restaurants to serve alcohol with meals makes about as much sense as banning them from selling Tom Yum soup or chicken pattay because doing so 'MIGHT" encourage people to gather in large groups.   That is like banning bamboo poles because people MIGHT use them to beat each other or banning bags because people might use them to go into stores and steal. 

I'm only explaining the thinking.  I know you don't get it but you're only looking at this from your own perspective.
I can assure you that most of my Thai friends would not be tempted to get together at a restaurant solely for a Tom Yum party. If there's alcohol available it's different. I agree you can ban large gatherings. What they're doing is taking the simplest route and not giving restaurants or people going there any leeway. The gatherings I've seen this week are groups of friends getting together to drink, and there's food too. So I'd say there is some kind of rationale behind the ban, even if it's not logic a that you agree with. 

41 minutes ago, redwood1 said:

Sir I will lay money on betting your a reformed raging alcoholic.........And now need to save the world to make up for all the years of your life you drank away...

How much are you willing to bet? To see whether it's worth to tell you I've never in my life had any alcohol, even from mouthwash...

It's pathetic, no rhyme nor reason only seek control. Why can I go to Homepro and not walk in the Park? Why can i go to the market but not drink a glass of red wine with my meal?  Vietnam didn't go around banning stuff and locking down... how many deaths?  NONE  They enforced quarantine of the SICK and let HEALTHY people live their lives. 

Yesterday I went to Homepro and they were shut. Why? because they only allow 300 daily - why?  this government are clowns who seek their citizens grateful thanks for ruining their livelihoods but 'saving them'. 

50 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I just wondered if there was any logic whatsoever to the policy

Some people who have a couple of drinks get belligerent if they are not allowed to have more... many many get sloppy and spit when they are drinking... 

 

and if you look at the crime reports for farang and all people here, most occur at 3 am and involve too much booze...

 

I know most people can contain themselves and enjoy a drink with a meal w/o getting stupid, but I guess this is a case of the few ruining things for the many... 

You go to a restaurant to eat, not drink booze.  You go to a bar for the latter.

8 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

I've never in my life had any alcohol, even from mouthwash...

hey - - don't knock mouthwash... just joking but good for you on avoiding the AA

1 minute ago, kenk24 said:

Some people who have a couple of drinks get belligerent if they are not allowed to have more... many many get sloppy and spit when they are drinking... 

 

and if you look at the crime reports for farang and all people here, most occur at 3 am and involve too much booze...

 

I know most people can contain themselves and enjoy a drink with a meal w/o getting stupid, but I guess this is a case of the few ruining things for the many... 

No, no, no!  we are not talking about 3am the curfew is 10 PM why no drinking until 10pm?  the other parts of your post is misleading as no one can stay out after 10pm.

surely this only encourages people to eat at home instead and drink in large groups without the social distancing 

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

No, no, no!  we are not talking about 3am the curfew is 10 PM why no drinking until 10pm?  the other parts of your post is misleading as no one can stay out after 10pm.

Just eliminate the 3 am part.. drunks want more and can get belligerent if they are denied - - they also get rather sloppy and stumbling no matter what time of day... I would hate to be seated next to a loud sloppy spitting repetitive drunk... surely you have seen this type? 

 

not to be confused w/people who can and do enjoy a drink w/a meal. 

Just now, kenk24 said:

Just eliminate the 3 am part.. drunks want more and can get belligerent if they are denied - - they also get rather sloppy and stumbling no matter what time of day... I would hate to be seated next to a loud sloppy spitting repetitive drunk... surely you have seen this type? 

 

not to be confused w/people who can and do enjoy a drink w/a meal. 

I can say I have never sat next to a sloppy spitting 'type' in my fav Italian restaurant! if I did I'd walk out. You rightly pointed out in your other post unsocial behaviors usually starts after midnight and mostly around the 3am as YOU pointed out. As I am usually tucked up in bed around 11 I see no relevance. 

the next Sihanoukville