In every similar thread, there is always at least one person who quotes the above ad verbatim!!... Highly predictable, and it misses the point entirely. The criticism is rarely about going without a drink for a day. It's about the thinking behind the regulation itself. It stems from the assumption that ordinary adults cannot be trusted to separate having a beer from exercising their democratic right to vote responsibly. It also assumes that a blanket ban on retail alcohol sales somehow meaningfully influences electoral integrity, despite anyone determined to drink simply buying alcohol beforehand or obtaining it elsewhere. In other words, the regulation appears to be based more on symbolism than evidence. It treats the public as though they need protecting from themselves, while doing little to address the behaviour it supposedly targets. That's why people call it outdated. The inconvenience is trivial. The mentality behind it is what attracts criticism, because it reflects a paternalistic, somewhat patronising and ultimately flawed way of thinking that places faith in prohibition rather than personal responsibility.
Create an account or sign in to comment