Dear Editor,
As I understand it one of the government’s main arguments for outlawing the opening of night clubs after 2am is that the longer revellers consume alcohol drunkenness increases and the likelihood of accidents on our roads rises. The theory is a logical one, but as the Private Sector Commission points out, there are no scientific findings to support the theory. The Private Sector Commission having reminded us of this lack of credible evidence linking revelry after 2am to a rise in accidents, suggests that bars should be allowed to open until 4am at weekends. Secondly, the PSC argues that closing at 2am will undermine tourism since, I assume, the tourist would want to party until 4am. Finally, the PSC says nightclub owners are losing money because they have to close at 2am. In other words if people are allowed to drink until 4am they will drink more than they would if the time is restricted to 2am. I must point out that the order in which I have laid out the PSC argument has been done randomly and is not meant to represent their order of priority.
The absence of scientific evidence to support closing bars at 2am so as to reduce motor accidents occurring during the early hours of the morning is not surprising. Guyana is not known for conducting research in such matters, but the police record can be helpful. Police records would not be able to tell us what percentage of our annual motor vehicular accidents occur between 12.01 and 6am since most motor vehicle accidents are not reported to the police. Generally motor accidents only attract police attention and action if, perchance, a witness sees same, or when the accident leads to serious injury, death or extensive damage to one or more vehicles. So police records can tell us what percentage of the lethal crashes in a given year occur between 12.01 and 6am and at weekends. True this would be limited information on the issue, but helpful nonetheless. But we have figures from the developed world that might indicate what is likely to be the situation in Guyana. In the USA we are told that in 2010 most road accidents occurred between 3-9pm. However for the same year alcohol was a factor in 71% of lethal crashes and these occurred between 12.01 and 6am (Anish, 2012).
For the Private Sector Commis-sion to be in a moral position to make the argument for opening of bars until 4am they would have to do as they demand of the proponents of the 2am closure. The PSC must produce studies that show that the consumption of alcohol for longer periods at bars does not contribute to an increase in early morning road accidents. In other words, if the absence of scientific evidence nullifies the argument of proponents of a 2am closure then the same absence of scientific evidence must nullify the claims of the proponents of 4am closure. Also how did the PSC come to the decision to propose a 4am closure? What is it about 4am? Why not 3am or 5am? Outside of allowing night spots to make more money what scientific study points to any social good that a 4am closure will give rise to?
The argument that a 2am closure of bars will adversely affect tourism is suspect; again the PSC feels comfortable to offer opinion without scientific support for their claims. I visit Bonaire, an island that regularly attracts more foreign tourists in any given month than Guyana does in any given year. In Bonaire there is a huge benab called ‘Arowak’ where tourists go in large numbers to party. The Arowak closes at 11pm at weekends.
I have never heard any complaint from the tourists with this closing time. I have heard of no petition to the government by the owners of the Arowak for an extension of opening hours. In fact the Arowak opens for business at weekends at about the same time after-lunch parties use to begin years ago at weekends in Georgetown. Since downtown Georgetown is relatively dead after 4pm at weekends, what prevents our discoes from opening for business before dark? As I remember after-lunch parties in the ʼ80s (or was it the ʼ70s?) used to attract sell- out crowds.
It seems Guyanese businessmen are most comfortable with increasing their wealth without investing in offering their patrons an improved service. In other places proprietors of bars would seek to increase the number of their patrons during the legal hours by adding activities to their product. For example they could advertise and have Charmaine Blackman, Henry Rodney, etc, perform at 10pm. Also proprietors could advertise that patrons who are present at 9am will be given a number and that there will be a drawing at 12pm, and the patron holding the randomly selected number will win $10,000. The night’s experience will be more exciting and many more people will patronize these bars by 10pm making a closing at 2am no problem.
Money will be made not because a few people drink for a longer period (up till 4am) but by a larger number of revellers drinking over a shorter period (up till 2am). But not the Guyanese businessman; he wants the government to merely make it possible for people to drink for longer. There is no investment on his part, no thought of making the night’s experience interesting just having the government change the closing time and letting the silly drink themselves into a stupor.
Guyana is a poor country which should be in a hurry to enhance its economic wealth while promoting decent living. I do not see having our young people drinking at bars at 4am in the morning helping in this endeavour. This behaviour of our business community does not surprise me, but it certainly disappoints.
Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince
