Last Party in Paradise
The National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol act takes effect December 1st, so El Paraiso will effectively be the last sponsored party. It’s another Offshore, this time on an actual beach (Mount Lavinia Private Beach). As I’ve mentioned multiple times, Offshore parties are good cause the music doesn’t suck. This party is also notable because, after the NATA bill comes into effect, sponsored parties like this won’t be possible (or at least more difficult). This in particular is sponsored by Smirnoff, which will have to take its budget elsewhere. Regardless, Offshore nights are pretty much always good, and the beach setting is a nice escape from the constricts of a typical club. It’s this Saturday, the 25th. After that, get thee to a nunnery.
The music should be mostly house/techno and there’ll be food and booze available for purchase there. I think there’ll be outdoor gazebos to give each group a bit of private space. I’ve been to the Mount Beach before and it’s nice and the security is good. However, the party interests me more cause it’s the last one of its kind. Here are the relevant portions of the NATA bill. Interestingly, you can find most bills online. The first part of the bill was devoted to the creation of a new government department which a bunch of cushy employees and more people to bribe. Here are the advertising sections.
36. (1) A person shall not publish or cause to be published, or authorize the publication of, a tobacco advertisement or an alcohol advertisement.
…
“alcohol advertisement†means any distinctive writing, still or moving picture, sign, symbol or colours or other visual image or any audible message or any combination of the aforesaid that promotes or is intended to promote—
(a) the drinking of liquor ;
(b) the purchase or use of an alcohol product ;
(c) a trade mark registered in respect of any alcohol product or articles that include alcohol products ;
(d) a brand name associated with an alcohol products ;
(e) the name of the manufacturer of an alcohol products.37. (1) A person shall not use a brand name or trade mark of, or any symbol associated with, a tobacco product or alcohol product or the name of a manufacturer of a tobacco product or alcohol product in association, whether directly or indirectly, with such tobacco product or alcohol product—
(a) in connection with the promotion of any educational, cultural, social or sporting organization, activity or event ;
(b) in such a manner as indicates, or acknowledges, that any financial or other assistance has been given by, or on behalf of, the manufacturer, importer or distributor of such tobacco product or alcohol product towards such organization, activity or event.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall on conviction after summary trial before a Magistrate be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand rupees or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
Tobacco regulations I’m not that opposed to cause they directly kill hundreds of thousands of people a year, and they make public areas noxious for everyone else. Alcohol, however, actually has benefits, most of them social.
Alcohol drinkers earn 10 percent to 14 percent more than nondrinkers, according to a study. Authors’ theories: 1) Drinking helps you “socialize more with clients and co-workers, giving drinkers an advantage in important relationships.” 2) Drinking “may also provide individuals with opportunities to learn people, business, and social skills.” Authors’ conclusions: 1) “By preventing people from drinking in public, anti-alcohol policies eliminate one of the most important aspects of drinking: increased social capital.” 2) “Not only do anti-alcohol policies reduce drinkers’ fun, but they may also decrease earnings.” 3) Maybe we should stop trying to reduce drinking at colleges. Rebuttals: 1) You don’t have to drink to socialize. 2) It’s more likely that sociability causes both drinking and social capital than that drinking causes social capital. 3) This “study” is right-wing-funded spin masquerading as impartial research (Slate)
It also has significant costs, and most people are not responsible with alcohol (myself included). However, to really tackle the ills of alcohol, we need to tackle illicit Kasippu consumption which accounts for over 50% of Sri Lanka’s alcohol consumption (Sunday Times). Also, Dr. Ranil Abeysinghe’s research on male suicide found that kasippu was implicated in 60% of them, not to mention domestic violence, and the illegal trade in kasippu. As he explains in his interesting research book ‘Illicit Alcohol’,
[T]he topic of alcohol in our society cannot generate any form of reasoned discussion. The middle class Sri Lankan society in particular evinces attitudes of ambivalence and bigotry towards alcohol. This is particularly evident in such ideas as the fact that any drinking is bad within the class and any form of excessive and uncontrolled drinking such as of illicit liquor (popularly known as Kassipu) is acceptable among the poor. Opinion leaders in social groups, therefore, are responsible for opposing the opening of legal alcohol outlets in the community while hypocritically turning a blind eye to open Kasippu sales behind a school or a temple. The logical conclusion here would be that because ‘only the poor would drink Kasippu’, they are not concerned about its social consequences, whereas legal outlets are seen as a threat to their own class.
According to the same book, nearly 110 vehicles transport Kasippu into the city from North Western coastal areas. They are passing through checkpoints unchecked and often with tacit support. I’ve personally seen plastic bags full of liquid being unloaded from a cop car at 3 in the morning, Rajagiriya. However, politicians take the cynically position of restricting legal and regulated alcohol sales while turning a blind eye and open pocket to illicit alcohol.
This law ignores the real problems of alcohol in Sri Lanka and instead makes a sacrificial lamb of the tourism and entertainment industries, all while sacrificing huge tax revenues that could go towards developing the country. In a county with legal alcohol consumption I’d think that an advertising ban is ineffective and pointless, but in a country with mostly illegal consumption it is pure posturing.
Regardless, this Offshore party (El Paraiso) should be good as usual. Hopefully they can continue to fund it without alcohol sponsors, I think they could. However, for this weekend at least you can retreat from the cynical swamp of government morality to the beach.
I want to visit my friend in China before he comes back. Free place to crash and all. So, I applied for a visa to China, from Colombo. I’m not sure I’ll get it, but this is process to at least apply. For official but incomplete info, check out the 
The Mahavamsa (a history of Sri Lanka) is full of conflicts between generals and kings. Usually, the more bloodthirsty and unscrupulous would win. Our current (elected) ruler Mahinda Rajapaksa has had his own general conflicts, namely with one Sarath Fonseka. In the old days Fonseka would have staged a coup, as in literally try to cut of Mahinda’s head, and Mahinda would – if that failed – tie him to four elephants and split his parts asunder. Can’t do that shit anymore. Instead Fonseka ran for office and lost and Mahinda tossed him in jail.
Today on the 
Janith has updated 
Wish some advertising Rupees come to local web sites – after this – hopefully.
Consumption of alcohol is influenced by peer-pressure and other social pressures, not really advertising. Advertisements are (mostly) just competition between brands. Prohibition of alcohol advertising only guarantees fixed market share for existing brands, because it doesn’t allow for new brands to establish themselves and for competition among existing brands. There is ample research to indicate that advertising has no (or very little) real correlation to actual alcohol consumption.
The prohibition age being 21 too is unethical, I’m allowed to vote, go to war, get married, have sex, but not allowed to booze or smoke.
This law is not about public health, or any such noble cause. Its merely a case of Mahinda scratching an itching spot deep in the JHU anus.
Well. When next time 18 year old solder foot on a Jonny and loose his leg, what he supposes to asked for? A Dot Toffee? Can’t he ask for a cigarette? We Sri Lankan are stupid just like Americans :-)
Johnny mine or not, soldiers still get their smokes. When I was in, we got a carton of Bristols a month as rations (smoker or not).
BTW, how much are tickets for this party, and where can I get ‘em?
Never got how cigarettes help you fight, but I guess they ward off boredom. Tickets are Rs 1000 and I think you can get them at R&B nights when Ben is DJing. Or at the door.
Never got how cigarettes help you do ANYthing.
well if the mines don’t kill you the cigs will
Only if you bring Tanya and don’t hog her Blacker…:)
Well said Deane. It’s a bloody stupid law. Completely misconceived as Indi pointed out vis-a-vis the restriction of regulated trade. Not to count the tax rupees lost. In a couple of months newspapers and magazines will take a huge hit as will ad agencies. Silly fuckers.
Public smoking ban though is a good thing I feel.
“Public smoking ban though is a good thing I feel” says the man that shared a cigar with 7 other people at a poker game!
It wasn’t a public place. Idiot.
public or not its the same effect, fool
Yes but this isn’t an argument about the effects. In a public place if I don’t want you smoking I can tell you to fuck off. In a private place like Manolo’s everyone else will tell YOU to fuck off. Hustling whore.
i really shouldn’t be bringing this up should i considering the fact that i brought the ciagar, lit it and circulated it around, hustling whore i am.
You SHARED a cigar? Isn’t that a bit gay?
I was actually a bit disappointed with the party last night. Guess I was expecting some sort of rave-on-the-beach after all the hype and the stories about the Bolgoda one. There weren’t many people there, and it was more a sort of house party really. But it was OK for an hour’s fun.