In Scotland at weekends you'll see people who are "blootered", "skelped", "mawkit" or "birling" - it is the country of Robert Burns, after all, and when the poet wasn't failing to intercept bootleg cognac as an exciseman, or seducing innkeepers' daughters (noticeably more successful) he was penning immortal rhymes about John Barleycorn, ie whisky.
The bard talked of drunk people as "unco fu'" - "very full up".
But according to the convenor of Glasgow city licensing board, James McInally, the non-sober condition is something you only hear about as something which has happened in the past. Nobody, it seems, is ever drunk in the present tense - and nobody is ever given a row for serving people who are drunk.
This week he told city licensees that from now on the board will be taking an overt interest in the general state of sobriety in bars, perhaps particularly when the new Licensing Standards Officers are fully up and running.
It's a simple fact that in Scotland it's almost unknown for a licensee to get into trouble for serving somebody who is drunk, even although it's against the law.
And, as the argument increasingly runs, why bother dreaming up all sorts of complicated new regulations to preserve social decorum when you aren't using the ones you have already?
Meanwhile in Edinburgh an ugly late hours street rammy has prompted new calls for a licence freeze in George Street, a once prim New Town thoroughfare full of stately Georgian bank buildings: guess what kind of business occupies those neo-classical banks nowadays?
Just to confuse things some of these bars (till 1am) and hybrids (till 3am) are fairly posh - not quite the vertical drinking hells of typical inner city notoriety.
But the common thread linking Glasgow with Edinburgh, from these examples, is that it's the premises that are seen as having got the customers drunk. And there's a major link between drunkenness and violent crime.
Again and again at alcohol issue conferences we're asked "Where do all these drunk people come from if licensees are all obeying the law?", and it's a fair question.
Part of the problem, I think, is that while "over the limit" for driving can be gauged, plain "drunk" is - in its lower reaches - a bit harder to define. Alcohol is a complicated psycho-active which affects people in different ways.
The apparently rife modern phenomenon of pre-loading on off-sales carry-out drink before heading out means that many youngish customers can arrive about one drink short of getting-on-for-drunk, or as the technical expression has it "well on".
Meanwhile an alcohol disorder researcher at a recent conference told how his team had seen a variant on the theme - mid-loading.
This involves a group going to a nightclub, nipping out "for a fag", and then high-tailing it to the nearest offie for (in this particular case) a cheapish bottle of Sambuca, consuming it, then heading back indoors - somewhat more inebriated but still making sense. For a while.
A couple of weeks ago in my local I did see four lads being refused drink: Scotland had beaten France 1-0 at football and the four were uproariously blootered. I think some of the supporters on the Champs Elysees may have had the odd drink too many as well, but these guys were wrecked.
The group's spokesman, seeking more beer, made a plea on behalf of his chums, but recognised the finality in the barman's folded arms and stern expression and gave up, and they bounced off into the night.
I don't want actual drunks in bars more than anyone else. I agree barmen have to refuse drink firmly and finally when they judge a customer has had "enough". However I also think turning the heat entirely on the pub trade (instead of just the minority of serial offenders) sort of misses the point.
Why not arrest more of the drunks we see in the street - roaring drunk? They're breaking the law too, regardless of where they bought and consumed their drinks.
A big, well-publicised police presence at busy times; some hefty spot fines for the worst offenders, perhaps the threat of detainments at HM's pleasure - and some of the people who spoil it for the normal drinkers might just come to heel.
That would mean increased funding for police resources of course, seldom popular with government, but it would be worth it.