…Alcohol remains the major destructive “element” across all Australian society. We need urgently a Nicola Roxon, (The darling of social reform), equivalent on the Alcohol front!

...As tradition dictates from the Liberals, there appears no light on the horizon for any chance of Alcohol reforms inside Tony Abbotts team “Dullard”.

Diver Dan: there is some good movement on the Liberal side of this argument, with Federal support for alcohol reform to address excessive availability in the NT, and some moves towards a bi-partisan approach to the taxation and floor price issues

Alcohol abuse is currently the biggest blight on our society. If tobacco is so heavily taxed and required to be sold in plain packs covered in warnings and gruesome pictures - WHY not alcohol?

Yes I've heard the arguments about pensioners being unable to afford their evening stubbie or glass of cask wine if the price increases ... blah blah blah! So what? It's not a life staple.

It's time the powerful Alcohol Industry is reined in along Tobacco industry lines. If this were to happen there would be huge benefits to national health, law and order, work productivity, family and wider relationships. Banning is neither desirable nor workable but making it more expensive and less accessable may result in a pendulum swing back towards a more moderate era.

I'll vote for THAT!

DF:

...The difficulty in achieving reforms with Alcohol and Gambling are quite different to Cigarette reforms achieved by Nicola Roxon; the opposition voice of Cigarette addicts was a soft one from a minimal 16% of the population!

...An interesting comparison would be opposition to gun control in the US, where opposition to reform screams over the top of all logic. The voice of “Alcohol addicts” is a loud cultural one sung in unison, inside the Opera House of the Club and Hotel Associations: These two groups are never satisfied until Alcohol flows down the gutters of every town in Australia!

Alcohol abuse starts by peer pressure. This in turn is a mentality issue. If young people could be exposed to healthier thinking such as in two years of National Service they would acquire a healthier mentality & alcohol abuse would lessen.
For a national service to be introduced we have to change the mentality of those in authority now & start replacing them.

Diver Dan: I must concede that you are most probably correct; but that shouldn't prevent the bulk of the Australian population from being able to discuss the obvious issues, and debate and advocate sensible reforms to current laws and regulations surrounding alcohol availability, regulation, price, taxation and supply without attack from addicts, other users and the economically vested interests which you mention.
We should be able to discuss these matters calmly, and develop policy based on evidence and informed majority opinion, despite the rabid die-in-a-ditch opposition of some alcohol manufacturers, retailers and users, and a few extremely vocal fanatical "free-choice" individualists who can't understand the need to balance personal behaviour choices with concessions to what society can bear and the central requirements of "the common good".
This means we should seek rational, democratically based regulation of alcohol availability, rather than open-slather exploitation by the dominant forces in the market-place and dictatorship by isolated pockets of anti-regulation pro-grog ideologues, such as some of those at the Institute for Public Affairs.

…The counter attack on the Alcohol Industry should be waged from the obvious consensus point; saving “Children”. With the welfare of children as the sole objective, a strategy of Alcohol containment can be achieved.

…The opening salvo of the war should be a softening up of the Alcohol Industry by artillery bombardment of the take-away venue. The bottle shop represents the “too-public” face of the industry and is directly responsible for the dispensing of cheap and readily available Alcohol at the curb-side. There is a need to drive this industry out of reach of the vulnerable, and can be easily achieved by restricting all sales of alcohol to clubs and Hotels where it must be consumed on-site only; with a proviso that they will be left-alone if they act responsibly, (This move would still give huge scope to the Industry to maintain profits and protect investments).

…As with Cigarette smoking, Alcohol should be banned from all public places in the community. It needs also to be an offense to exceed the legal limit (.05) in the presence of Children in the home; (with the ultimate aim of eliminating Alcohol consumption in the presence of Children altogether).

…On-The-Spot fines should be imposed on drunkenness in public places, and “Random Breath Testing” of pedestrians is a reasonable and acceptable and not unprecedented, since the public acceptance of RBT for motorists is a continuing and publicly accepted strategy for road safety; it is not unreasonable to expect Children are given the same rights, rights to safety and protection from the harm of Alcohol induced violence and other ill-effects in public places and the home,( as Motorists currently are given while driving on the road).

…All the above is simple strategy, but where is the will and those with a big heart in politics to achieve it, (vis a vis the Nicola Roxons)?

It really is time for a new name Dan.

How about DICTATOR Dan. that has to be a lot closer to your attitude.

I'm a teetotaler, but would never presume to want to spy on people, in their own homes, or want to demand entrance to breathalyze them. I don't use alcohol, but what they do, legally, is their business.

I suggest you go back to the old communist Russia, where such dictatorial policies were he norm.

I did suggest to a couple of heavy drinking doctors that they should be careful, when they started their crusade against tobacco, to distract attention from the number of their mistakes they bury, that it would come back to bite them.

Well we can see in the rabid approach of diver dan, that I was right. there are always ratbags who want to control their neighbour, who always think they know best.

Dan you must be a labor polly, with your attitude. What is your name? We need to know who not to vote for.

Diver Dan - a lot of good points there, but you want Wesfarmers and Woolies share holders chasing us down with clubs and AK-47s under cover of darkness, don't you? A bridge too far perhaps ... maybe we need a more achievable plan.

I hope none of you like going out for dinner. I'm a chef so I know exactly how much goon goes into restaurant food and it's not a small quantity. Putting a national floor price on alcohol will push up food costs and we will pass them on to the customer - either that or go bankrupt. When you go out do you really want to pay $5 more for a dish that still tastes the same just because some d!ckheads from Alice Springs can't handle their piss? I don't.

But I'm not too worried. I don't use much alcohol in my own cooking and I only drink beer which won't go up in price.

Cheers,

Tony

Go ahead and ban it. Start a new black market. After all, prohibition worked so well in America didn't it?

It's just so damn easy to make your own, best you order a few drones from the Americans now!

http://aussiedistiller.com.au/

Where are all these commies coming from these days? Time to start looking under the bed again I think!

Raw Mustard, nobody is talking about banning alcohol (although Diver dan seems to want to sail reasonably close to that aim). Prohibition is not the issue, alcohol can be used safely, but we do need to get better rules applying in order to reduce some of the extreme harms presently accruing to many innocent, defenceless and vulnerable victims of unwise and excessive use of the substance in question.

"""
nobody is talking about banning alcohol (although Diver dan seems to want to sail reasonably close to that aim).
"""

Sorry, my post was a reaction to Emperor dan's post.

teaching a work ethic, family responsibility and not giving out grog money would be extremely unpopular but very effective. Food vouchers might take away dignity but not nearly as much as child abuse fueled by alcholol, the violence and destruction of human beings. No one really wants real answers especially Governments frighten of self interested idiotic UN reports. Most people sitting around doing zilch all day will end up drinking or taking drugs when available.

Alcohol abuse should be treated as a serious sociological and psychological problem, and addiction even more so, irrespective of where it is evident, and particularly where dependent children are involved. But, I don't see increasing the price, or the banning of cheap alcohol being more than perhaps a component of an overall solution strategy.

It seems clear that abusers of alcohol require both discipline and a constructive career path. Perhaps like refugee detainees, such people need constructive occupation, and support to deal with the psychological issues causing them to drink or to be destructive.

With welfare recipients, perhaps national service or at least work for the dole could be constructively employed more extensively, and drug testing made mandatory - again, particularly where dependent children are involved. Food vouchers would also be a useful strategy component, but I still think education, life 'learning', and useful occupation must be key components of any long term solution.

People may need self-determination, but from what we see of some of these 'camps' there is nothing self-determining about them, just squalor, decay and totally disheartening societal degradation. Even the total removal of alcohol from such squalid surroundings could achieve little, and may even exacerbate an already soul-destroying existence.

People should not be left to drown in their own destitution, and I feel only a full and comprehensive intervention, overhaul and societal reconstruction would be able to break the current destructive cycle of abuse and hopelessness.

I agree with Runner in that we need to go back to food and service vouchers for dole payments for people with children, instead of cash.

All bills such as rent and utilities should be paid before the rest goes into the recipients bank account.

This should be done for all those on welfare payments who have children, so at least the kids will have food and a roof over their heads.

I don't care what the do gooders would say about taking over people's rights to manage their 'own' money.

We have to do what's right for the children who have no say in their parents choices.

Alcohol is not the problem, it's the way it is used, and abused, by some that is the problem.

Two or three cigarettes a day is very harmful to ones health, whereas two or three light beers, or a glass or two of wine is not. So heavily taxing alcohol would hurt decent respectable consumers.

The answer, as in many cases, is quarantining of welfare.

NO CASH, MEANS NO SPLASH!

>>The answer, as in many cases, is quarantining of welfare.<<

That will only help people on welfare. How would you reduce alcohol abuse by people who don't receive benefits? Quarantine their income as well?

Cheers,

Tony

"How would you reduce alcohol abuse by people who don't receive benefits? "

Sacking them would be one way of putting them on benefits.

The self-employed alcohol abusers stand a good chance of ending up on welfare... though it might take longer.

No Tony, you can't, but seriously, why punish 98% of the public, the decent law-abiding, respectful ones, who consume aclcohol sensibly, like myself, just to control the 2% that are no hopers when it comes to alcohol consumption.

Higher fines, more punishment for offenders is the answer.

A legal blood alcohol level in public is another option, say 1.2 or 1.5, as this alone would keep many offenders off the streets and out of the pubs and clubs.

Unfortunately we have evolved into a politicly corect country, an example being when an offender dies in a police chase, the do gooders come out and say, since when did speeding come with a death sentence. It's this type of crap that has made us the nanny state we are.

Imagine a country where 98% of the funding and assistance went to 98% of the people, but it doesn't, it's more the other way at times.

We have to get back to rewarding for good behavior, not punishing all to catch a few.

I am utterly sick and tired of being inconvenienced, simply because our law enforcers can't control rat bags.

Do gooders have too much say and are listened to far too often nowadays.

Much focus here has been on 'welfare recipients'. I agree with suggestions some clients need a degree of management. These ppl would not be difficult to identify and apply remedies if political will were to prevail - and 'do-gooders' told to sit down and shutup.

However largest group of alcohol abusers is in the youth/young adult demographic. They are the ones most likely to binge drink to point of alcohol poisoning or organ damage, the group most likely involved in 'mob party' activity and most likely to be either a victim of or perpetrator of alcohol fueled violence or other crime. Much of this happens on weekends.

These ppl - excepting the under 18s (of whom there are plenty) often have reliable incomes and no-one but themselves to spend it on. The underage drinkers with limited funds will beg or steal it off family, friends or bottleshops, however for the over 18s, opportunity is only tempered slightly by budget. All that means is a cheaper form of grog.

Two factors at play here - a shift in attitude towards and in the USE of alcohol and the ever increasing availability of alcoholic product.

It is considerably easier in the short term to make alcohol less accessable than change attitudes. Though we need to do both, let's start with supply. Some critics will say "It won't work" but for example, trials involving 3am closing of 14 CBD Hotels in Newcastle VIC 14 Hotels allegedly resulted in: 35% reduction in night-time non domestic assaults and 50% reduction in night time street offences requiring police attention; 26% reduction in night-time assault-related injury presentations to local hospitals. Similar results have been reported in other trials which also received high approval ratings from residents of cities involved.

Higher pricing/taxes would be the best start and justification already exists in huge societal and economic costs of alcohol misuse.

Questions are: Will there be enough pressure brought to bear on our elected representatives to make policy changes? Will said representatives have the political will to take on the powerful (and generous) Liquor Industry?

Adultcentrism:

…The problem with all aspects of Child Welfare, and particularly in this debate on lowering the detrimental effects of Alcohol on society is (in a word), “Adultcentrism”.

#...Children, according to the pillar of adultcentrism, are seen as "the future" and are therefore not yet full human beings capable of making choices. The elderly are considered "past their prime" and are often seen as a burden on society…#:

…And add to this the concept that ALL Alcohol problems belong to the Aboriginal populations; an extension of Adultcentrism which projects National guilt onto the most vulnerable, (Aboriginals) for special treatment, and give free-right of Governments to inaugurate draconian methods of social control to the Aboriginal society. (Bob Katter view).

…To plan a (total) society which is less dependent on Alcohol, the perspective of the Child welfare must predominate above ALL other considerations.

…It is NOT a right of Adults to consider their own lifestyle choices of Alcohol and drug use as a subordinating principal of the rights of the Child to live free of the effects of Alcohol and drug abuse at any level of consumption, which is not medically supervised. (Sound familiar)?

…This can be achieved in two ways: Firstly by capturing the focus of Multiculturalism and directing that towards a “Muslim specific” immigration bias. And secondly; by altering all Government social policy towards a priority of Child protection which subverts the current focus of Adultcentrism...

DD, I say again, why should i, a sensible consumer of alcohol , suffer from the results of our law enforcers being incapable of controlling a controllable problem?

There are several ways to control alcohol abbuse, but they all take balls.

1. Make parents 100% liable for under age drinkers, because after all, they are their kids and they, as responsible parents should know where their kids are at all times.

Now if the can't be responsible, then don't have kids.

2. Impose a legal blood al level while in a public place.

3. Quartantine welfare, it's a gift, not a given right, and as such should not be allowed to be wasted. Don't like it, get a job.

There are many problems today that can be addressed with a big stick approach, you know, like we had in the 60's and 70's,where you dare not step out of line, as if the local copper didn't give you a flogging, your dad certainly did.

Once again, spoiled by do-gooders.

It's just that nobody today has the balls, and if they do, then they are criticized for it. Bob Katter being one such example.

Welcome to the world of soft cocks.

...Rectub: I think you are pretty close to sensible on this issue such as you detail above. A consensus on this subject is impossible, but what is possible is a genuine National debate on the seriousness of Alcohol abuse and its huge cost to individuals and our communities generally.

...As Bob Katter attempted to highlight in Parliament yesterday during question time, but failed..http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2013-03-12.35. Alcohol is a National problem; to arrive at any lasting solution to the serious issue of Alcohol this point needs to be accepted. Using the Aboriginal communities as a diversion to the issue simply plays into the hands of the Alcohol Industry and will not solve the National problem Alcohol is.

...http://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/food+diet/nutrition/what+alcohol+is+really+doing+to+you,8499?gclid=CLzEppCB_LUCFQE6pgodFXwAHw. You do have a right to kill yourself if you wish, however it is the harm to Children which is the inevitable consequence of Alcohol that should be urgently addressed Nationally.

Rectub: That link to Hansard above failed, but if your interested in Katters question, roam around that site under Aboriginal affairs, yesterdays date. it'l pop up. I think its pretty telling! Much to Katters annoyance Macklin evaded the question with a Motherhood statement as a response; Is that a surprise?

Try this...

http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2013-03-12.35.1&s=speaker%3A10352#g35.2

No one has mentioned the pushers. The legalised drug dealers called the alcohol industry.

The AHA has the same mindset as the tobacco industry and is using the same lies and dirty tricks to blame everyone but their patrons the pushers.

Funny how alcohol has been around forever but only recently have we seen this explosion of drunkeness and violence on our city streets. The correlation between that and the rise of uber marketed alcohol and the excessive availability of booze, everywhere, all the time, is impossible to miss.

Oh and if they can do it for fags they can do it for grog.

Plain packaging, no advertising and massive taxes.

I wonder how bad it has to get before we act?

Obviously the view of a radically thinking non drinker I would say MiKk.

If we keep punishing decent folk, as a means of controlling rat bags, trouble will brew.

I dont have a problem with tobacco taxes, although plain packaging in my view is another dud, but then just one fag a day is harmful, whereas a few drinks a day is not.

Laws must recognize and respect the rights of law abiding citizens as well.

rehctub - "a few drinks a day" may well be excessive and causing harm - unless the choice is low alcohol beer.

Even then more than 2 cans or stubbies exceeds AMA recommendations of no more than 2 standard drinks daily. That's for males. It's half the amount for females.

Be aware of your own consumption and the long term implications if you are enjoying more than that on an everyday, or near daily basis.

However you obviously have no problems with the price of and tax on tobacco so increases in the cost of alcohol will surely be of no real concern?

Whatever reduces the availability of cheap alcohol reduces consumption levels. Responsible drinkers will be hardly affected. We will still enjoy a stubbie or two with friends over a weekend BBQ or glass of wine with dinner.

The main impact will be on the heavy or binge drinkers.
"User Pay" No problem!

Of course it is entirely possible to enjoy a nice cold beer whilst only paying GST for it and saving yourself - and the government - all that alcohol excise: home brew.

It's extremely easy and I find it a pleasant hobby. Your beer is a lot cheaper and you get the added satisfaction of denying the Government the excise they try to gouge out of you just because they can. And for those of you who care about such things, home brew has a much smaller carbon footprint than commercial beer. It even has plain packaging which should keep the teetotalers happy.

Cheers,

Tony

DM, if you look at my posts, I clearly state that a couple of LIGHT BEERS A DAY, and by the way, I dont smoke.

Now you go to say that an increase in alcohol prices will fix the problem, um, it didnt work last time, so what makes you think it will this time?

I can remember a day, not that long ago, when a carton of gold stubbies was just over 20 bucks. Today, try just under 40 bucks.

Mixers were under 10 bucks for a four pack, today, just under 20 bucks.

A goon bag was around 6 bucks, I'm only guessing now that they are around 12 to 15$

So this proves your theory to be wrong I would suggest.

I domt drink to excess, in fact, tonight, when I drove my 5 hr tip home, I sat on the deck with my wife and watched the sun set over buitiful moreten bay and had two rums.

I don't think these have caused me any harm. But two is enough, as I know when to stop, which is exactly why I don't think I should pay extra just because some looser can't stop.

Another problem DM is that most people with an addiction, whether it be alcohol, cigs, gambling, drugs, what ever, usually forego what normal people consider as, essentials, in order to feed their addiction.

Now whie I accept they have a problem, why should I be paying more for my alcohol, in an attempt to curb their usage, god knows I already subsidize their medical bills and other things, as most of the money spent on addicts comes from evryones taxes, theirs included, assuming they hold a full time job.

Rehctub - I see you did write earlier you generally enjoy a couple of LIGHT beers or glass of wine.

However you posted more recently: "... just one fag a day is harmful, whereas a few drinks a day is not" - a misleading statement and what I responded to. A "few drinks" is usually one or more too many.

Two standard drinks a day for males, one for females is the generally accepted limit. A standard drink is a 375ml bottle of mid strength beer, a 100ml glass of red or 110ml of white wine (average alcohol %)or 30ml of spirits. Share (and polish off) a standard 750 bottle of wine with the good woman over dinner? That's 6 to 8 standard drinks between you. Fine on the odd occasion but not every night. Also many experts recommend at least 1 alcohol free day per week.

If people understand what IS a STANDARD DRINK and adhere, fine, but how many do? In my experience not a lot of awareness and often deliberate ignorance. Example: Good many years ago now ... Colleague obtaining medical history from a middle-aged man being admitted for cardiac problem. Dr:"Do you drink alcohol" "Yes" Dr: "How much?" "Aww, I usually have a couple of rums after work ..." "OK ..." 48hrs later bloke is in the DTs ... His "couple of rums"? 2 or 3 water glasses full weekdays, more on weekends ... (Sloppy work by Dr followed by reprimand but get my point?)


You ask why should we pay more for alcohol when we are responsible consumers? Short answer is "For the common good". Just as all who pay tax fund education whether we have children at school or not or the home owners rates funds the swim centre, though no-one in the household ever used it ...

Benefits to society in curbing abuse of alcohol and, or at very least, deriving more tax out of its sales will offset any extra expense you or I and maybe the majority of users will incur and all in very short time.

divine and others, I guess we will agree to disagree on this one.

...Well I’ll sum-up my point. The big-stick should be used against the “Alcohol Industry” as it was used against the Tobacco Industry for example. Swat teams flying into central Australia to harass Aboriginal communities is “Force” at the wrong end of the problem! I totally agree with Bob Katter on this one!

...It smacks of a “Cop-Out” punishing any community member for Alcohol abuse when grog flows down the gutters of our towns and cities. Too much of it and far to available, is the problem which only Governments can fix; but the worsening problem of Alcohol abuse needs urgent attention!

Yes DD and none of this abuse happens without CASH!

In all of the mostly unrealistic and inane comments I did not see anyone mention the term 'rehabilitation'. Making alcohol more expensive or harder to obtain will not address the problem and could make it worse. Do you know what an an addict will do when the substance of choice is not available? They will invariably seek out another regardless of its legality. There is already a massive drug problem in many Aboriginal communities and creating a larger market by making alcohol more expensive is not a solution.

What is needed are more detox and rehabilitation facilities...not just in Aboriginal communities but across Australia. Try getting into a facility and unless you are rich or a celebrity it is so difficult...even more so if you have job and financial commitments. A whole new approach is needed as alcohol is causing problems for every community.

If you compare the aid and supports offered to smokers to that for alcoholics what is there? The occasional ad for AA, which has a success rate of around 2%. And good luck running AA meetings in many Aboriginal communities. The government rakes in billions from alcohol sales and puts a miniscule amount back into rehabilitation. Heck, you can't even do a detox in a public hospital anymore...they don't want you taking up a bed.

Some contributors on here need a reality check when it comes to alleviating alcoholism. Price rises will do nothing but create other problems. What is needed is dedicated support and rehabilitation programs…oh but they cost money don’t they so that won’t be done. In which case you reap what you sow…failure.

Minotaur is ignorant, at least in some respects. Massive international research shows rehab for alcohol abusers is rarely effective; compared to other investments of taxpayers' funds, it is not really responsible to put too much funds into rehab, except in those rare circumstances where it is proving to be cost effective.
Supply reduction has been shown to be by far the most effective way to reduce alcohol-related problems. The alleged universal displacement to drugs is a fallacy; the usual pattern is partial displacement, with an overall beneficial balance, with reduction of overall addictions and misuse rates.
There is excess capacity of rehab beds in relation to Aboriginal alcohol users in many parts of Australia. If it wasn't for referrals by courts, very few beds would be filled in many of these facilities.

Ignorant in some respects...really Dan? Have you spent time in rehab facilities for Aboriginal people? I have mate. And rehab is far more effective than AA or NA alone. You will also find that rehab itself is very successful if there are support structures in place once people leave...it is when those support structures are not in place or not used that failure occurs.

Any addiction is difficult to overcome in the long term but are you seriously suggesting rehab is a waste of time and funds? And if you had spent time with alcoholics/addicts you would find that there is a great deal of substitution when the substance of choice is not available. That substitution can involve illicit and licit substances.

If there is any ignorance at play it is from those with no experience of addiction and those who battle to keep it at bay.

Dan F,

Surely a multi-pronged approach would be required to address alcohol abuse in its many evident facets - limiting supply in some areas, increasing its price, a concerted media and education campaign to communicate the social dangers and detrimental health resultants of excessive or habitual alcohol consumption, and a concerted effort to provide meaningful occupation and/or employment for everyone physically and mentally capable of such a re-direction of their time and energy.
After all, what is the use of rehabilitation services if people don't realise they have a problem in the first instance, and if there is no useful alternative (and hopefully meaningful) occupation for them after their rehab?
Alcohol abuse, or misuse, is a 'societal' or 'cultural' retrograde derivative in some quarters - as in some 'camp' situations, and as in binge drinking and excessive consumption by many of our youth at large, leading to rowdy, ill-disciplined and sometimes aggressive and bullying behaviour - and most likely can only be addressed and remediated by a shift in cultural and societal norms, including through education, a crackdown on anti-social behaviour, limiting opening hours of pubs, clubs and nightspots, limiting supply to youth at bottle shops, etc, and a general lack of tolerance of alcohol abuse and misbehaviour by our society at large and in all quarters.

Only a targeted approach could have any chance of success, and no strategy can be of long lasting effect without taking proper account of the very real psychological and cultural vectors at play in the use and abuse of alcohol or any other drug in and by our society. One size does not fit all, but an overall rejection of the misuse of any drug should be the overriding objective. Nothing less will do.

I know, let's have another enquiry, we can even pay some retired judge a couple of million (borrowed money of cause) so we can all feel warm and fuzzy as at least we would be doing something about it.

Or, we could simply address the issues that aid the problem in many cases.

Cash, and no job.

Then, we can start punishing the offenders and when they are under age, punish the parents.

,meanwhile, us sensible drinkers can get back to our affordable beers.

Minotaur - yes, I have worked in Aboriginal alcohol rehab services, also in support and ancillary services for those who go through rehab.
I have also studied the subject over many years, and read widely in the literature, which generally demonstrates the relative ineffectuality of both substance abuse education and rehabilitation.
Most health promotion activity is relatively ineffective in terms of prevention, although as you say, some targetted substance misuse education material is essential as part of the overall package or "multi-pronged effort". The real issue is getting the relative investment into the separate elements of the prong calibrated correctly.
Saltpetre: I agree, rehab and education are not "complete wastes of time", and I believe that effort should be made in these areas, but to put too much hope in these areas would be wasteful and delusional: we have to act primarily and strongly in the areas which are most productive at preventing these harms, in both the immediate and longer term senses, and spend much of the available funds in those areas.
Sometimes this will mean buying out licenses, varying licences, ensuring much greater compliance with regulations and licence conditions, collecting better data nd analysing it quickly, overcoming the alcohol industry'splitical payments and contributions to influential lobby groups like the IPA, opinion setters, sports clubs and politicians.
Targetted interventions, brief interventions, and most importantly multi-systemic intensive targeted therapies are expensive, but do work, as do nurse home visitation and early childhood interventions (in terms of minimising the propensity to be vulnerable to addictions later in life).
Anything which minimises impulsivity is useful in the preventative sense.
But most of all, minimising availability (in terms of reduced hours of sale, reduced number of outlets, higher price per standard measure of pure alcohol, reduced leakage to underage drinkers, and minimising access to the most harmful cheap/popular products which appeal to impulsive young drinkers) will give us by far the greatest return on investment.
Prevention is far better than cure, and limiting availability is by far the most effective form of prevention.

Thanks Dan Fitzpatrick. It could well be argued that revenue from higher taxes on alcohol and the savings in Health, Welfare and Policing/Justice that any reduction in usage will bring about would be available for rehab spending. I agree with Dan. Easy enough to put someone through rehab, a whole different matter keeping them sober, a whole waste of time if there is no sincere commitment. True of all addictions ...

As a society we've accepted the damage tobacco does and taken steps to discourage smokers in a variety of ways. I'd suggest though, that the most effective strategy, other than breaking the news to someone that they have a serious related disease, to reduce incidence and extent of smoking has been through pain in the wallet. It's time to accept the damage alcohol is doing, to admit the problem is growing despite 'education programs' and other 'soft' approaches and be prepared to turn the screws on the alcohol industry and drinkers.