"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.