Unlike the author, I am unable to compare the boozing habits of Australians with those of foreigners, whose habits are of no interest to me. I do, however, care about Australians, who do appear to be particularly addicted to alcohol. The "social availability" of alcohol, as the author refers to it, is important, as it enables the abusers who turn up in emergency wards nightly.

Alcohol is THE most dangerous drug because it is legal, readily available, relatively cheap and, most importantly, socially acceptable and encouraged by advertising. People actually brag about how pissed they get! Something they should be ashamed of, and keep quiet is a badge of honour! Now, I agree that we have become far too nannyish and intrusive into private lives. If someone wants to drink himself to death at home, fair enough. But it becomes a public event, threatening the lives of other people, costing a lot of public money, threating the safety of ambulance and hospital personnel, I would say that governments are not intervening enough.

Despite the 'safe' two-standard-drinks-a-day guff peddled by dealers and medical 'experts', there is no safe intake of alcohol. You are drinking ethanol (which the combustion engine will tolerate only 10% of) loaded with sugar (think diabetes) and all sorts of additives to make the stuff palatable. The 'hint' of something desirable in 'fine wines' is there courtesty of a chemist who adds it to the mixture. It is poisonous rubbish; a fashionable, socially acceptable way of 'relaxing' by altering your brain - permanently in the long run. Surely 'nanny' has a duty to step in, here?

Yasou @Fotis Kapetopoulos, well written and easily understood article, well done. Having been to my fair share of Greek and Lebanese weddings etc I am 100% on your side re the Hookah. They dance well too!

As to closing times for Licensed Venues, that's another question entirely. I'd much prefer such laws were not necessary, but it appears to me that they are.

The reasoning for my conclusions are far different than yours and others. The core issue for me is the abdication of our politicians to ensure the ability of 'regulation monitors' to enforce the Laws as they are.

It is illegal to serve a patron who is already drunk. The fines are enormously high and yet they are repeatedly not adhered to. The way our duplicitous politicians (LNP/Labor specifically) pander to the special financial interests of 'for-profit publicans companies et al' is by never properly funding the resources necessary for the regulators to perform their duties according to Law.

Simultaneously crying poor that despite all the $Billions raised in Alcohol/Tobacco Excise, Company Taxes, and Poker machine revenue our duplicitous politicians then fail to adequately fund the necessary community / social / psychological medical services needed by a minority of citizens to address their anti-social addictions and public behavioral problems.

So to me the problem has nothing to do with "opening hours" and never has been. I have no issue for licenced premises to operate in places like the Cross 24/7 - the key issue is the intentional deception of our political class that they are or have ever acted "responsibly" in addressing the true causes. They have not.

So very easy to duck the truth in the mirror by pointing fingers at irresponsible drunks or 'open now signs' instead.

Therefore, the issues you have raised really have nothing to do with the false-theory of "a nanny state" at all, and is in fact all about the existing "abdication of responsibility" already in the hands of all levels of Government in this nation.

Kalispera!
-

The comments about social and dining lifestyles of other countries highlights the outcome of repressive attitudes towards personal behaviour.

Australia tends to be timorous about absence of government control of many things, possibly due to a degree of immaturity in some of its citizenry, as well as their indifference to the effects of any of their actions, speech, or thinking on those with whom they share existence.

As Cobber points out "The nanny state is nothing new, the challenge of finding the balance point between individual freedom and protection is a tough one". Those challenges are vast, exampled by regulation of vehicle driving, the discharge of firearms in public places, theft, all restrictive yet essential to communal survival.

In trying to differ between societal and individual harm, we err on the side of the majority effects and wish to ban those things which may be individually pleasurable yet varyingly harmful.

Aidan,

To continue this 'near off topic' theme, where are the warning signs for 'School Zone Ahead' and those for Give Way signs?
Most people virtually stop at 'Give Way' signs so they are effectively stop signs unless there is a good view in both directions.

Then there are the signs telling motorists to change lanes 'cause the left lane is ending; these are very important as the police and emergency services were stretched to the limit rescuing motorists who had come to the end of the left-hand lane and then didn't know where to go.

The Nanny State is also alive and well on railway stations where the platforms have little steel discs placed in rows so that the unwary can trip and possibly fall in front of a train.

Anyone know why the NSW 'HALT' signs disappeared?

We need to get this nanny state stuff right people.

First and foremost it is no such thing as a nanny state, there is no such thing as nannyism, it is tyranny, pure and simple. Its all about slowly withdrawing the right of free speech from the people.

Its all about training the population up to to think twice before expressing themselves. It's all about accepting more and more control over their lives by the government.

In other words, its all about control, people, government control of the population.

IT IS TYRANNY IN ACTION.

Daylight bathing was first proscribed in 1833 in the Sydney Police Act, which banned it around Sydney Cove. In 1900 news reports wrote of mixed bathing in France and in 1904 an Adelaide woman in neck to knee and cap went onto a men's beach. Law was enforced by flogging in 1830s and may be introduced for Muslim women in caps on a beach in France. Women in clothing om nudist beaches will be tackled and declothed. Men will need bikinis for same-sex marriage that's not sexist. Boat people are prohibited from beaches.