The author is wondering why these laws are in place, easily, get a haircut and join the police force. I think you will find out quite quickly the difference between theory and practice.

"If governments were really concerned with our health..."

Well now you've disproved that premise, perhaps you should consider a different theory of government; one with more explaining power?

You might find a coincidence between those with an interest in receiving income, power or prestige from government, and the expansion and activities of government? That would explain both sets of facts, wouldn't it? It also has the advantage of simplicity; and the bleeding obvious. You never know, one day you might give up altogether the fictitious superstition in representative government.

Look To the Future.
It is time to Resist Oppose and to Reject the Acceptance and the Expansion of the Destructive Alcohol Culture that has developed amongst our People. This Culture with it's False Values has already made a Permanent and Adverse Impact on the younger generations of our children. For the sake of our great, great, great grandchildren we must make a stand. And to recognize the entrenched "Aboriginal Victim Industry" (AVI) as a "Major Contributing Factor" to the present situation. The Victim Industry are those employed, whom continue to Foster and to Assist this circle of dependency and irresponsibility, to maintain employment credibility. To create access to further funding, to Further Encourage and to Perpetuate, in their Ignorance, the Victim Status and Mentality of Aboriginal and Islander People and a Culture and Values that is Disastrous to the Aboriginal People and Devastating to the Aboriginal Cause in this Country.
(Arthur Bell c. 9/99/)

This is all very simple

Why should people who can handle alcohol and drink in moderation be bothered by the self-indulgent retards who choose not handle their alcohol by drinking to excess?

Why should I, as a (very) modest drinker, have my quiet enjoyment of a common public space (the street), be disturbed, threatened or outraged by some vomit spewing drunk, urinating against the wheel of my car?

The answer – I should not.

Those who cannot handle the amount of alcohol or drugs they consume remain accountable for their actions but

they do not deserve access to the resources of public medical facilities, designed and funded by the taxes I pay for real emergencies rather than self-inflicted ones.

what they do deserve is to be left, in a cold gaol cell, laying in their own spew and bodily secretions, safely away from real people, until they (or maybe phone a friend) can pay a hefty fine before crawling back to whatever stone they creeped out from under in the first place.

I know one idea popular among law enforcement is a return to public humiliation penalties – maybe public stocks or pillory, since so many whoosies seems to think birching is inhuman.

Or maybe something like the “tent-prison” set up in USA (http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/), where the standard uniform is a pretty pink colour and coffee, meat and airconditioning are not options.

I think I am with the forces of law enforcement on that one and the tent-prison.

"The disgraceful fact is that Indigenous Australians are imprisoned at a rate higher than Blacks under apartheid in South Africa." Well I guess one way to lower the indigenous imprisonment rate in Australia is to introduce apartheid. No doubt that move would be supported by Australian indigenous bodies.

I live next door to a 'walkthrough' - in reality, an alleyway - with a liquor store less than a kilometre up the alley and another less than a kilometre in the other direction. Come pension day, the steady stream of people carrying cartoons of booze in every direction is a sight that must be seen to be believed. I will note, as well, given that the author brought race into the discussion, that the procession is exclusively aboriginal. Maybe the white drinkers are also drink drivers, or maybe the white people in my neighbourhood simply do not drink as much. They certainly don't seem to get drunk and roam the streets on a regular basis.

At the end of pension day or, more accurately, at 3am the morning after pension day, the alley is already strewn with smashed glass and empty cans. Twice in the last six months, I have had my fence smashed and endured a night of terror as palings are bashed against my security screens while drunkards shout abuse at my house. I have no problem with drunks staying at home or at a mate's place. People can drink as much as they want - that's not my problem. But when someone else's public drunkenness means that walking down the footpath or across my front lawn in a pair of thongs is unsafe, then I am in full support of laws prohibiting public drunkenness. It has been illegal in Queensland for over a century - perhaps a bit of enforcement wouldn't go astray.

I live next door to a 'walkthrough' - in reality, an alleyway - with a liquor store less than a kilometre up the alley and another less than a kilometre in the other direction. Come pension day, the steady stream of people carrying cartons of booze in every direction is a sight that must be seen to be believed. I will note, as well, given that the author brought race into the discussion, that the procession is exclusively aboriginal. Maybe the white drinkers are also drink drivers, or maybe the white people in my neighbourhood simply do not drink as much. They certainly don't seem to get drunk and roam the streets on a regular basis.

At the end of pension day or, more accurately, at 3am the morning after pension day, the alley is already strewn with smashed glass and empty cans. Twice in the last six months, I have had my fence smashed and endured a night of terror as palings are bashed against my security screens while drunkards shout abuse at my house. I have no problem with drunks staying at home or at a mate's place. People can drink as much as they want - that's not my problem. But when someone else's public drunkenness means that walking down the footpath or across my front lawn in a pair of thongs is unsafe, then I am in full support of laws prohibiting public drunkenness. It has been illegal in Queensland for over a century - perhaps a bit of enforcement wouldn't go astray.

Col Rouge,

The entitlement to assistance when you are ill or in difficulties has nothing to do with desert or how you became ill. It has everything to do with your significance as a human being.

You might note that a consequence of your premises is that no one whose illnesses are the result of eating the wrong foods or failing to exercise enough would be entitled to treatment. (And so on.)

Well it comes down to rights.

The right for a complete drunken lout to walk down the street abusing others and possibly assaulting a few innocents along the way. Or the rights of people to walk about freely without the increasing risk of drunken hooliganism to impact apon their wellbeing and safety.

I lean towards the innocent citizens going about minding their own business.

Police are in a no win situation always painted as the bad guys. It is true that we don't wish to live in a police state, but for the police to be able to diffuse or prevent unlawful behaviour, they do need some freedom within the law to move people on. It is about making a judgement - something police are required to do everyday.

I don't think this is the beginning of the new police state. I would be more concerned about muffling of public servant or corporate whistleblowers or anti-terrorism legislation that seeks to protect the very freedoms we have come to accept within a democracy by turning those freedoms firmly on their head.

Well said Otokonoko! I don't care what idiots do in their own backyard as long as it is only themselves they are putting at risk (small chance unfortunately) but if I'm out in public spare me the offence of being harrassed by f-wits full of booze or dope of some kind.

As for playing the race card: I suppose those indigenous folk are in jail because they were riding a bicycle without a helmet eh? Yeah - they're just thrown in the pen to keep jails in business. Sure thing - NOT!

Someone explain to young Stuart that to be an Aboriginal in jail you have usually done something WORSE than having 'group sex' with a 'consenting' 11 year old. Like in my home town paper today Mr Indigenous Citizen recieved 18 mths (with non-parole period of 8 mths) for 3rd serious assault charge in less than 2 years - this time for repeatedly punching, kicking and attempting to strangle his de-facto while she cradled her year old child. She undoubtedly trying to protect the kid as it had set off the violence by meddling with the thugs mobile phone. Now it is a wonder the Magistrate didn't come up with some BS that it was culturally appropriate to give his Mrs a good flogging and discharge him with another slap on the wrist ....

Anti-drunk laws, if nothing else, send the message that public intoxication is not acceptable and give Police some additional powers to move idiots along before situations deteriorate further.
It's not before time either with ever increasing disrespect for both the law and rights of the silent majority.

Ozbib, I agree that people who are sick and under the influence of alcohol should be able to access health care.
Although, having worked in hospital ER where injured drunks have verbally and physically abused me, it is very hard sometimes!

However, I don't believe it is quite the same problem as those who eat too much or don't exercise! You don't see these people roaming the streets causing mayhem and damage like drunks do (unless they are drunk and unhealthy too!).

The police need to have the right to remove drunks from public places and safely detain them until they sober up, and then charge them for any damage or injuries they caused while drunk.
No matter what their race or creed.

Stuart,

As drunks often tend to get violent long before they start slurring, this measure will allow the police to intervene before an incident gets out of hand.

That the existing laws may have been misused in the past means that the misuse needs to be dealt with and not sound reasoning behind the laws.

Ozbiz “The entitlement to assistance when you are ill or in difficulties has nothing to do with desert or how you became ill. It has everything to do with your significance as a human being.”

Drunks and the drug dependent display so little human understanding of their social responsibilities as to fall below the threshold for consideration as “human beings” and qualify, at best, as “sub-human”.


Public drunkenness and drug abuse are self inflicted criminal pursuits.


It is you, not me, who are trying to extend the rules for the criminal act of public drunkenness and taking of illicit drug into the non-criminal sufferers of eating and other disorders, obviously, to suit the sentimentality and emotional pull of your invalid and illicit argument.


I would note, In every civilized community, there is no “entitlement” without someone meeting an “obligation”.


You are claiming an entitlement, to public hospital services, for those who, through their criminal behavior, have failed to meet the “obligation” to obey the law.

Now when you can argue against the reasoning, of "obligation" to balance "entitlement", come back...



I am sure a pillory set up in every town and city square, where the drug abusing louts and drunks can be pelted with decaying food products (probably the closest some of them get to green vegetables) by the "law abiding" is the closest we could get to the correct, cost effective atonement for these sort of minor offenses

I am surprised at the level of blatant discrimination, not to mention racist remarks. These people should have the right to get drunk wherever they want. Who are you to screem fowl, just because it does not suite you. What we need is 24 hr/day nite clubs. That way the drunks would not have to put up with you lot.

Col Rouge <"...am sure a pillory set up in every town and city square, where the drug abusing louts and drunks can be pelted with decaying food products (probably the closest some of them get to green vegetables) by the "law abiding" is the closest we could get to the correct, cost effective atonement for these sort of minor offenses"

A loving thought there Col! I am sure you would be far more comfortable living back in the middle ages with all those wonderful tortures available to you!
Not helpful.

Desmond
What has racism got to do with drunken behaviour?

Suzeonline “A loving thought there Col! I am sure you would be far more comfortable living back in the middle ages with all those wonderful tortures available to you!
Not helpful.”

Wikipedia – Pillory –“The pillory was a device made of a wooden or metal framework erected on a post, with holes for securing the head and hands, formerly used for punishment by public humiliation…..”

Torture? Hardly…. Oh it could be used for torture too.. but so can a bucket of water.

I recall the hue and cry over the Isle of Man retaining the birch for minor public order offences form all the whiny whoosies in UK back in the 1970s...

imho the sooner we bring back real punishments the better, instead of pandering the the excess of those who feel "entitled" to abuse public and private facilities and individuals alike.

Maybe rather than rant the rider you could make some comment to the body of my post and I bet you would find yourself in agreement… or are you one of the whoosies who think people are entitled to indulge in everything but with an obligation for nothing?

Your objection convinces me how appropriate the return of the public pillory would be.

Desmond – not sure what you are sniffing but I think you must have brewed a bad batch.. try more battery acid next time.

To your point “That way the drunks would not have to put up with you lot.”

My peaceful enjoyment of public amenities does not interfere with drunks ability to defecate while remaining fully dressed

but his use of my car as a public urinal or punch bag on which to express his frustrations with the failure of his life does interfere with my peaceful enjoyment.

When you have a real post try writing it up, until then… go and find a “rational reason” before you bother to put finger to keyboard.

Col Rouge <"...or are you one of the whoosies who think people are entitled to indulge in everything but with an obligation for nothing?"

Col, you obviously didn't read my previous post where I made my position on drunken behaviour quite clear.

Nurses like me have probably dealt with awful drunken behaviours and their consequences far more often than most people.

The reason we have given up all the humiliating punishments that people like you want to see returned is that law abiding citizens no longer want to stoop as low as the behaviours displayed by drunks!

I am quite happy to leave it to the police and courts, rather than to aggressive vigilantes

Suzionline “I am quite happy to leave it to the police and courts, rather than to aggressive vigilantes”

Please quote where in my post did I suggest any “vigilante” action.

I did mention in my first post on this thread, a swell of opinion that “public humiliation punishment” was a view which held popular support among members of the police force

Re “The reason we have given up all the humiliating punishments that people like you want to see returned is that law abiding citizens no longer want to stoop as low as the behaviours displayed by drunks!”

Speak for yourself, whilst I do not advocate losing a hand for theft etc, I do believe we do need to consider the lenient way we treat the perpetrators of sometimes violent and always anti-social behavior.

Pillorying a drunk is not the same as violently assaulting other members of the public or police and it can be avoided by the drunk simply not behaving in an anti-social manner

(re “I know one idea popular among law enforcement is a return to public humiliation penalties – maybe public stocks or pillory, since so many whoosies seems to think birching is inhuman.”)

So I am happy for police to charge them and then stand them before a magistrate to receive what the magistrate considers “the judgment of their fellow citizens” which should include a defined number of hours locked in a public pillory or stocks, to receive the acclaim or otherwise of law abiding citizens.

Anyway back to the real issue

It is up to the drunks and drug abusers to stop committing criminal offenses, including assaults on police, hospital staff and private citizens.

It is not up to the police hospital staff or private citizens to make excuses or exceptions for the lack of responsibility and consideration exercised by those who cannot deal effectively with their substance of choice.

Drunks and drug abusers simply need to shoulder their share of “obligation”, to behave civilly , which is required of anyone who feels “entitled” to enjoy public places

Col Rouge,

It was you who argued
'they do not deserve access to the resources of public medical facilities, designed and funded by the taxes I pay for real emergencies rather than self-inflicted ones'.

My point is that the entitlement to medical care does not depend on desert.

As for your assertion that drunks are sub-human, It is false. They still have the capacities to reason, to choose values and act on them, to feel pain--even if some of those are temporarily blunted by the alchohol.

In any case, we have obligations in respect of animals too.

I don't argue that people are entitled to behave badly while drunk, or that they should be free from punishment.

I'd be interested to know what theory of punishment you adopt. It is hard to discern through your posts how you justify one kind of penalty rather than another.

Ozbiz “They still have the capacities to reason, to choose values and act on them, to feel pain--even if some of those are temporarily blunted by the alchohol”

Obviously you have not tried to “Reason” with a drunk or someone high on methamphetamines.

I repeat, having spurned their obligation to behave civilly they do not deserve any entitlement to public medical facilities to apply remedy to their self-inflicted injuries or medical risks

“In any case, we have obligations in respect of animals too”

that is why we shoot race horse when they are injured.

Are you suggesting we shoot drunks and drug abusers too?

“I'd be interested to know what theory of punishment you adopt. It is hard to discern through your posts how you justify one kind of penalty rather than another.”

I doubt anyone could objectify punishment however, since we are all equal under the law, I would assume a listed punishment would be objectively applied and a pillory / humiliation punishment being objectively applied would see lots of unruly drunks and drug abusers locked in a position of public prominence for a number of hours – available for the law abiding public to demonstrate their distain for the miscreants.

Nothing you have said is in the least convincing.. .

try again if you wish.