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.