Why don't we make it just as criminal as drunk driving?. How about we make the tolerance levels for being drunk in public just the same as drink driving?.

Do you have a basic right to be OFF YOUR HEAD in a public place?. On drugs you don't, why on alcohol?.

I work in the security industry and VERY frequently have to deal with idiots who are drunk beyond all that's necessary. Frequently they are agressive, argumentative, violent, rude, and in the way.

If you appear, or give me reason to be believe you are drugged or suffering from a mental illness (late at night, occasionally daytime) I call the police (for yours and my own good) so they can assess you. You get left to it, or taken home, or to a place that's appropriate to the issues you've raised.

Once again. Do you have a basic right to be OFF YOUR HEAD in a public place?.

They used to have an act in New South Wales called the Summary Offences Act STG.
As a young Constable I could arrest anyone I wanted to under that act if I thought they were drunk.
We would pick them up and take them down to the police station and charge them and give many of them a hot meal and a bed for the night and then in the morning we would let them go on their own recognisance and off they would go and it was a cycle that many street people were caught in.
Not all were homeless... sometimes we would get troublemakers, and drunken hoodlums and they didnt get the same treatment we gave the homeless folk.
Sometimes we got a bit rough... then they calmed down.
This was before I was a born again christian.
Someone later on got the bright idea that we didnt need the Summary Offences Act and they dropped it. I think to the detriment of many street people.
Many would have died afterwards ...no cops to love them.
Vagrancy also went.
You know...in those years, on freezing cold Sydney streets, I reckon we saved the lives of many men by taking them in and giving them a meal. They were needy people and thanks to the Summary Offences Act we were quiet heros. Bring that Act back I say. The act got cut because of cheap government. We see cheap government everywhere today. Cheap government is killing ordinary people. I wonder if we could have PEOPLE POWER one day?

You have a basic right to do whatever the hell you want. Society restricts those rights as they deem fit, usually because something's illegal (getting drunk isn't) or it harms others (public drunkenness potentially qualifies).

So I think the real question is: Do we have good cause to disallow people from being drunk in public?

StG, I'd rather see restrictions placed on those who have shown that they cause trouble for others when drunk. Let the consequences lie with those who do the wrong thing rather than penalising everybody.

Not as easy a solution as just banning it but I have a strong dislike for allowing the government to regulate the lives of those who have not shown themselves to require such regulation.

R0bert

You actually don't have the right to do whatever the hell you want, Vanilla. Where I work you don't even have the basic right to even be there. You're a guest of the management. That 'invitation' can be removed at any time. The Police would disagree about your statement about being allowed to do whatever the hell you want, as well.

How about we figure out NON-DRIVING injuries and deaths related to alcohol and compare those stats ONLY related to drink driving. Then, if the non-driving drunk stats outweigh the driving stats then I reckon we could state yes, we DO have good cause to disallow people from being drunk in public.

I'm gonna run out fo comments REAL soon. Sigh.

RObert said;

"StG, I'd rather see restrictions placed on those who have shown that they cause trouble for others when drunk."

Same could be said for drink driving. Everyone has different tolerance levels and not everyone has drunk drove. But still, it's illegal for everyone to do it. Same argument. The courts are FULL of first time offenders.

Attack on binge drinking is only a ploy from Kevin Rudd.
When Tony Blair was being attacked in the British Press over a scandal with his wife Cheryl Blair. Alistair Campbell advised Tony Blair that he can divert attention by announcing an attack on binge drinking on teenagers. So lo and behold it worked the ploy worked what a good idea and people forgot about the Cheryl Blair Scandal.
Our Trusted Press the Sunday Times and the Impartial West Austrlian brought to light the scandal of Therese Rein wife of Kevin Rudd not dumping her job Centres that is a conflict of interest with the Prime Ministers duties. Then lo and behold Kevin Rudd brings in Alistair Campbell's ploy we will attack teenagers binge drinking so lo and behold it worked the pressure was taken off Kevin Rudd and his wife. We are up to your tricks Mr Rudd the voters will soon see through you Mr Rudd. I am curious to know if there is support in raising the Alchoholic drinking age to 21 all those in favour say AYE.

THE BENEFITS OF MARTIAL ARTS.... in dealing with drunken yobbo's :)

No, this isn't about me, but a mate from gym. (Stg, you will love this cobber).. he is one of the top Wushu exponents in the country, has been on TV a few times, and is very skilled.

His build is 'skinny to light' so definitely not the wharfie/truck driver/laborer build, and to look at him you would not think he would be much of a problem to deal with. *MISTAKE*

Last weekend, he was in Melbourne, with a friend and they'd been to some kind of SouthBank fancy dress thing, and they wandered from Southbank up to Chinatown. Feeling the need to 'go'..they went into an alley, and 'went'.. then they were confronted by 4 blokes (drunk) who seemed intent on smashing the life out of them.

The big one, came up and mouthed off at my mate, who, being a bit tipsy himself, gave as good as he got (verbally)..then..it happened.

THE BIG KING HIT.. from about a meter behind his shoulder, this big right hand starts it's arcing move towards my mates jaw/head... He saw it coming (had time for a cuppa between it's beginning and arrival) and blocked it with his VERY conditioned forearm. That's all it took. His forearm is like a baseball bat.. I know..I've felt it, tough as nails. The king of hits was reduced to a jibbering fool as he had nearly broken his arm, and then they (the 4) all looked at each other and scurried off humiliated.

STG.. yes, I agree, drunk in public places is 'not on'.....

1/ It leads to violence against others.
2/ If the 'other' is in better shape than you, and takes you down, your head can (and often does) hit the pavement and you end up brain damaged or dead.

"Attack on binge drinking is only a ploy from Kevin Rudd."

Posted by Julie Vickers, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 12:16:36 AM

What I'm suggesting is really unrelated solely to the 'binge drinking' smoke and mirrors. I'm talking about being unnecessarily drunk in public (fullstop). Whether that's binge drinkers, full blown 'alco's', the occasional drunk, underage, elderly, whoever, anyone, anytime.

BD.

The problem with even self defence is that it can get you in a power of...ummm...trouble, as well. Especially people like me who generally come across these people in an 'official' capacity (security industry), and I do, nearly everyday. If I have to defend myself against one of these individuals I still will get crucified by the media. You see it ALL THE TIME. Fortunately I've got a cool head. I know when to step back, and I know when to step in. I'm confident when I talk to you so I can generally talk you out of what your drunk sub-concious is wanting to do. Isn't always the case tho. That happens frequently also.

Do we have good cause to disallow people from being drunk in public?.

And

Do you have a basic right to be OFF YOUR HEAD in a public place?.

Yes we surely do have good cause to stop people being off their faces in public :)

On the self defense thing. My mate did say "If I'd seriosly hurt the bloke I'd have felt awful".

It's difficult to 'talk' your way out of a deliberate malicious assault.

But consider this. If that punch had landed, and my mates head had hit the pavement... with all the possible consequences...(including the obligatory kicks in the head and guts after he went down) or if he had actually punched or spin kicked the other bloke it would have been a much worse outcome.

I think this was a great example of the benefits of self defense, being used for exactly that, and with nothing more than a sore arm and a red face on the part of the perpetrator.

My policy is. 'Stop them'..but don't stop them then stomp" :)

With that in mind, I've learned one very effective BJJ hold, which should lock anyone up of any size until they have calmed down. (Head under the right armpit, left forearm around the left side of his neck,over his left shoulder, your other (left) arm linking to your right (around his back), and hold on for grim death. If they don't calm down, just apply some pressure to the side of their neck with your right forearm.

PS... had ur cuppa yet ? :)

Yet another example of the New Wowserism infecting our society. If people want to make a fool of themselves, why should they be stopped from doing so? StG made a comment that if they were on drugs it would be illegal per se, but not if they are drunk. I'd turn that around: if it's not illegal to be drunk, why is it illegal to be stoned? If the person is not harming others, of course.

It's funny how the people that propose these things are always happy to have the State tell (other) people what to do. 'tis always "thee", not "me"...

Antiseptic...there are a few intellectual 'germs' in that noggin of yours which may require autoclave treatment.

The point STG is making, I believe is that either drugs or alchohol BOTH tend to contribute to violent behavior. No, they don't make ALL imbibers or injectors or swallowers 'violent' but like anything, if you identify a trend..and can isolate a reason, and the stats are serious enough, you have to make a judgement call on whether to outlaw it or not.

NO DRUNKS... NO POTHEADS.. NO SPEEDFREAKS in public places :) so there.

The Biblical position is "Be not drunk with wine, but be filled with the Holy Spirit".. if people realized how much joy and happiness and sense of well being they can acquire throught a right relationship with God in Christ... there would be no drugs or booze being consumed.

LAW..and GRACE.
All we in the Churches can do, is maintain the absense of drunkenness and drug influence in our own sphere of influence by the sanction of 'disfellowshipping' people who engage in this kind of behavior while knowing it is wrong. (In God's eyes)

But in civil society, the rulers can make whatever law they feel is in the public interest. If that includes "No public drunkenness" then so be it.

BD: "Antiseptic...there are a few intellectual 'germs' in that noggin of yours which may require autoclave treatment."

Praise indeed!

BD: "drugs or alchohol BOTH tend to contribute to violent behavior."

And driving tends to contribute to road accidents, eating tends to contribute to obesity, going to church tends to contribute to Wowserism. thank you for your entry in this month's "bleedin' obvious" award.

Personally, I've been assaulted twice in my adult life. Once was by a work colleague while I was working in the mining industry, the other was by my partner at the time. Neither was drunk, stoned or in any way intoxicated. On the other hand, I've been affronted by the sight of religious types assaulting their children by dragging them around the suburbs proselytising countless times. I've been personally accosted and had my business disrupted innumerable times by those and similar door-knocking proselytes. Ban 'em all, I say. After all, I don't do that sort of thing...

Hi StG,
I mostly agree with RObert’s and Antiseptic’s posts and I’ve said something similar on the “Legal control of illicit drugs” thread.
Bad and irresponsible behaviour should be punished whether a person is drunk or sober- not for just being drunk.
I don’t mind heavier punishments for violent behaviour.

However, you do make a good point when you say, “Everyone has different tolerance levels and not everyone has drunk drove. But still, it's illegal for everyone to do it.”
The problem is that people just can’t judge their own driving performance when they’re affected by alcohol. So, to avoid people on the road who “think” they can drive safely while in reality their reflexes have slowed down, there simply needs to be a safe cut-off line. Conforming to the under .05 legal blood alcohol level is a very reasonable safety measure.
People are also not affected by the same level of alcohol the exact same way every time, e.g. it can depend on what or how much you ate before or even on the weather.

BD, I enjoyed the story about your martial arts friend :)

To me it seems the aim of some in society is to eliminate all risk. People used to accept risk as part of life, but now they want 'The Government' to 'do something' to stop anyone doing anything that has a risk attached or that they find personally annoying.

I fear for the children;-)

Some rock star (possibly Johnny Rotton from the Sex Pistols) once said "We (the working class) never accept responsibility for our own lives and that is why we'll always be down trodden."

StG: "The courts are FULL of first time offenders."

And the courts would be overflowing with drunk, spaced-out people who haven't hurt anyone, except maybe themselves.

I'm thinking about my misspent youth and young adulthood - if you had your way I'd have a criminal record for not hurting anyone.

For the record, I don't do anything now (chronic illness) and I REALLY MISS IT - I had fun and I'm glad I did.

No-one harmed and no regrets.

Lots of great times.

I think there are a lot more important issues, than whether someone had a toke on a spliff or a brew or two or three.

StG - I can appreciate that you might be a little jaded in your occupation. But draconian measures to further inhibit our choices and behaviours by government edict are, I consider, unnecessary. Indeed the creeping tide of restrictions in our daily lives is believed by many to be a root cause of frustration and violence.

If people weren't allowed to leave the house unless sober I would have missed out on the delightful sight of an elderly and very proper Aunt with two sherries under her belt on Xmas morning mincing across a snowbound round in high heels and a paper Xmas cracker hat to wish the neighbours merry - and subsiding gracefully into a snow drift with a Queenly wave. Or a dear friend at a deserted beach rinsing off the sand with her costume rolled down to her hips being sprung by a group of tourists. Or many other little incidents that caused us all occasions for mirth rather than sadness.

I don't advocate drunkeness - either in public or private. But neither do I advocate any more of the restrictions that are gradually eroding our lives - especially those that deprive us of harmless fun.

StG agreed that people have different tollerance levels. .05's not an ideal solution, it's a compromise because we don't have viable means of determining just how impared someone is. The difference between drink driving and drink socialising is that pretty much every bodies driving is significantly impared when they are drunk, only some peoples behaviour turn aggressive and or violent when drunk.

I found an interesting paper on research into young womens drinking paterns (and issues around male violence). I've not read it all but what I've read so far seems quite relevant.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/35/paper2.pdf

R0bert

Stg
There is a big difference between being over the legal driving limit and 'drunk off your face' as you quoted.

There is nothing wrong with someone being intoxicated in public providing theye are not annoying others.

After all, if not for those drunks as you call them there would be fewer taxi jobs, fewer nightclub jobs and most cetainly fewer security gard jobs. In fact, there seems to have been a huge influx of security personel positions in the past decade for the controling of these party goers, so unless you are planning a career change in the near future perhaps you should leave sleeping dogs lie as they say!

On the other hand, if you are one of these tea totling prudes that wouldn't know how to have fun if it bit you on the behind, then perhaps you need to 'get a life mate'!

It's your behaviour that matters, not your level of intoxication. Thus, drunk and disorderly is an offence, drunkenness is not. Drink driving is a different matter entirely, as there is a significant risk you will kill others unintentionally.

I actually don't disagree with alot of what most you guys say. I enjoy a drink. I enjoy a good piss-up, but I appreciate that you have the right to go out with your family and not have to deal with my drunk ass imposing on your night...or day.

There's drunk, and then there's DRUNK. Heavily intoxicated individuals are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. I'm not gonna keep beating this drum because I know it's pointless.

Just ask a cabbie, a cop, security, shop owners, bar staff etc etc what they think.

Fractele replied: "And the courts would be overflowing with drunk, spaced-out people who haven't hurt anyone, except maybe themselves."

Like junkies and drink drivers?.

StG
"Like junkies and drink drivers?."

Drink drivers I agree, need to be locked up in jail.
Junkies need medical help, not jail if they have not harmed anyone else.

Drunk in public places. I would be trying to find out what is causing this over intake of this drug.( Like I don't know and profiling)Smile.
When I was a young man, we would get off the planet, but no fights would happen. If anything, we would laugh until our faces hurt. But we did notice a few that lost control and we wondered, well i did, what they were angry about.
I grow up in a balanced world, I guess their world wasn't the same as mine or my mates, but don't get into anyone-else's blue, I tried that and got my face punched in. I picked my friends every carefully, and this led too my happy existants. We were surfers and we just rode the waves, in-tune with our world, and as far as we were concerned, being at peace with ones-self made us a happy little bunch of Vegemite's.

But how the world has changed.

You can have a good time, just ignore the idiots.

This is an insight and not a following.