These days many of our streets are having to cope with drunken louts, in the early hours due to the closure of venues at the 3-5am mark.

The venue simply closes them out and says, 'they are someone else's problem now'.

This results in wasted resources (police and ambos) and it also causes grave concerns for many innocent folk simply going about their daily lives.

You know there is a problem when the big 'M' has security guards at 5am to keep these fools at bay.

So, what about if there were a safe level of intoxication set, say .15 while in a public place. That's three times the legal level to drive. It could be higher, who knows.

Now, once these people have had their fill, the venue must test them to make sure they are under the limit and, if they are over, the venue must quarantine them until such time as they are ready to leave, at great expense to the venue.

After all, it is the venue that allowed them to get to this state, so it is hardly fair that they simply cast them out and say,'it's someone else's problem now', which is what currently happens.

If nothing else, this would force the venues to adopt a safer alcohol management plan. Which, by the way they are supposed to do.

Ok Rechtub, let's hear from the defenders brigade. I'm looking forward to the academic social engineering outfit to put forward some solutions.

The issue of drunken and noisy youth usually brings the response of "change the licensing laws", this is not a solution, as full or partial prohibition punishes the majority for the deeds of the minority.

The solution is to beef up the Police presence in the area, not close the licensed venues early. This week on talk back radio the issue was one of new police stations that the NSW government has been pressured to open. Locals rang in to say that they had received a new "shop front" police station, that when manned was locked to the public and you needed to knock on the locked door to get their attention, what a joke, as is policing in NSW..

You are asking for a perfect world.
Police man on every corner, maybe closing down night life.
A return to the 1950,s pubs closing at 6pm?
The answer may in fact be removing the laws introduced over years, a lot by my party.
Laws that said it is ok to be drunk in the street ok to miss behave, seemingly to support the night life that is the heart of out city's.
And for most of us a break from the working day, the few are your target rechtub let them pay for their nonsense not us all.
And give the police a break that other comment they on most nights are flat out in domestic disputes .

there is a solution
licence drinkers..[all of em]
no licence..no legal licence...enabling your abitity to drink..[legally]

they buy the licence...at the pub..[with the first drink]
licence is cheaper at beginning of night...yearly drinking licence [no discount]

if on the record for bad drinbking habits..at a police station
or via a judge..[who sets the basic punative limits for trouble makers]

how it works..is you swipe your card ..into the pub computer
each time you want a drink...[it gets recorded onto the cards chip..and into the computer]

bassicly if you behave responsably..your limit gets increased
irrespobnsably it decreases..but any one can have two standard drinks
per night

or min of one shot spirits..per hour

i thought it could become a phone app
[this is my claim ..to any proffits made from that one]

there is need for photo id..[updated each time you drink]
100 points..or fingerprint..or eyescan

the more you use ..your drinkers licence
the less valid ..becomes your driving licence

lying/decieving..earns a day and a night in the lockup
and likely a court appearance ..and a fine

all revenue raised
goes to rehabiltation of problem drinkers

there is also a set increase in price
each drink costs progressivly more..but offsets a taxi home
points /credit accumulates..can be reddemed via the bottle shop [next day]

yeah i know i been thinking too much on this
but drink irresponsably..ya loose your licence

try to cheat the sytem..go to jail
directly to jail
do not pass go

patent right held by
johan nine
johan hendrick
one under god..de jure

RECTUB

"If you put sugar in your petrol tank.. you are going to destroy your engine"

Need I say more ?

Rectub, you are assuming that revelers only spend time at one venue.
I imagine if people were under the limit when they left one club, but consumed takeaway alcohol on the way to the next club, they would then already be over the limit! Are we then to test all those people when they first arrive at a venue?
It would all get just too hard for the pubs and clubs I think!

I like the idea of finger-print identification before you enter a club.
Once you have 'registered' your prints with a club, you get to keep going there as long as you behave. If you drink too much alcohol and cause trouble, or vomit all over the place or whatever, then your' fingerprints (and you) would be banned from that venue.

Eventually, the serial problem drinkers would be banned from all popular pubs and clubs they try to enter. That may well just keep them away from popular areas in the first place.

If all pubs and clubs had a database of all fingerprints of regular users, they could all ban the violent, alcohol-fueled louts from all the drinking venues.

Once again it's a matter of treating the symptoms and not the cause of the problem.

Suzyonline do you truly think it is ok to intrude one very ones privacy?
A club already wants photo id mostly gets drivers license and keeps it on file.
To have a night out?
Toughen up folks leave Joe and Jane average alone,$250 minimum fine instantly for bad behavior and spend the cash on rink problem people and extra police.

Sono>>The solution is to beef up the Police presence in the area, not close the licensed venues early

Sorry, but I don't recall saying that! Rehctub.

Belly>>You are asking for a perfect world

No, I am asking for a 'safe world'.

One where early morning joggers can do so without being harassed, or, where Mum and Dad can take the kids to Maccas without fear of trouble, or having to expose their kids to drunken violence.

The bottom line is that clubs and pubs should not be allowed to fill anyone with booze, then simply fob them off and say, 'it's someone Else's problem now' come closing time.

Now as for police, we need to better manage the resource, rather than increase the numbers. Why on earth we need three, four or even as many as eight police at a 'booze buss' is beyond me. One should be suffice, the rest can be trained personnel.

Now someone mentioned testing people when the enter a premises, well what's wrong with that! Wouldn't bother me.

They already check for 'IDs'. I wish!

Now I'm not opposed to people having a good time, it's just that we all deserve the right to walk the streets safely and go about our daily lives without fear of violence.

And remember, these premises are making a killing out of selling grog. The very least they can do is do it more responsibly.

Belly, they are already using fingerprint identification at clubs here in W.A. at least!

It prevents thugs and serial offenders from entering clubs again.
My daughter goes to clubs occasionally. She says her fingerprints are registered at these clubs and it is just a matter of popping your finger in a little slot as you pass through the door.

It takes no time at all and helps to keep her safe, so I am happy with it.
Those who don't go to clubs, or who don't have children who go to clubs will not care about it much though.
You have to keep up with the times!

Afraid in WA terms I am a wise man from the east Suzeonline, not that I am, just having a go at the rubbish we are called.
I fight for privacy every time I can, what else is on file?
Here its our drivers license and who knows gets that information,for a night out.
Fine drunken louts but your daughter and me?

This could help; 10PM closing times and stiff fines for anyone found drunk in a public place. $500.95 seems a good set fine and going up for second and subsequent offences by percentages of last financial year's taxable income; say 5% then 10% then 20% and so on.
I don't give a cuss for drinkers' and publicans' etc., rights.

Any so called rights that the consumers and purveyors of spiritous grog may have are over-ridden by the rights of ordinary citizens to go about their business without hindrance and this includes having to step around 'Saturday Night chucks' on the footpaths on any morning of the week.
The Government likes excessive drinking and drunks because it increases revenue and, having created the situation, they can then be seen to be 'doing something' by increasing the police force.

loutish brawling here brings heavy fines and banned from nightclubs for a time, determined by a judge. Their photograph is supplied to venues and if these people are found on a premis; the venue is the culprit.
To be drunk on a town street gets you accommodation at the local constabulary, at the police pleasure. ladies and gents in together.
Venues are by law not allowed to serve intoxicated persons, this means .05 and your out.

a597:

...Where is "here" a597? I subscribe to that system. Does it translate into less public drunkenness?

Watch the NT opposition commercials on this subject, they're on every night. They make a lot of sense, well to sensible people anyway.

"""
the venue must test them to make sure they are under the limit
"""

I'm surprised at you, rehctub? I would have thought you'd not be the type to put more pressure on local business to compensate for the incompetency of our government and police force. It was government that allowed the establishments to remain open to the late/early hours they do. It is also government that made the rule/law, drunk and disorderly that they fail to uphold through the lack of police on the street. Why then should a publican be lumbered with the job that we already pay our taxes for?

I think, perhaps, a stiff fine for the venue that served the last drink to a person who finds him/herself in trouble with the constabulary during a night on the turps. I'm aware that people do a fair bit of pub crawling (here in Townsville, almost the entire nightlife is crammed onto one side of one street). The reality is, though, that venues are required to serve alcohol responsibly. Their security guards are required to reject intoxicated people, and their bar staff are required to cut people off when they're too full.

Sadly, as rehctub notes, their solution is to turf people out onto the street when they're too charged up, making them someone else's problem. How ready to turf people out would they be if the drunken lout copped a night in the watchhouse and a slap on the wrist while they copped a $10,000 (or more) fine? It would certainly hammer home whose problem it actually is.

"""
I think, perhaps, a stiff fine for the venue that served the last drink to a person who finds him/herself in trouble with the constabulary during a night on the turps.
"""

Again, the burden is placed on the publican to compensate for the incompetence of our government and police force. We already pay taxes to them to look after these problems, why should the publican need to do their jobs for them? How would a publican know a patron is going to cause trouble on his way home? Not all drinkers cause trouble.

Years ago, 20 or more, the cops would deal with this behavior, why do they not now? It can't be lack of resources, they have more tax payers now and less need for police to be patrolling the roads due to cameras, so what's going on, where's the money gone?

One of the causes of much drunkeness is the unavailability of food & coffee in many bars. I have had first hand experience when we used to go out & had a few too many. Once you've had a gut ful you simply buy a ham roll & a couple of coffees & presto, the mind cleared sufficiently to continue self control. Of course we had our share of brainless mutts but in general they were a small minority.
I was really surprised at the attitude in Sydney & the Gold Coast etc. when young people were saying " let's get p....d". There wasn't any kind of socialising possible with the blaring music because people couldn't hear each other. Apparently, the culture has not yet changed all that much. I recall anyone caught with dope was handled like one by the Police. We didn't have many Cops then.
I really believe that it'll be a tough track for anyone to slow the trend nowadays but all it needs is don't give drunks & addicts priority in Hospitals. I recall one remote area nurse saying to a bloke who burnt himself with the hot oil he threw over his girlfriend, come back at five before we close after he presented himself at outpatients at 8am. I never did warm to this nurse but she still has my respect nearly 30 years on. The girl spent a few weeks in hospital. The bloke cut right back on drinking.

The publican is not doing the police officers' jobs for them. Under my proposal, the publican is being called upon to do his/her own job (the responsible service of alcohol) properly, and being fined for failing to do so.

What gets me is that it's either the Publican & or the Police whose "Job" it is to control brainless mutts. Let's stop beating around the bush, a mutt gets blotto, it's his fault & those with him. Not the person working in a bar.

I understand where you're coming from, individual, and while I disagree with you, both you and RawMustard have a point. It is certainly true that people who get drunk make a calculated decision to do so, in most cases. However, the person who sells alcohol to somebody who is intoxicated also makes a calculated decision.

I don't know what the laws are in other states, but in Queensland the responsibility of the service provider is clearly defined. I suspect that, nine times out of ten, serving that extra drink will have no negative consequences (other than a headache for the drinker the following day). However, when the publican or the employee chooses to turn a blind eye and break the rules, s/he takes a risk. If their actions contribute to violence in the venue or on the streets, I firmly believe that they have a case to answer.

Otokonoko,
Your policy would be no problem in a bar of only a few patrons. I'd like you to consider how much attention you'd be able to pay to patrons' level of indoxication when you haven't got time to look around on a busy evening.
Explain to me why it always has to fall into someone else's lap tp take responsibility ? I simply can not fathom this mentality. How would you feel if Johnny owed me a hundred Dollars & I turned around & say, Oktokonoko when are you going to give me a hundred dollars.

RM>>Why then should a publican be lumbered with the job that we already pay our taxes for?

The publican also has an obligation to not serve intoxicated people. Now, if they did their job, we wouldn't have to worry, would we!

Remember, the publican does not care about what happens after they close and this is where the problem lies and this is one area where we can improve on.

It is obvious that the current system is failing, so, we have to come up with new strategies and I am suggesting a legal limit while in public. .05 is far to low, but .15 may be the number, perhaps even .2, but there must be a magic number somewhere.

We have all but stopped smoking in public buildings, so we can do this.

Now as for fingerprinting, my kids to go to clubs and I have no problem what so ever with them having to provide this.

In my view we should all have to provide a DNA sample from birth. Then at intervals throughout our lives if required. It would reduce crime instantly in my opinion.

Indi>>Food is simply to expensive to provide, especially after midnight. $40 per hour for wages alone. Just wont happen as the profit margins in food are to low.

Now there is another solution. Random breath testing in venues, but first we have to have a legal limit established.

All I am seeking is safer streets.

Like I said, individual, I can see where you are coming from. However, a logical extension of your argument is an overturning of the law that prohibits the service of alcohol to intoxicated patrons. You are saying that bartenders are not able to determine whether or not patrons are intoxicated, so they should not have that responsibility. Do you really want this? I'm not saying the drunk abdicates all responsibility - I'm just saying that the burden is shared. If the establishment wishes to allow too many people in to accurately monitor levels of intoxication, that is their choice as well. What we are seeing here is a series of choices made by pubs and clubs to increase risk, while you seem to argue that they should not bear the consequences of that risk. I just don't agree.

Otokonoko,
I picture a real-life situation where a member of a group gets drinks from the bar & the bar tender has no way of knowing who the drinks are for.
This of course would be easier in a european style cultured bar where a waitress brings drinks to a table. A waitress would find it easier to determine if a member of a group has had enough. Problem is where to you find a cultured drinking establishment here ? I mean having rows of half-tanked people three-deep at the bar trying to out-yell each other over the full volume races monitors or the Juke box is part of the drinking problem. Were there waitress served tables you'd find a much more desireable environment with milder after effects..

"""
The publican also has an obligation to not serve intoxicated people. Now, if they did their job, we wouldn't have to worry, would we
"""

Have you even seen a violent drunk rehctub? Most of them don't appear drunk and you wouldn't know until they smack you in the mouth, I grew up with one and know several others.

How a publican is supposed to pick every violent drunk in his bar is beyond my imagination, I don't think it's possible; which brings me back to the cops being on the street and doing their job and the government providing the resources to ensure the problem drinkers are dealt with decisively. It doesn't take long to weed them out, they have a problem.

The government is lax in this department, they need to get tougher on the culprits and send a clear message, not create more bulldust rules that won't work and inconvenience business even further, we have enough of them already, sigh!

RawMustard,
We're constantly debating real-life issues with idealistic academic dreamers here. The challenge is to make these so-called intelligent people realise their actual lack of intelligence & grasp of reality. If you get enough people in a group all dreaming the same dream then to them that dream is reality. To people like me their reality is my nightmare. What, on this god-forsaken sphere of rock & salty water is it that makes so many simply not understand that your action is yours & your own responsibility not someone else's.
Btw. Otokonoko, where's my 100 bucks ?

Spare us the drivel about intelligence, individual. You're bound to make a fool of yourself otherwise.

You make a valid point: "your action is yours & your own responsibility".

So, when a bartender breaks the law and serves alcohol to an intoxicated person, that action is the bartender's and his/her own responsibility. When a publican allows more people into a venue than his/her staff can manage, that action is the publican's responsibility.

I know it's a difficult concept for you to grasp, but nobody here is excusing the behaviour of drunks. You, however, are defending the illegal behaviour of bartenders who (*sob*) couldn't tell if a person was drunk or not.

If you don't want the law to be enforced, it stands to reason that you want it abolished. No more "no more, it's the law". Only then I suspect you will be complaining about publicans exploiting drunks. To some, the world must seem a very dismal place.

Otokonoko,
Now you're reverting to the academic side again. Who said I was against enforcing Law ? Show me a sensible law first , then debate. If you read carefully I'm not defending drunks, I'm merely pointing out a common australian trait.
Still waiting for those $100.- :-)

Reverting to the academic side? What's academic about my point that there is a law, that licence holders are aware of the law and that if they break the law, they must face the consequences?

Please tell me what isn't sensible about this law:

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/L/liquorA92.pdf

Section 148A is the relevant section in this case. Seems pretty sensible to me, but then I am a sucker for a bit of law and order here and there.

Please also explain what it is that you want done. You don't want the law abolished, but you object to licence holders being punished if they break that law. What is the purpose of a law that isn't enforced?

RM>>How a publican is supposed to pick every violent drunk in his bar is beyond my imagination

That's their problem!

The law states that they have to implement the responsible service of alcohol, so, as an industry, it is up to them to achieve this and, if they can't, then they have to be burdened with the result of their careless procedures, not the general 'INOCENT' public.

This is an industry that makes a killing on drinks, so they must find a way to better serve them, or close. It really is that simple.

Now someone suggested that these drunks visit many venues. That's fine, but if you went to the first venue in a drunken state, you would be refused entry, so why not the last.

Perhaps they may have to monitor their patrons, perhaps a drink ticket dispenser that will not dispense if you are over a certain level. You first have to buy your ticket, then present this for a drink. Boy that would stop some theft!

Someone also said some people buy multiple drinks. Well that is all but over as most venues now have restrictions on how many drinks one person can buy at a time.

The whole point is that this industry is responsible for the problem and simply can not be allowed to cast these people out and say, it's no longer our problem.

Please tell me what isn't sensible about this law:
Otokonoko,
If you can show me just one (1) publican & bar attendant who could do their work with all this complexity in the back of their mind send them to NASA.
If the laws are indeed as sensible as you infer then why aren't they working as deterrents rather than an excuse to extort revenue & destroy innocent peoples' lives ? I tell you why Laws fail us so miserably, because they're dreamt up by people not from the industry i.e academic lawyers with only one goal and that goal isn't a healthy society.
I show how dumb drinking laws are. On one hand you're not supposed to get intoxicated yet on the other hand licensing law prohibits the sale of food during drinking hours. ?? If you find you've had enough you can't sit in your car & wait till you get better. If you think you've had too much & you go to your car to get your mobile out etc. you're fined ??
If you've had too much to drink a taxi driver can refuse you as can a bus driver. Don't drink too much in the first place ? agree, but in most establishments now you have AC and you don't realise how far you're gone until you step outside.
The law doesn't look at people as people & that's the problem, not the people.

This gets more and more bizarre every time I check in.

What happened between 17/02 at 7:34:57 AM when you were saying that "your action is yours & your own responsibility not someone else's" and 18/02 at 10:00:07 AM when drunks couldn't be blamed for their drunkenness because of licencing laws, drink driving laws (which, I agree, are a bit unreasonable) and even the publicans who dare to have air conditioning?

Otokonoko,
stop playing insipid academic excuses games.

Maybe Robocop.

'Drunken Louts'?
I don't give a Tinker's Cuss' about that, but I like the cut of your jib!

From one under your belt to one under dan:

It is redicul-us

To wi-shhh

For our so-“sigh”-ety to

Chan-“gee”.

From our long alco-“Hols”

Why not d rink “T”

AND…

Con-vert 2 I-slam

No offence 2 “one under god”—

individual,

If I was playing insipid academic excuses games, I would stop. I haven't offered an excuse for a single action. I have pointed out the inconsistencies in your argument:

1) Our actions are our own responsibility.
2) Bartenders are exempt from this, because they can't possibly monitor the customers in their overcrowded bars.
3) Drinkers are exempt from this, because they have to suffer the inconvenience of drinking in air conditioned bars which prevent them from feeling the effects of their alcohol consumption.

Who is responsible for their own actions, then?

On the other hand, I have argued that:
1) RSA laws exist, and obeying those laws is a condition of holding a liquor licence.
2) The purpose of the law is to provide a safe environment for patrons and for the wider community.
3) In cases where a law exists, they should be enforced. Bar staff and venues in which irresponsible service of alcohol is practised should be penalised. Similarly, drinkers who break this law should be penalised.

Not much academic about that, really. It is certainly more insipid than your argument, though. Yours is very exciting as it chops, changes and contradicts itself with each new post.

3) Drinkers are exempt from this, because they have to suffer the inconvenience of drinking in air conditioned bars
Otokonoko,
you made up that utterly out of context context.

2) The purpose of the law is to provide a safe environment for patrons and for the wider community.
It doesn't though does it ?
If you think our laws are adequate then have a look on tonights news again. Where a drunken moron bashed a young man & put him into 24 hr care for the rest of his life. The Judge made the moron eligible for parole in two years. It does make one wonder about the law & those in charge of it.

Otokonoko is that the law you are so taken by eh ?

Interesting point.

Out of context it may have been, but you DID offer air conditioning as an excuse for people drinking more than they should.

As for the drunken moron, how much more careful would the suppliers of the alcohol have been had they believed there was a chance that the law prohibiting the supply of alcohol to drunks would be enforced? It's a pretty hefty fine they face, and they would be much more likely to err on the side of caution.

Certainly the moron deserves a much stiffer punishment than he received. I won't argue with that. And certainly his actions are his alone. However, if he was served sufficient alcohol to intoxicate him, those who served him the alcohol must also be held to account. They, too, have broken the law.

I'm very aware that some people get charged up before they go out, some sneak hip flasks into venues and some get their friends to buy them drinks when they've been cut off at the bar. Plenty, however, are served long after they should have been cut off. They are served in venues crowded with more people than are manageable. I can't speak for nightlife districts nationwide, but I can safely say that, here in Townsville, where you take your life in your hands when you wander down the clubbing strip, the publicans are hardly fulfilling their duties to provide safe venues. Unsafe venues lead to unsafe entertainment precincts.

air conditioning as an excuse for people drinking more,
Otokonoko,
Either you're just playing silly or you are. At what stage did I say the above ? Please read again what I wrote

What else could you possibly have meant by "Don't drink too much in the first place ? agree, but in most establishments now you have AC and you don't realise how far you're gone until you step outside"? I'd love to understand what you meant by this, because it sounds to me like an excuse for people who inadvertently drink more than they should.

Otokonoko,
inatvertently yes, excuse no. That's where the law does not distinguish between a moron drinker who deliberately goes to get blotto & the occasional social drinker who happens to tip the scales by a smidgeon.
As far as the drunken louts on the streets are concerned we don't seem to see any effort to reduce their numbers, do we ? If there is a major brawl we close the premises rather than remove the louts. It's always the symptom that gets attention, never the cause. That mentality is the cause for my constant push for National non-military Service. we can not expect to lessen the number of moron lout drinkers if no-one shows them another way. The law doesn't give them this opportunity but affords them to get blotto first before some feeble attempts to stop the louts without hurting their feelings. It doesn't appear to bother the law too much that meanwhile more young people are going down the same one way street. Give them an alternative by providing alternatives. In my view drinking too much is the drinkers responsibility & offering non-drinking alternatives is the responsibility of the law.

I certainly agree with you there. What sort of national service do you have in mind? I'm glad you said 'non-military', as it has been my experience that - despite the wonderful things they do in their working lives - it's often the military types who cause the most drunken trouble on the streets of Townsville. Still, they have a sense of responsibility and, usually, a fear of discipline that could be used elsewhere.

Perhaps it's the freedom we have during our youth - and the freedom that some people never grow out of - that causes such misbehaviour. Knowing that you can get drunk, smash a few windows and beat up a few people on the weekend without worrying too much about consequences may well be the cause of so much mischief in our society.

Perhaps it's the freedom we have during our youth - and the freedom that some people never grow out of - that causes such misbehaviour. Knowing that you can get drunk, smash a few windows and beat up a few people on the weekend without worrying too much about consequences may well be the cause of so much mischief in our society.
Otokonoko,
You summed it up nicely. Shame the academic social experts who can not see this are always consulted by authorities, never the people who know.