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.