# Idle ciggie activists to tackle alcohol next?



## Bushman (22 January 2013)

Chaucer said that idle hands are the Devil's workshop. Well in Australia we have a well oiled health activist machine that has turned the average cigarette package into curiosity hour at the morgue. Mug shots of the dead and dying, diseased organs, blackened digits and other such medicinal delights now greet anyone with the misfortune to still be addicted to this former 'glamorous' consumer product. Fair enough as the body count from cigarettes would make anyone apart from the automobile and arms industries blush. 

The danger for us hedonists, however, is that this victory over 'big tobacco' has left Australia with a set of idle health activists flushed with success and spoiling for another fight. Where to place this idealistic fervour? Well the chatter is that booze is what these puritanical protectors of vital organs will target next. So are we going to head down to path of VB stubbies being plastered with pictures of cirrhotic livers, bruised wives, vomitting teenagers and blood covered faces? Will our Chardonnay be called 'White Wine' with no reference to the winery, year and other such devious marketing ploys? Well the truth is that this utopian vision is what our healthy friends would dearly love to achieve. Average Joe, after all, is a victim of big corporates and will slavishly drink and smoke until his untimely demise unless these fearless deniers of 'freedom of choice' step in with their macabre tactics.  

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/nannys-drinking-problem/story-e6frg6z6-1226558565653

One thing I do know is that the day when your Toyota is covered with mangled limbs, decapitated bodies and teenagers in wheelchairs is probably far removed. Then again, maybe we are heading down the path where a trip to the pub will be like walking through Leningrad after the seige in the 1940s. Not sure if I want to live in such a society.


----------



## Logique (22 January 2013)

Bushman said:


> ...http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/nannys-drinking-problem/story-e6frg6z6-1226558565653...Then again, maybe we are heading down the path where a trip to the pub will be like walking through Leningrad after the seige in the 1940s...



  They'll come after the drinkers, nothing surer. It will not be so easy as with tobacco. Pubs, clubs, brewers, the wine industry, they're all significant political lobbies and corporate taxpayers (evidence that pokies regulation went nowhere). 

Also it's hard to home-brew cigarettes, unlike a cheeky pale ale.


----------



## Miss Hale (22 January 2013)

It's the thin end of the wedge for sure 

How come with all these evil things in the world I don't smoke, drink very little and only gamble occasionally?


----------



## Bushman (22 January 2013)

Miss Hale said:


> It's the thin end of the wedge for sure
> 
> How come with all these evil things in the world I don't smoke, drink very little and only gamble occasionally?




Shhh Ms Hale, you will do a health activist out of a long and fruitful career with a statement like that. We are all just mindless consumers of products placed in front of us by evil big corporations!


----------



## Lantern (22 January 2013)

I think they should just mind their own business.

Or is that too simple?


----------



## basilio (22 January 2013)

That was a very colourful story from the Australian  wasn't it ? Just has me yearning for the good ol days of the Marlbaro Man dancing across our screens, a smoke in every pocket and  a beer in every hand.

Damn xloody nanny state !!

I think the question of public heath is worth discussing. One legitimate view could be  saying that the taxpayer via the Government  *won't *pick up the tab for a variety of diseases caused by poor personal health decisions. So for example if smokers get lung cancer and drinkers trash their liver they are own their own financially.  Any takers ?

Why not reframe this discussion in a more neutral way ?  As far as I can see it is just another story from the lobbyists who defend the cigarette/alcohol/gaming/fast food industry.  It isn't about people health - just the right to pick their pockets with the most effective addictions businesses can produce.


----------



## Sean K (22 January 2013)

I am with them.

I am sick of having to pay extra taxes for drug addicts health care and social management programs including policing of irresponsible and anti social behaviour, especially alcohol related violence.


----------



## Julia (22 January 2013)

basilio said:


> I think the question of public heath is worth discussing. One legitimate view could be  saying that the taxpayer via the Government  *won't *pick up the tab for a variety of diseases caused by poor personal health decisions. So for example if smokers get lung cancer and drinkers trash their liver they are own their own financially.  Any takers ?



We have had this discussion before.  How about obese people who need treatment for hypertension and heart disease because of their crap eating habits and reluctance to exercise?  

How will you set the criteria for who will not be treated?
Is the person who smoked for a couple of years when young going to be refused treatment for lung disease in his 40's?
Is the person who is fat, but not quite obese, going to be treated?
etc etc


----------



## white_goodman (22 January 2013)

our inner city do-gooder class know whats best for us guys n gals... dont worry


----------



## Bushman (22 January 2013)

basilio said:


> That was a very colourful story from the Australian  wasn't it ? Just has me yearning for the good ol days of the Marlbaro Man dancing across our screens, a smoke in every pocket and  a beer in every hand.
> 
> Damn xloody nanny state !!
> 
> ...




Hi Basilio, 

There are so many consumer products out there that are arguably addictive or that 'we cannot live without' that can lead to 'lifestyle diseases', injuries or psychological issues now or in the future. Some of these are: 

1. alcohol 
2. junk food
3. sugar 
4. processed foods
5. motor cars 
6. cigarettes 
7. prescription drugs
8. gambling

Of these, injuries from motor vehicles are arguably covered by TAC funding. The rest will no doubt need to be covered to some extent by the public health departments. 

The campaign against cigarettes has been welcome and I am actually very glad that smoking rates are on the wane having once been addicted to the noxious weed. However, the means (publishing images of a variety of awful medical conditions) cannot necessarily be rolled out to other products. Otherwise we will have supermarket shelves full of god awful images. I was also able to kick the habit once I was mature enough (late 20s) to realise that I was not immortal and that lots of people die from smoking. 

There is also a very well funded lobby group that will now look for the next public health campaign and alcohol will be it. While there is much that can be done with alcohol fuelled violence, I personally would not endorse these products being covered in grotesque health warnings. Also, it is arguable that the cost from obesity, motor vehicle accidents, gambling and other such 'consumer choice' driven afflications will conveniently ignored. It is a scatter gun approach. 

I am very worried about such decisions being taken out of citizens hands too - the 'nanny state' as you call it. Our freedoms have been hard won and yet seem now to be constantly eroded from the hands of responsible adults. I do draw a distinction with tobacco, by the way, due to its highly addictive nature. 

I deplore comments such as ex smokers should be denied health care. Well, sure, but make sure then that you refund them all the income tax, GST, smokers levies and the like that they have paid through their adult lives committing no crimes. Also, while smoking has been demonised, those partaking of fatty foods, sugar, riding motor bikes, popping valiums etc., all of which can have lethal consequences, get as much access to healthcare as they need.


----------



## McLovin (22 January 2013)

white_goodman said:


> our inner city do-gooder class know whats best for us guys n gals... dont worry




I reckon you're way off the mark. It's the suburbanites who never venture into the city and are tucked up in bed by 7:30 on a Saturday night who believe all the hype about how dangerous the streets are. Inner city types love hugging trees but they want to be able to smoke certain weeds and drink as much as they want.


----------



## basilio (22 January 2013)

Glad the topic has become more neutral and certainly worth exploring.

I just threw up the idea of denying people health care based on their personal habits to be a little provocative. As Julia points out the grey areas in this discussion would be a nightmare to police and just not practical.

Bushman you noted how addictive tobacco is and how glad you were to get off it. Your list of consumer products that are potentially addictive was good.  Without being silly we could also add the addictions of

1) Shopping (till you drop) 
2) Excessive Use of internet

FWIW I believe that the overriding issue in our society is the pressure on people to consume.  Our economy is geared to more and more growth.  It seems that the whole advertising industry is trying to persuade us to use more than we need.

That in itself is the seed of many of our addiction and health problems.

How would we go with a public health program which promoted "Buying less" " Living Simply" "Smelling the Roses" "Enjoying the simple things "  Would we be a happy, healthier lot if stopped trying to keep up with the Joneses,  spent more time with our friends and family and didn't have to do it over a beer or a Macca's ?

Just for interest how do people think the industry lobbies would respond to such a public health campaign - particularly if it became successful at changing our drinking and junk food habits ?


----------



## white_goodman (22 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> I reckon you're way off the mark. It's the suburbanites who never venture into the city and are tucked up in bed by 7:30 on a Saturday night who believe all the hype about how dangerous the streets are. Inner city types love hugging trees but they want to be able to smoke certain weeds and drink as much as they want.




certain weeds are already illegal thus dont count... I imagine the wineo's would get an exemption for any alcohol type prohibition.. surburabnites venture into the suburbs, go to manly, the fiddler, roxy or cronulla on a saturday night and tell them they dont drink


----------



## Julia (22 January 2013)

Bushman said:


> I am very worried about such decisions being taken out of citizens hands too - the 'nanny state' as you call it. Our freedoms have been hard won and yet seem now to be constantly eroded from the hands of responsible adults.
> 
> I deplore comments such as ex smokers should be denied health care. Well, sure, but make sure then that you refund them all the income tax, GST, smokers levies and the like that they have paid through their adult lives committing no crimes. Also, while smoking has been demonised, those partaking of fatty foods, sugar, riding motor bikes, popping valiums etc., all of which can have lethal consequences, get as much access to healthcare as they need.



Exactly.


basilio said:


> Without being silly we could also add the addictions of
> 
> 1) Shopping (till you drop)
> 2) Excessive Use of internet



Again, how would this be measured.  Why should governments interfere in either of these activities?  If someone wants to waste all their money on shopping for whatever they fancy, that should be their own business.

What is 'excessive use of internet'?  Unbelievably, I heard a radio program over the weekend where the American Psychiatric Assn is considering making "internet addiction" a mental illness!!!

One day we will find that our every inclination has a label of some sort of psychopathology attached to it.
This phenomenon has, imo, become thoroughly unhealthy.
No one is sad any more.  We are all clinically depressed at the slightest hint of anything other than utter cheerfulness and therefore are required to consume medication to offset this psychological abnormality.

Shades of the population wide consumption of Soma in Orwell's "Brave New World".



> FWIW I believe that the overriding issue in our society is the pressure on people to consume.  Our economy is geared to more and more growth.  It seems that the whole advertising industry is trying to persuade us to use more than we need.



Of course.  That's the essence of growing an economy.  It is always up to the consumer to decide for themselves what they need or don't.  We do not need some sort of nanny state instructions about what is good for us.  I utterly detest this whole notion.



> How would we go with a public health program which promoted "Buying less" " Living Simply" "Smelling the Roses" "Enjoying the simple things "  Would we be a happy, healthier lot if stopped trying to keep up with the Joneses,  spent more time with our friends and family and didn't have to do it over a beer or a Macca's ?



You are assuming people overall are too stupid to make appropriate choices.  The more we tell them what they should or should not be doing, the more we encourage them not to think and make valid decisions for themselves.

If there will be a major plus in hopefully a change of government this year, it will be the Liberal philosophy of encouraging people to think for themselves.  Under Labor, the nanny state has grown exponentially, to the absolute detriment imo of the population.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 January 2013)

I believe Grey Nomads should not be allowed drive their hideous caravans any further from the high tide mark than 1 metre.

Let them smoke or drink, or buy lollies from multinational petrol outlets, let them eat Maccas and Jacks.

Let them buy funeral or rollover insurance.

But save us from their effects on rural Australia.

gg


----------



## Tink (23 January 2013)

I have already said, I am all for alcohol to be next. 
Alcohol needs a negative effect put in soceity, just as smoking.


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

kennas said:


> I am with them.
> 
> I am sick of having to pay extra taxes for drug addicts health care and social management programs including policing of irresponsible and anti social behaviour, especially alcohol related violence.




Alcohol related violence is the fault of the courts and lawmakers who allow the alcohol industry unfettered access to minors and allow people to drink themselves stupid without consequences.

If you're over .05 in a car you get punished but you can walk the streets out of your brain ready to bash someone and nothing happens unless you do ....and are caught, then it's a fine and bond.

Clubs and pubs are not supposed to serve drunks but that's all they do, the consequences ? ZERO.


----------



## dutchie (23 January 2013)

Violence, booze a nation's shame as police prepare for Australia Day assaults 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...lia-day-assaults/story-e6frf7kx-1226559588345

Most people drink responsibly.

There is however an element of our society that flaunt its rules whether by drink driving, anti social behaviour or violence. This is the part which needs to be addressed.

1. Consistent and harsher penalties for drink driving.
2. Raise the drinking age to 21.
3. Higher penalties for selling alcohol illegally or irresponsibly. 
4. Consistent and harsher penalties for violence.


----------



## Logique (23 January 2013)

Australia Day, shudder. The little flags, the aggressive jingoism and the booze. Please not a hot day on 26th.  

It used to be a day that passed with little fanfare, but it's grown into a monster. Much sympathy for anyone who doesn't fit an anglo stereotype, how they must dread 26th Jan.


----------



## DocK (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Alcohol related violence is the fault of the courts and lawmakers who allow the alcohol industry unfettered access to minors and allow people to drink themselves stupid without consequences.
> 
> If you're over .05 in a car you get punished but you can walk the streets out of your brain ready to bash someone and nothing happens unless you do ....and are caught, then it's a fine and bond.
> 
> Clubs and pubs are not supposed to serve drunks but that's all they do, the consequences ? ZERO.




Agree that we need tougher consequences for alcohol-fuelled violence.  I don't see any need for clubs etc to be open past 1am - nothing good happens after midnight.  If you want to party on, do it in a private home.  Transporting people from the nightclubs to their homes in a fast and affordable fashion would alleviate a lot of the brawls that occur due to intoxicated young adults wandering the streets in the early hours.  



dutchie said:


> Violence, booze a nation's shame as police prepare for Australia Day assaults
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...lia-day-assaults/story-e6frf7kx-1226559588345
> 
> ...




Agree with all but raising the drinking age - I don't think that would be practical, and _should_ be unnecessary if the other measures were put into practice.  

Personally I'd like to see much more pressure put on clubs/pubs to adhere to regulations re serving alcohol to drunks.  I'd like to see much tougher legal consequences for violent and unruly behaviour.  Sadly, I think quite a few younger people are already smashed on Red Bull & vodka and the like before they even head out for the night these days as they can't afford club prices - the attitude seems to be to get drunk first and then head out to dance and socialise.  Often enhanced by pills.  

The "Think before you Drink" ads that used to run on tv, showing some examples of poor decisions made due to the effects of alcohol, did get my teenagers' attention and at the very least got them thinking, and aware of the ability of alcohol to loosen inhibitions - often to one's later regret.  As with a lot of unwelcome behaviour in society, a large part of the problem is young people mimicking their parents and their beliefs.  If kids grow up seeing their parents drink responsibly, and families openly discuss the effects of alcohol in a truthful way, this would certainly help.  Unfortunately, as the opposite is quite often the norm, I'd like to see a few more public health ads aimed at young adults on tv.  If getting legless and behaving like a moron becomes "uncool" that would have far more effect than any legislation.

The old "Life Be In It" ads had a positive effect for a little while didn't they?  Education rather than regulation is the key.  You have to make people want to do something or change their ways - not simply tell them how they must behave.


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2013)

I knew it wouldn't take long for all the wowsers to come out of the woodwork.


----------



## Tink (23 January 2013)

Yes 

Thats an excellent article dutchie.
Only the 26th? ...  and the rest.


----------



## Logique (23 January 2013)

DocK said:


> Agree that we need tougher consequences for alcohol-fuelled violence.  I don't see any need for clubs etc to be open past 1am - nothing good happens after midnight.  If you want to party on, do it in a private home.  Transporting people from the nightclubs to their homes in a fast and affordable fashion would alleviate a lot of the brawls that occur due to intoxicated young adults wandering the streets in the early hours.
> 
> Agree with all but raising the drinking age - I don't think that would be practical, and _should_ be unnecessary if the other measures were put into practice.
> 
> ...



Good comments DocK. Education rather than regulation, spot on.


----------



## DocK (23 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> I knew it wouldn't take long for all the wowsers to come out of the woodwork.




I don't actually see myself that way at all.  I'm not promoting restrictions on the sale of alcohol so far as packaging, taxing, availability etc - I'm just sick of not being able to go out at night in my own city for fear of being abused by the drunken hordes all over the streets.  I'm tired of alcohol-fuelled violence becoming the "norm".  

I've never pretended to my own kids that I didn't drink too much at times when I was much younger - that's what I meant by having truthful discussions with your kids.  Taking a high moral tone and simply telling them not to do something that most of us have done at one point or another achieves nothing imo, but that doesn't mean you can't discuss the pitfalls of alcohol abuse, binge drinking, poor decision-making while under the influence etc.   As an example, some parents I know encourage their daughters to stay together and never, ever, abandon one of their mates when out on the town.  Safety in numbers, and hopefully someone to tell you to rein it in if you're getting a little too sloppy or aggressive.  

As a parent I think it would be silly and unrealistic to think that my teenage boys will never in their lives get drunk and make idiots of themselves - it's what young men have always done and probably always will at one time or another - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't warn them to be aware of the increased liklihood of violent behaviour if they're doing their drinking in the wrong place, or with the wrong group of people.  It also doesn't mean that we should be doing nothing to educate them of the health risks of binge drinking, or the new fad of mixing alcohol with energy drinks and the like.  Seems to me that the fun has been lost and now it's all about getting as blotto as possible purely for the sake of it.  Bring back the fun and let's lose the senseless violence is my point.


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2013)

DocK said:


> I don't actually see myself that way at all.






DocK said:


> I don't see any need for clubs etc to be open past 1am - nothing good happens after midnight.




Comments like that make you sound like one. If you don't want to be out past midnight then that's your perogative. Not everyone who stays out past midnight is sporting for a fight.



DocK said:


> I'm not promoting restrictions on the sale of alcohol so far as packaging, taxing, availability etc - I'm just sick of not being able to go out at night in my own city for fear of being abused by the drunken hordes all over the streets.  I'm tired of alcohol-fuelled violence becoming the "norm".




I have never been "abused by drunken hordes all over the streets". How many times has this happened to you?


----------



## Tink (23 January 2013)

I could tell a few stories....
If you dont think its happening, you are dreaming.


----------



## pixel (23 January 2013)

DocK said:


> I don't actually see myself that way at all.  I'm not promoting restrictions on the sale of alcohol so far as packaging, taxing, availability etc - I'm just sick of not being able to go out at night in my own city for fear of being abused by the drunken hordes all over the streets.  I'm tired of alcohol-fuelled violence becoming the "norm".
> 
> I've never pretended to my own kids that I didn't drink too much at times when I was much younger - that's what I meant by having truthful discussions with your kids.  Taking a high moral tone and simply telling them not to do something that most of us have done at one point or another achieves nothing imo, but that doesn't mean you can't discuss the pitfalls of alcohol abuse, binge drinking, poor decision-making while under the influence etc.   As an example, some parents I know encourage their daughters to stay together and never, ever, abandon one of their mates when out on the town.  Safety in numbers, and hopefully someone to tell you to rein it in if you're getting a little too sloppy or aggressive.
> 
> As a parent I think it would be silly and unrealistic to think that my teenage boys will never in their lives get drunk and make idiots of themselves - it's what young men have always done and probably always will at one time or another - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't warn them to be aware of the increased liklihood of violent behaviour if they're doing their drinking in the wrong place, or with the wrong group of people.  It also doesn't mean that we should be doing nothing to educate them of the health risks of binge drinking, or the new fad of mixing alcohol with energy drinks and the like.  Seems to me that the fun has been lost and now it's all about getting as blotto as possible purely for the sake of it.  Bring back the fun and let's lose the senseless violence is my point.




100% with you , DocK
Where we lost it, it's at the family interface. If the parents don't know where their kids are late at night, it's no wonder when hordes turn up uninvited and gate-crash suburban birthday parties; scull-crash other kids, whose parents have done the right thing and try to supervise a fun celebration; pre-load at home before a night out, so they don't have to waste time and money when they get to a night spot, intent on mayhem.
Rather than blaming publicans and bar staff for the consequences, rather than forcing the innocent victims to take out costly insurance at spiraling premiums, let's hold the real culprits responsible. And if the Law is such an ass that it condones every crime a "Juvenile" commits, have his parents take out insurance. After all, I can't see the difference between keeping an untrained dangerous dog and letting an undisciplined kid run riot.


----------



## Calliope (23 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> I knew it wouldn't take long for all the wowsers to come out of the woodwork.




This thread is degenerating into another "Alcohol Fueled Violence" thread. As I explained in that thread, alcohol drinking is part of our culture and there is nothing anyone can do to turn that around. Binge drinking is now considered a "rite of passage' with certificates issued for drunkenness and violence offences during schoolies week.

We knew that when the activists went after the smokers and we sat back and let it happen, that they would be coming after us next. However moderate wine drinkers are a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2013)

Tink said:


> I could tell a few stories....
> If you dont think its happening, you are dreaming.




Of course you could, so could I. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying the media makes it out to be worse than it is.



			
				Calliope said:
			
		

> We knew that when the activists went after the smokers and we sat back and let it happen, that they would be coming after us next. However moderate wine drinkers are a force to be reckoned with.




Of course. There's always someone who thnks they should control someone else's life. They used to be restricted to strata boards but now they seem to get a run in every level of government.


----------



## Tink (23 January 2013)

pixel said:


> And if the Law is such an ass that it condones every crime a "Juvenile" commits, have his parents take out insurance. After all, I can't see the difference between keeping an untrained dangerous dog and letting an undisciplined kid run riot.




Agree Pixel, thats the next issue, take on the parents.
We have one case now where a child is dead. 

The mother is an alcoholic, I want to see what happens to this offender who is a child, 18 yo

So whats your answer, McLovin?


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2013)

Tink said:


> So whats your answer, McLovin?




Crack open another tinnie and let someone else worry about it.

Maybe accept that not everything has an answer.


----------



## Tink (23 January 2013)

Ahhhh shove it under the carpet until it affects your family?
Unreal...


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2013)

Tink said:


> Ahhhh shove it under the carpet until it affects your family?
> Unreal...




Speeding kills more people than alcohol related violence. Cars are not speed limited because thankfully the nanny state hasn't gotten to that stage, yet. Why do you assume that just because you can identify an issue it can be solved without trampling over the majority who do nothing wrong? I realise in the nanny state operating manual this is considered sensible, because anyone who hasn't risen to the lofty heights of the state parliament can't possibley be fit to look after themselves.


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2013)

McLovin]Crack open another tinnie and let someone else worry about it.

Maybe accept that not everything has an answer. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tink said:


> Ahhhh shove it under the carpet until it affects your family?
> Unreal...




Just to be clear, my remark was not in relation to the dead child you mentioned in your post, it was the more general subject of legislation around alcohol and that it is futile to try and control every outcome.


----------



## DocK (23 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Comments like that make you sound like one. If you don't want to be out past midnight then that's your perogative. Not everyone who stays out past midnight is sporting for a fight.




No, they're not, but the later the clubs are open the more violence on the street there seems to be.  It wouldn't be such an issue if public transport was available to get everyone home, but it seems that if you're coming out of a nightclub at 3am you're far more likely to be drunk and stranded without transport than if you had to leave at 1am.  I'm possibly a fair bit older than you, but when I was a young clubber we still managed to party on when the club shut if that's what we wanted to do, but we did it at someone's home. 



McLovin said:


> I have never been "abused by drunken hordes all over the streets". How many times has this happened to you?




I live on the Gold Coast, so no shortage of drunken hordes.  I've only to take a drive around some of the hot spots to see several brawls, kids throwing up in gutters, kids nearly being run over while staggering across the highway etc.  

Look, I'm not saying that all young people behave irresponsibly.  I'm not advocating any changes in regulations.  I'm simply saying that alcohol-fuelled misbehaviour seems to be on the increase in our society, and is more of a problem now than it ever has been so far as I can tell.  I can't see how a bit of education about the effects of alcohol abuse could possibly hurt.   And tougher penalties for violent offences (whether alcohol-fuelled or not) would be welcomed by a large section of society I'd bet.


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2013)

DocK said:


> No, they're not, but the later the clubs are open the more violence on the street there seems to be.  It wouldn't be such an issue if public transport was available to get everyone home, but it seems that if you're coming out of a nightclub at 3am you're far more likely to be drunk and stranded without transport than if you had to leave at 1am.  I'm possibly a fair bit older than you, but when I was a young clubber we still managed to party on when the club shut if that's what we wanted to do, but we did it at someone's home.




I'm not disagreeing with you on that, but the regardless of the time, the overwhelming majority of people at clubs past 1am are not starting fights. And this is where I get annoyed, people want to take away my right to stay up late because a small minority don't play by the rules. If you asked me should pubs and clubs be stricter about enforcing not serving drunks, I'd say absolutely. You see people perching themselves against the bar because they can't stand up while they order a round of shots. 

I get the feeling if young people started taking the party home with them it wouldn't be long until we had a "alcohol fuelled noise pollution" thread.





DocK said:


> Look, I'm not saying that all young people behave irresponsibly.  I'm not advocating any changes in regulations.  I'm simply saying that alcohol-fuelled misbehaviour seems to be on the increase in our society, and is more of a problem now than it ever has been so far as I can tell.




Yes and the statistics back that up, but even as the rules have continued to become more draconian (lock outs, license scanning, no shots after 11, no more than four drinks at a time etc) the assault rate continues to climb. So you can either continue increasing the number of restrictions which is having no effect, or you admit it's not working and is just a cost to the taxpayer. The same can be said about drugs too. These sort of issues are a reflection of society not something that can be legislated away.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Yes and the statistics back that up, but even as the rules have continued to become more draconian (lock outs, license scanning, no shots after 11, no more than four drinks at a time etc) the assault rate continues to climb. So you can either continue increasing the number of restrictions which is having no effect, or you admit it's not working and is just a cost to the taxpayer. The same can be said about drugs too. These sort of issues are a reflection of society not something that can be legislated away.




+10^10

Shame its about being seen to be doing something to appease all those who dont see much further past the 6pm news, rather than actually looking at that stats and finances of the matters


----------



## pixel (23 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> This thread is degenerating into another "Alcohol Fueled Violence" thread. As I explained in that thread, alcohol drinking is part of our culture and there is nothing anyone can do to turn that around. Binge drinking is now considered a "rite of passage' with certificates issued for drunkenness and violence offences during schoolies week.
> 
> We knew that when the activists went after the smokers and we sat back and let it happen, that they would be coming after us next. However moderate wine drinkers are a force to be reckoned with.




"Include me out", Calliope;
I have nothing against a drink or five. I also strongly object to the wowser brigade telling everybody what not to do, simply because a few idiots can't handle personal freedom.

Alcohol is "out there", freely available to everybody. Rules are already in place, wrt who can and who can't buy it. But it seems nobody really cares to make sure they're enforced - how else is it possible that under-age kids get blotto at "schoolies". 
Prohibition doesn't work: look what good it's done in America! The only approach that does work is teaching *and enforcing* responsibility and self-discipline. 
Of course, we all got blotted on occasion - both before and after we were "allowed" a drink. As a consequence, a few hours of my life are missing from memory. But once I woke up a day or week later, I knew it was my responsibility to clean up any mess and pay for repairs.

In contrast to today, I guess that "We wuz brung up proper." :
(Which is essentially the way I interpret McLovin's and prawn's latest exchange as well.)

PS: Nearly forgot the one thing I'm dead-set AGAINST. And that is the subtle and not so subtle advertising of alcoholic lolly-water to juveniles. The tiny 2-second footnote "Enjoy in moderation" is a joke. As is any association of alcohol and success - on the sporting field, in the bedroom, or anywhere in between.


----------



## Julia (23 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Speeding kills more people than alcohol related violence. Cars are not speed limited because thankfully the nanny state hasn't gotten to that stage, yet. Why do you assume that just because you can identify an issue it can be solved without trampling over the majority who do nothing wrong? I realise in the nanny state operating manual this is considered sensible, because anyone who hasn't risen to the lofty heights of the state parliament can't possibly be fit to look after themselves.



+1.  Unless you want to live in a society like North Korea, there will always be societal problems of various types, simply because some people are irresponsible, poorly educated, genetically lacking and have been raised in families where all this is the norm.

Of course sensible parents will have sensible discussions with their basically sensible children about the dangers of excessive consumption of alcohol.

But no amount of attempts at education will make any significant difference to those whose ignorance and lack of ambition in life consigns them to the reassurance of being part of a group whose main focus is blotting out the miserable reality of their existence with alcohol.

Most of them grow out of it in due course.

So, for heaven's sake, let's remind ourselves of the title of this thread, i.e. that there is always that core activist group who feel obliged to jump up and down about something.  We should not be trampling on the rights of the majority in a hopeless attempt to ameliorate the idiocy of a few.

If the nanny state extends its talons much further, it will not be long before we will have to seek permission before breathing.


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

DocK said:


> And tougher penalties for violent offences (whether alcohol-fuelled or not) would be welcomed by a large section of society I'd bet.




For sure.

You can target these idiots without disrupting the average punter.

Up the penalties , even for being drunk in a public place, breathalyse them before they make trouble.

Target the venues for selling grog to drunks.


----------



## Julia (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Up the penalties , even for being drunk in a public place, breathalyse them before they make trouble.
> 
> Target the venues for selling grog to drunks.



What penalties would you advocate in both instances?


----------



## prawn_86 (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Up the penalties , even for being drunk in a public place, breathalyse them before they make trouble.
> 
> Target the venues for selling grog to drunks.




lol the ultimate nanny state in that sentence right there. How do you define drunk? What is a public place? If i am walking home drunk (because i am not allowed to drive) should i be fined too? What about house parties? FIne the person throwing the party?

When will people realise that excessive regulation is just a waste of taxpayers money????  And it's the same people that advocate this sort of thing that then complain about government waste


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

Julia said:


> What penalties would you advocate in both instances?




Being drunk in a public place, you'd have to pick a reading... have to be worked out.

A night in the cells and a fine , as you would be considered dangerous to yourself and the public.

A night in the cells should be enough to change behaviour.

How to determine what is considered "drunk in a public place" would need to be carefully defined.

As for venues who continue to serve drunks, very heavy fines and license suspension for a period.

They woud have to identify patrons who they believe are over and request a breath test or no more drinks, once again how to determine who's drunk to the point of being dangerous would have to be defined carefully.


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> lol the ultimate nanny state in that sentence right there. How do you define drunk? What is a public place? If i am walking home drunk (because i am not allowed to drive) should i be fined too? What about house parties? FIne the person throwing the party?
> 
> When will people realise that excessive regulation is just a waste of taxpayers money????  And it's the same people that advocate this sort of thing that then complain about government waste




If you're drunk in public ......car or otherwise you're outside the law, you'll only be tested if you're staggering or drawing attention.
You cant really expect drug effected persons to be able to move freely among us and our kids wives etc.

The trick would be to work out the definitions of drunk.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> You cant really expect drug effected persons to be able to move freely among us and our kids wives etc.




They do all the time. Probably a lot more that you realise.


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> They do all the time. Probably a lot more that you realise.




Yep and we should address that in some way.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Yep and we should address that in some way.




So spending more and more money and resources policing things like this, further clogging up the courts, versus  decriminalisation, education and harm reduction is your answer?


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> They do all the time. Probably a lot more that you realise.




Absolutely. I've walked in to my fair share of meetings where people had the sniffles. You only notice the ones who have stopped functioning. Like alcoholics.


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> So spending more and more money and resources policing things like this, further clogging up the courts, versus  decriminalisation, education and harm reduction is your answer?




Education should be happening anyway but in the meantime anything it takes to make the streets safer.

This goes hand in hand with an overhaul of the legal system, speed things up, straight in the cells overnight like in the old days, tell the lawyers to go jump.
Not easy to work all the details out but something should be done.

I think the trouble makers are easy to spot so they should be rounded up before they do anything.


----------



## Surly (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I think the trouble makers are easy to spot so they should be rounded up before they do anything.




Good bye presumption of innocence...hello totalitarian nanny state.

cheers
Surly


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

Surly said:


> Good bye presumption of innocence...hello totalitarian nanny state.
> 
> cheers
> Surly




No not a nanny state a idiot free state with any luck.

If you're very drunk you're already not innocent.


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Education should be happening anyway but in the meantime anything it takes to make the streets safer.
> 
> This goes hand in hand with an overhaul of the legal system, speed things up, straight in the cells overnight like in the old days, tell the lawyers to go jump.
> Not easy to work all the details out but something should be done.
> ...




Wow. 

The problem with this sort of rubbish is that sooner or later you may find yourself being rounded up for something someone thinks you might be about to do or whatever retarded "public safety initiative" is the flavour of the day.

"I saw Goody Proctor with the Devil"


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Wow.
> 
> The problem with this sort of rubbish is that sooner or later you may find yourself being rounded up for something someone thinks you might be about to do or whatever retarded "public safety initiative" is the flavour of the day.
> 
> "I saw Goody Proctor with the Devil"




It would take a great deal of thought to avoid that and probably doubtful our leaders could muster the intellect to handle it.

added - drunk and disorderly is already an offense but it doesn't stop attacks and it doesnt stop people getting very drunk in public.


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2013)

Surly said:
			
		

> IGood bye presumption of innocence...hello totalitarian nanny state.
> 
> cheers
> Surly





It's disturbing that someone can think so little of depriving someone else of their freedom for something they might do. Nanny state is too soft a word for what that actually is.



			
				MrBurns said:
			
		

> added - drunk and disorderly is already an offense but it doesn't stop attacks and it doesnt stop people getting very drunk in public.




Drunk and disorderly. There's two parts to the offence, you need to be drunk and you need to be causing disorder. Being drunk is not an offence, nor should it be.


----------



## Logique (23 January 2013)

DocK said:


> ...It wouldn't be such an issue if public transport was available to get everyone home, but it seems that if you're coming out of a nightclub at 3am you're far more likely to be drunk and stranded without transport than if you had to leave at 1am...



Around here, a lot changed when the pub started an after-hours courtesy bus. After closing time, the drinkers went off home, rather than milling around jostling for taxis, a recipe for disaster when it's late-night.  The licensed clubs have courtesy buses as well. 

Simple, practical measures to manage crowds. It makes all the difference.


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> It's disturbing that someone can think so little of depriving someone else of their freedom for something they might do. Nanny state is too soft a word for what that actually is.
> .




So you want the right to wander the streets very very drunk, you think that's your right, you think that's ok ?

Next time someone staggers down your street just think the law is on their side


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Absolutely. I've walked in to my fair share of meetings where people had the sniffles. You only notice the ones who have stopped functioning. Like alcoholics.



There's an awful lot more alcoholics around than I think most people realise. A lot more.


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> There's an awful lot more alcoholics around than I think most people realise. A lot more.




There's varying degrees.
The guy who drinks a couple of slabs a week thinks he's ok, but he isn't
It's not just drunks who are alcoholics.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Next time someone staggers down your street just think the law is on their side




It's indoctrinated opinions like this that have been fed by governments and media over generations that have caused the "War on Drugs" to be such a huge waste of time, lives, money and just about everything else. I'm struggling to comprehend how easily people are willing to give up their own freedoms, but now see why the ploiticians pander to it.

Computers and the Internet can be used to access a range of illegal things, i think we should monitor everyones internet connection.  In fact, i think everyone should have a personal drone folowing them to detect if they do anything illegal, because those setting and enforcing the law always know best  

I am not denying alcohol is a problem, there are just better ways to solve these problems rather than just creating more and more rules which dont work, but that is obviously what the masses of voters want, hence why these ideas are continually put forward


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> There's varying degrees.
> The guy who drinks a couple of slabs a week thinks he's ok, but he isn't
> It's not just drunks who are alcoholics.



Agreed.

One thing I have noticed however is that those who drink as you describe are often high achievers both socially and at work. At least they are until the inevitable consequences of prolonged heavy drinking arrive - health fails, relationships fail or there's an issue with the law (eg loss of drivers' license).

They are often hard to spot for this reason. On the outside at least, they appear to be doing somewhat better than most and as a result few will even suspect there's a problem until faced with undeniable reality.


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> I am not denying alcohol is a problem, there are just better ways to solve these problems rather than just creating more and more rules which dont work, but that is obviously what the masses of voters want, hence why these ideas are continually put forward




Such as ?


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> So you want the right to wander the streets very very drunk, you think that's your right, you think that's ok ?




Yes. As long as I'm not doing anything to anyone then MYOFB.



MrBurns said:


> Next time someone staggers down your street just think the law is on their side




OK...And then what do I do? Hide under my bed and wait for Barry O'Farrell to lock up those naughty people?



			
				prawn_86 said:
			
		

> Computers and the Internet can be used to access a range of illegal things, i think we should monitor everyones internet connection.




Don't worry, that'll come eventually, with the same cheersquad reciting their same old tired arguments about how "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".

I pay my taxes. Apart from that, the less intrusion the government has in people's lives the better.


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Yes. As long as I'm not doing anything to anyone then MYOFB.
> .




Ok it's a hard one......... guess I can walk home from the pub in peace.


----------



## ColB (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Alcohol related violence is the fault of the courts and lawmakers who allow the alcohol industry unfettered access to minors and allow people to drink themselves stupid without consequences.
> 
> If you're over .05 in a car you get punished but you can walk the streets out of your brain ready to bash someone and nothing happens unless you do ....and are caught, then it's a fine and bond.
> 
> Clubs and pubs are not supposed to serve drunks but that's all they do, the consequences ? ZERO.




Burnsy, you can't blame the court system and lawmakers for alcohol related violence.  The laws in most states prohibit the sale of alcohol products to persons under 18 years and also prohibits the sale of alcohol in hotels & clubs to those already under the influence of alcohol.  You also can't legally walk the streets when drunk in most states.

Whilst alcohol can be a factor in street violence, it is not the only factor.  Unfortunately, we have plenty of idiots on the streets who need no reason to king hit someone. 

How do you stop those offenders?  They are the way they are because of their upbringing, their background and probably were also subjected to violent behaviour when growing up.

I agree with you that sentencing seems to be insufficient and provides little deterrent to would be offenders or repeat offenders.

I would be reluctant as would many others to walk some of Melbourne's night club areas late at night due to the prevalence of unprovoked assaults.  It's a sad world out there at times.

Anyway, I'll let you get back to the turps


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 January 2013)

ColB said:


> Burnsy, you can't blame the court system and lawmakers for alcohol related violence.  The laws in most states prohibit the sale of alcohol products to persons under 18 years and also prohibits the sale of alcohol in hotels & clubs to those already under the influence of alcohol.  You also can't legally walk the streets when drunk in most states.



That may well be true. But the courts ensure that whilst these things may be technically illegal, there are little or no consequences for offenders.

If there are little or no consequences of breaking the law (even if caught) then it is somewhat irrelevant whether or not the activity is technically legal or illegal.

It's like another problem that involves (mostly) a similar demographic. Hooning (as the police like to call it). I can see both sides of current anti-hooning laws, but there's an undeniable reality that the high speed car crashes on a Saturday night have pretty much disappeared since their introduction. I don't know how many cars have actually been crushed or impounded, it's probably not that many, but the reality that there is a serious punishment acts as a deterrent to committing the crime at least under circumstances where being caught is a reasonable possibility.


----------



## DB008 (23 January 2013)

SBS Tonight. Richard Dawkins show, 'Sex, Death and the meaning of Life'.

Some very interesting comments from a Jewish scientist studying centenarians and their lifestyles.

His observations. Some centenarians had smoked for 30+ years, drank regularly (more than the 1 glass per day standard) and had diets that weren't the best. His conclusion - it all comes down to genes. All this nonsense about watching your weight/diet, what you eat/drink, smoke, a lot of it is BS. Genes, good genes is what you want.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Such as ?




Early intervention/education/socialisation of those who are likely to be the ones out there getting drunk causing trouble. It would probably take generations to change attitudes but if that's what it takes it is better than wasting resources. You need to break the cycle as opposed to re-inforcing it. Same as with drugs in general.

I'm a big believer in highly competitive team sports and the things that teaches. Yes a lot of teams go out drinking after, but few get into fights in my experience, it is more about having a good time with team-mates. Youth (especially males) need a way to channel thier energy as it has been managed, politicised, squeezed and discouraged out of them that they are no longer allowed to act as their male genetics tell them.


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

DB008 said:


> SBS Tonight. Richard Dawkins show, 'Sex, Death and the meaning of Life'.
> 
> Some very interesting comments from a Jewish scientist studying centenarians and their lifestyles.
> 
> His observations. Some centenarians had smoked for 30+ years, drank regularly (more than the 1 glass per day standard) and had diets that weren't the best. His conclusion - it all comes down to genes. All this nonsense about watching your weight/diet, what you eat/drink, smoke, a lot of it is BS. Genes, good genes is what you want.




Cheers


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> That may well be true. But the courts ensure that whilst these things may be technically illegal, there are little or no consequences for offenders.
> 
> If there are little or no consequences of breaking the law (even if caught) then it is somewhat irrelevant whether or not the activity is technically legal or illegal.
> 
> It's like another problem that involves (mostly) a similar demographic. Hooning (as the police like to call it). I can see both sides of current anti-hooning laws, but there's an undeniable reality that the high speed car crashes on a Saturday night have pretty much disappeared since their introduction. I don't know how many cars have actually been crushed or impounded, it's probably not that many, but the reality that there is a serious punishment acts as a deterrent to committing the crime at least under circumstances where being caught is a reasonable possibility.




+1


----------



## MrBurns (23 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> Early intervention/education/socialisation of those who are likely to be the ones out there getting drunk causing trouble. It would probably take generations to change attitudes but if that's what it takes it is better than wasting resources. You need to break the cycle as opposed to re-inforcing it. Same as with drugs in general.
> 
> I'm a big believer in highly competitive team sports and the things that teaches. Yes a lot of teams go out drinking after, but few get into fights in my experience, it is more about having a good time with team-mates. Youth (especially males) need a way to channel thier energy as it has been managed, politicised, squeezed and discouraged out of them that they are no longer allowed to act as their male genetics tell them.




Yeah yeah yeah, all talk , we need to do something *now* and save the love in sessions for some other time.

All good ideas but no ones family of someone killed by a king hit will appreciate how education might have saved their loved one.


----------



## Tink (24 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> There's an awful lot more alcoholics around than I think most people realise. A lot more.




Very true, if anyone decides to venture into our hospitals and see the disgusting conditions that nurses and doctors have to put up with, not to mention the police having to be there, then they would realise what a problem this really is.


----------



## MrBurns (24 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Yeah yeah yeah, all talk , we need to do something *now* and save the love in sessions for some other time.
> 
> All good ideas but no ones family of someone killed by a king hit will appreciate how education might have saved their loved one.




Of course we're not limited to one activity to tackle this, education and a change of culture are imperative for long term change but I think some tough measures need to be taken as well, to help keep this generation safe.


----------



## prawn_86 (24 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Yeah yeah yeah, all talk , we need to do something *now* and save the love in sessions for some other time.
> 
> All good ideas but no ones family of someone killed by a king hit will appreciate how education might have saved their loved one.






MrBurns said:


> Of course we're not limited to one activity to tackle this, education and a change of culture are imperative for long term change but I think some tough measures need to be taken as well, to help keep this generation safe.




By doing the same thing, just more of it (ie enforcing laws in a more stricter interpretation) you are still not going to change anything. What is that saying about doing the same thing over and over again? It hasnt worked for the last 50 years, why would it suddenly start working now?

I would also be interested to see what % proportion of the population are actually affected by alcohol violence. I still think it is more the media and activists portrayals more than any actual increase. Back int he days of the Romans/Greeks/Huns/Vikings/insert any civilization here there were constantly fights and brawls at taverns and that is in towns with much much lower populations than what we have now. I would think that as a % violence is actually much lower than in the past.

When i was at uni I would say i went out at least once a week on average. That is say 200 nights out in and around Adelaide notorious Hindley street. How many fights did i get in or come close to? One, and that was my fault.

Mankind is a violent species, pretending that more enforcement is going to stop violence is just kidding yourself. Same as how the religous activists before the prohibiton thought stopping alcohol would change things


----------



## MrBurns (24 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> By doing the same thing, just more of it (ie enforcing laws in a more stricter interpretation) you are still not going to change anything. What is that saying about doing the same thing over and over again? It hasnt worked for the last 50 years, why would it suddenly start working now?




I don't think it's been implemented properly in the past, they have to get tough not the softly half hearted efforts to date



> I would also be interested to see what % proportion of the population are actually affected by alcohol violence. I still think it is more the media and activists portrayals more than any actual increase. Back int he days of the Romans/Greeks/Huns/Vikings/insert any civilization here there were constantly fights and brawls at taverns and that is in towns with much much lower populations than what we have now. I would think that as a % violence is actually much lower than in the past.




These days hard liquor is easily accessable and drugs have exacerbated the problem, it's big.



> Mankind is a violent species, pretending that more enforcement is going to stop violence is just kidding yourself. Same as how the religous activists before the prohibiton thought stopping alcohol would change things




Fair enough but it can be controlled better than it is now, the police need to be helped by the courts not hindered.


----------



## McLovin (24 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> When i was at uni I would say i went out at least once a week on average. That is say 200 nights out in and around Adelaide notorious Hindley street. How many fights did i get in or come close to? One, and that was my fault.




Exactly right. I can't remember the last time I saw a fight. It's the people who never leave their lounge room who think the problem is huge. 

I've been going to the Cross since I was about 16, I've never once seen a fight there. Does it happen, of course, but it's not like as soon as you get out of your cab someone is going to king hit you.


----------



## prawn_86 (24 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Exactly right. I can't remember the last time I saw a fight. It's the people who never leave their lounge room who think the problem is huge.
> 
> I've been going to the Cross since I was about 16, I've never once seen a fight there. Does it happen, of course, but it's not like as soon as you get out of your cab someone is going to king hit you.




I saw a few but mostly mainly scuffles and push and shove as opposed to all out fighting.


----------



## prawn_86 (24 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> These days hard liquor is easily accessable and drugs have exacerbated the problem, it's big.




Hard liquor has always been accessible, for thousands of years. I would argue it is harder to access now than 500 years ago.

On a per capita basis how much bigger is it?

What drugs are you talking about? Have you used or studied the effects of 2 of the most popular 'illicit' drugs? Go to a nightclub that focuses on booking quality DJs and see how many people are smiling and ask you if you are "having a good night?", you dont think they are just happy and chatty from the music do you?

All we have now is the same problem any species has when kept in close confinement and high populations


----------



## Calliope (24 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Exactly right. I can't remember the last time I saw a fight. It's the people who never leave their lounge room who think the problem is huge.
> 
> I've been going to the Cross since I was about 16, I've never once seen a fight there. Does it happen, of course, but it's not like as soon as you get out of your cab someone is going to king hit you.





Cheers to my fellow boozers. It's my shout.




The above photos show white and black Australians drinking on opposite sides of the street. A shared culture.

Drinking Etiquette;

http://www.convictcreations.com/culture/drinking.htm



> "They are not a nation of snobs like the English or of extravagant boasters like the Americans or of reckless profligates like the French, they are simply a nation of drunkards." Marcus Clark




Some  More Drink Quotes;  

None of the men who in this country have left footprints behind them have been cold water men. Sir John Robertson

Beer makes you feel how you ought to feel without beer. Henry Lawson

Never have I seen such enthusiam for water - and so little of it drunk. Sir George Reid when opening the Kalgoorlie pipeline.

Des will spend about 30 hours in the water on this swim. It's not natural for a man to go that long without a beer. Barry Rodgers, trainer of long distance swimmer.  Des Redford, speaking as his champion prepared to swim from Newcastle to Sydney.

The population of Sydney (circa 1806) was divided into two classes, those who sold rum and those who drank it. Dr George Macakness

Eventually every house in the (North Sydney) area will have a bottle collection crate and we'll be collecting more than Mosman. And the mayor told me, they're much bigger pisspots over here. Ron Walters

The advertising industry lives a very cyclical life. December is the month for getting pissed.  John Singleton

This feat was to endear me to some of my fellow Australians more than anything else I ever achieved. Bob Hawke in reference to his beer drinking achievement.


----------



## McLovin (24 January 2013)

David Boon, 52 n.o.


----------



## prawn_86 (24 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> David Boon, 52 n.o.




haha i would argue he was out, or at least retired hurt.


----------



## McLovin (24 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> haha i would argue he was out, or at least retired hurt.




He batted on. Needed a runner though.


----------



## MrBurns (24 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> Hard liquor has always been accessible,




There's more money now than ever hence kids order shots instead of just beer.



> What drugs are you talking about?




Ice for a start, associated with violence.

Amphetamines - same

All available freely on the street.


----------



## prawn_86 (24 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> There's more money now than ever hence kids order shots instead of just beer.




Got some stats backing this up? Or any linking of shots to violence?




MrBurns said:


> Ice for a start, associated with violence.
> 
> Amphetamines - same
> 
> All available freely on the street.




Ice is a type of amphetamine, so assuming this is the only one you have heard about through the media there are at least 2, probably 3, illict drugs that are used more than 'ice', especially when drinking and/or partying and to be honest of the 4 i am thinking of 'ice' would probably be the hardest to get a hold of, but it just depends on the circles you move in.

If you know where it is freely available why don't you report it to the police?


----------



## MrBurns (24 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> Got some stats backing this up? Or any linking of shots to violence?




they even mention your precious Cross





> If you know where it is freely available why don't you report it to the police?




I think they know


----------



## McLovin (24 January 2013)

OK boys, we've got the cameras with us tonight. Remember, the majority of people still believe everything on TV is true, so let's put on a good show! I want the viewers at home to think they're safer in Baghdad than in Sydney. That way next time we ask for more power everyone will be so scared they won't say no.


----------



## MrBurns (24 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> OK boys, we've got the cameras with us tonight. Remember, the majority of people still believe everything on TV is true, so let's put on a good show! I want the viewers at home to think they're safer in Baghdad than in Sydney. That way next time we ask for more power everyone will be so scared they won't say no.




Yeah I know it's easy to see the whole thing was a setup


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> BWhen i was at uni I would say i went out at least once a week on average. That is say 200 nights out in and around Adelaide notorious Hindley street. How many fights did i get in or come close to? One, and that was my fault.



I now have images in my head of Prawn dancing to dodgy tunes on a Wednesday night at HQ and riding the bull at the Woolshed...... 

Seriously, of Australian cities I'd have to say that Hindley St and Kings X never worried me too much although I have certainly seen fights in the latter. There's some streets in Melbourne that scared me somewhat however.


----------



## Whiskers (25 January 2013)

kennas said:


> I am with them.
> 
> I am sick of having to pay extra taxes for drug addicts health care and social management programs including policing of irresponsible and anti social behaviour, especially alcohol related violence.




I think this is what it boils down too for many people.

One little difference between tobacco and alcohol that helped the downfall of tobacco is that it could affect adjacent people by involuntary inhalation. 

The comparable arguement against alcohol is the accident causing drunk driver and the drunk thugs who pick fights.  

The common theme of course is the cost to individuals and the public health and law enforcement purse in general.

I understand if you can prove you have given up smoking you will not be discriminated against treatment wise, but you may still face extra health insurance costs. 

They obviously can't go back to prohibition... unles we are overtaken by extreme religious culture... so the solution must be along user pays lines.


----------



## MrBurns (25 January 2013)

The more people crowded into small spaces the more dangerous it becomes, population growth in cities, add to that unemployment and substances, alcohol or otherwise and you get problems like we have now.

You cant throw the dole at people and expect them to be happy, they might survive but they will increasingly become isolated and experience low esteem.

The ideal situation is the have a society where everyone can hold their head up and have a purpose, ie employment.

Yes it wil cost money to try and fix it but you have to ask yourself what sort of society do you want to live in and if threats of any description can be eliminated or lessened than it's you that benefits, so it's worth the cost.

I dont expect miracles from Govt but they have it **** up, privatising things like transport put thousands out of jobs and made train stations dangerous, trams have no one to help a woman on with a pram any more and on it goes.

Instead of chasing financial efficiancy Govt's should be pursuing whats holistically good for the population.

I prefer a society that is "happier" than the one we have now and I'm prepared to pay for it but who's there to implement it ? No one I'm afraid.

[/early morning rant]


----------



## Logique (25 January 2013)

It will be a teaser for the regulators once these new driverless cars come in. Bridge to navigator, plot a course for home. 

Apparently the technology is ready (hope it has good anti-virus), it just needs regulatory approval. '..But officer, I wasn't driving!..'


----------



## McLovin (25 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> One little difference between tobacco and alcohol that helped the downfall of tobacco is that it could affect adjacent people by involuntary inhalation.
> 
> The comparable arguement against alcohol is the accident causing drunk driver and the drunk thugs who pick fights.




The huge difference between the two is that tobacco kills 1 in 2 people who use it. Alcohol doesn't.


----------



## prawn_86 (25 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> I now have images in my head of Prawn dancing to dodgy tunes on a Wednesday night at HQ and riding the bull at the Woolshed......




haha hell no. Both those venues are dives, i have only been to each a couple times. EC used to be the club to be at back in my uni days.



MrBurns said:


> The more people crowded into small spaces the more dangerous it becomes, population growth in cities, add to that unemployment and substances, alcohol or otherwise and you get problems like we have now.
> 
> You cant throw the dole at people and expect them to be happy, they might survive but they will increasingly become isolated and experience low esteem.
> 
> ...




That is exactly what i have been saying. Stricter interpretaion and laws isnt going to change anything, merely reinforce the current cycle.


----------



## Julia (25 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> What drugs are you talking about? Have you used or studied the effects of 2 of the most popular 'illicit' drugs? Go to a nightclub that focuses on booking quality DJs and see how many people are smiling and ask you if you are "having a good night?", you dont think they are just happy and chatty from the music do you?



It's a bit sad to consider that you apparently don't believe it's possible for people to be happy, smile at others and ask how they're doing, without chemical assistance.


----------



## MrBurns (25 January 2013)

I'm off to the pub to discuss this and other matters with men of importance


----------



## prawn_86 (25 January 2013)

Julia said:


> It's a bit sad to consider that you apparently don't believe it's possible for people to be happy, smile at others and ask how they're doing, without chemical assistance.




I said 'how many' ie implying that more than usual, much more in fact, would be like this. Show me where i said it's not possible for people to feel like this without drugs.


----------



## McLovin (25 January 2013)

Julia said:


> It's a bit sad to consider that you apparently don't believe it's possible for people to be happy, smile at others and ask how they're doing, without chemical assistance.




I could be wrong but I think prawn's point is that people don't necessarily become violent and agressive when they take drugs. If you take ecstacy, you're more than likely to react in the exact opposite way.


----------



## Julia (25 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> I could be wrong but I think prawn's point is that people don't necessarily become violent and agressive when they take drugs. If you take ecstacy, you're more than likely to react in the exact opposite way.



OK,  perhaps prawn can clarify what he meant.


----------



## prawn_86 (25 January 2013)

Julia said:


> OK,  perhaps prawn can clarify what he meant.




I meant that in a nightclub where a lot of people are taking illict drugs, you are probably going to come across more 'friendly' people than what you would do in a different social gathering.

Of course some people are like this normally, but proportionatly i think you would find more in a club due to chemical assistance. I'm not saying you need this assistance to get like this, it is just the nature of certain illict drugs.

And McLovins point is also valid.


----------



## Calliope (25 January 2013)

Julia said:


> It's a bit sad to consider that you apparently don't believe it's possible for people to be happy, smile at others and ask how they're doing, without chemical assistance.




Your toothpaste with "chemical assistance" will improve your smile.


----------



## Whiskers (25 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> The huge difference between the two is that tobacco kills 1 in 2 people who use it. Alcohol doesn't.




I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but yes, smoking probably does kill more of it's users in the long run. 

But like smoking, alcohol does affect and harm or kill people other than the one who consumed it, by way of alcohol fueled violence and accidents which can kill innocent people sooner, rather than later.

I think the issue that got the anti-smoking campaign really rolling was  passive smoking... the contamination of non-smokers working and living environments by smokers. That hooked the human rights and WH&S of the non-smoker to the adverse effects of smoking to get smoking banned in places where non-smokers had access.

While the health system is trying to make in-roads in terms of user pays and preferential treatment for non-drinkers, the law and public sentiment is rather lagging.

Maybe more momentum will come from WH&S drug and alcohol tests, harsher penalties and suspensions for drunk driving accidents including including civil actions.

Maybe the day will come you will not be able to start your car or enter your workplace without passing an automated breath/drug test. Sounds a bit radical, but not hard or too expensive to do really... and not far from the current position re smoking.


----------

