Abuser pays – make drunken idiots pay for their mayhem

Daphon says:

05:53am | 04/11/09

Perhaps we could bring back stocks and public hangings too.

Peter Thornton says:

06:40am | 04/11/09

I endorse the above proposals and sentiments.

steve wal;ters says:

06:50am | 04/11/09

great idea! they need to take responsability for there actions..

H Moon says:

07:25am | 04/11/09

Great idea, it is about time the government started doing something more about this problem rather than using it to raise revenue.

BMJ says:

07:27am | 04/11/09

Yeah I do pay for my Mayhem. I call it taxes.

SM says:

07:46am | 04/11/09

Far too good an idea to ever be implemented.

pete says:

08:01am | 04/11/09

I dont think the community has become to tolerant, but I think the mighty dollar probably rules, it’s cheaper to do nothing and let these louts go without action against them.. I agree with your article wholeheartedly.  Western australia have these laws as well as on the spot move on orders which basically tells the offender that he/she has to go home immediately, very good idea.
and to BMJ, I dont care how many taxes you pay, it doesnt give you an inbuilt right to be abusive to others. your selfish attitude is what is at the heart of this problem.

Barbara Flowers says:

08:05am | 04/11/09

A hotelier in Brisbane is taking action by suing an alleged ‘glasser’ in a civil action for the pub’s loss of reputation - now THERE’S a way to focus the mind (assuming anyone who glasses someone else actually has anything you could describe as a ‘mind’)

E says:

08:05am | 04/11/09

but follow the money, the alcohol producers shoud have to pay to clean up the social pollution their product spews. Fosters should pay a massive ‘social cleanup’ cost.

RGG says:

08:05am | 04/11/09

The laws you propose would not be used, at all, to unfairly target Aboriginal Australians. Ever. Especially given Australia’s history of this exact thing.

TD says:

08:12am | 04/11/09

why is it, that it appears there is a link between alcohol consumption and violence in anglo-saxon cultures. After living in Tokyo for 5 years, I can see men on the drink, but no violence. why is that so?

Jolanda says:

08:24am | 04/11/09

You have to remember that laws are made by those in power to protect those in and with power. 

Abusers do not pay in the current set up and system because our Government doesn’t want to set a precedent that might actually work to hold them to account for their abuses and neglect. 

Of course those who destroy or abuse should have to pay for the damage and be punished for their actions.  That isn’t something that needs a debate?

Why should targets or victims be the only ones who pay?

Education – Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

Amy says:

08:33am | 04/11/09

Yes, that’s a great idea - give the police more arbitrary powers to impose petty sanctions for an offence that cannot be clearly defined and so basically come down to who annoys the arresting/fining officer and who doesn’t!
The answer to all social problems is not just “give the police more powers”

Will says:

08:35am | 04/11/09

Certainly has its merits. I still worry that the main offenders, those reliant on the welfare system, will not have the ability to pay such fines - which is reflective of the whole justice system. How can you punish someone when they have nothing to lose? This system would only punish those with the ability to pay - much like the justice system only punishes those who have something to lose (i.e. job, reputation, money). But hey, I don’t have a better suggestion, and I imagine this would be effective in a significant percentage of situations… I say let’s roll it out.

E says:

08:43am | 04/11/09

@TD : good question

@Jolanda: Great post, the government and powers that be must always fight to protect their right to irresponsibility

S says:

09:18am | 04/11/09

Absolutely agree 100%.

Maybe if there was some threat of punishment, they might think twice.

RS says:

09:59am | 04/11/09

I agree completely with the proposal. Something needs to happen to deter people from irresponsibly having a negative impact on other people’s lives. They have no idea how much their actions impact the community, police and health systems, and how much it costs (and then they whinge about taxes!!!) so if this is what it takes for them to wake up, so be it. The rest of the country should not have to keep shelling out for the stupidity of others who cannot control their own drunken behaviour. I also agree with SM re: welfare payments.
HOWEVER I also think society as a whole will go through a rapid and intense change very soon anyway and realise what is important in life, and that trading time for money is a crock, so this may all be completely irrelevant.

Will says:

10:02am | 04/11/09

SM@10.01am

Totally agree with the vouchers - why give our hard earned tax dollars to the ‘needy’ if they’re going to piss it up against the wall or load it into pokies? They should only be able to use welfare on food, rent, eduation and health - and maybe a small portion of discretionary income for the well behaved. Some might say this is too harsh, but those who recieve welfare shouldn’t be living a high quality standard of living - just enough to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, cover medical expenses and keep the kids in school. If you want anymore than that get off your ass and get a job.

In terms of deducting from the welfare payments, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Taking away $50 or $100 a week, which I agree is an affective punishment from the perspective of the individual concerned, would lead to a reliance of an alternate income source - most likely crime. In turn - this would just perpetuate the problem. Banks are unable to take more than 10% of an individuals welfare payment to clear any outstanding debts - so I imagine the government would have a similar conundrum.

Unfortunately, there will never be a perfect solution, just gradual steps in the right direction…

Carl Palmer says:

10:07am | 04/11/09

Chris, I agree and your suggestion makes complete sense to me. Every morning there is another glassing where someone is seriously injured or someone is assaulted, knifed or beaten up. Police, ambulance and hospital resources are wasted because of these buffoons.  Those who do the right thing need to be protected. We all complain that there are not enough police and well let’s not start on hospital waiting time. The lack of respect for the Police should not be tolerated. Zero tolerance. Re the paperwork, surely we / they could work out a way to streamline the process. Use of technology - police issued photo / video devices?

I’ve travelled around Europe a few times and you can buy alcohol everywhere even at service stations 24 x 7! In all of the trips I’ve had to Europe I’ve only seen one drunk (who looked homeless) in St Marks Square Venice. It is very interesting to compare their culture with ours.  The same applied to Dubai – not ONE did I see even thou alcohol was freely available.

The only other point I’d make is that whilst alcohol probably make up the majority of these problems, the issue of drugs i.e. methamphetamine should also be in the mix. Having said that, the drug issue is a far more sinister problem for the authorities to tackle.

Oh, if they can’t afford, then they can clean public toilets on trains stations, parks etc. If we can make this work, then I’d prefer to pay for their supervision than having to pay for the Police, ambulance and hospital costs.

RGG says:

10:16am | 04/11/09

I subscribe to the “eat your veggies” theory. Police can have more powers after they’ve used the ones they’ve already got.

AdamC says:

10:29am | 04/11/09

I understand the objective here, but I do not believe the proposal is workable or, necessarily, desirable. What police need to deal with the problem of booze-fuelled mischief and violence are adequate resources (i.e, bodies) to patrol the streets and innovative compliance and enforcement tools to help manage those resources.

One idea that I heard recently would be for police to be able to summarily send a drunken reveller to a ‘drunk-tank’ at their own expense to sleep off the booze. No conviction, no need for court judgement (unless the subject wanted to appeal the penalty) much like a speeding fine. The real benefit of a system like this would be to minimise risks to the public (and the drunk) by getting the drunk off the street, without the police needing to expend their resources on reams of paperwork and court procedure.

Mike Cockburn says:

10:32am | 04/11/09

Hard to know where to start… Public drunkeness and alcohol related violence are just 2 visible manifestations of a growing epidemic of alcohol addiction. The British Medical Associations most recent report on alcohol marketing points to public attitudes being shaped by Big Liquor. Over there they spend 600 million Uk pounds out of a total marketing budget of 800 million pounds to get into the media and into the minds of our youth the kind of attitudes displayed by this writer and Penbethy in todays Herald Sun. Big events are especially important along with sporting teams. The oft repeated examples of victors sharing dangerous quantities of alcohol in ‘celebration’ is the marketing lubricant upon which many children suffer permanent brain damage. Yes, Punch, your ignorance and attitudes do kill, maim and injure. Too much alcohol is consumed ‘dangerously’ - witness the Herald Suns Breath Testing of race goers. 8 out of 10 ‘drunk’.
A favoured tactic noted by the BMA researchers is to isolate those portrayed as being engaged in obviously anti social behaviours with a kind of ‘whoa, he’s pathetic, he can’t hold his drink’ response. People who are obviously the victims of a ruthless marketing campaign and unhealthy social groups and become hopelessly addicted to alcohol and binge drinking need to have their examples brought back to the perpetrators of this disaster. Not the individual, but the conglomerates who have aimed their toxic, addictive and carcinogenic products at them - and scored a direct hit.
So, the deal is folks, we need clear leadership by our governments, media and community leaders. We need them to embrace the research on alcohol. We need them to treat Big Liquor as the enemy not as a responsible industry harmlessly going about their business. They are Not. We need to treat liquor like tobacco. We need to ban all advertising and promotion. We need to set a min age limit of 21 in line with best practice found in America and based on the evidence that seeks to avoid young brains from being permanently damaged. We need to clearly state the point where ‘responsible drinking’ ends. You wouldn’t know this, because you are not interested in researching it, so quickly, for your health responsible drinking ends at 2 * std drinks per day; For a driver it ends below a BAC of 05; For a pedestrian it ends at a BAC of 08.
Setting a pedestrian 08 limit clearly draws a line in the sand that everyone can understand. ‘Responsible drinking ends at 08’.  Random breath testing reinforces a general understanding and awareness of this limit. For those alcoholics in dire need of an out of control binge drinking session, nothing outlined above would prevent them from doing so. Just dont walk the streets. Dont drive cars and dont involve children in your activities. Big Liquor getting into bed with Governments and Media have turned Binge Drinking into a social activity. A pedestrian 08 law is reverses this, making Binge Drinking an isolated, anti-social occasion.
Fines should be of the order of $250 per point above 08. So someone blowing 1.6 should be up for $2k. Because pedestrians are Road Users, any driving licences should be suspended for repeat offenders. Under age drinkers should be fined. Anyone over the limit needs to be drunk tanked until sober enough to continue safely. At 08 you should not be drink walking. See The Pedestrian 08 Campaign for more information.

N says:

10:35am | 04/11/09

Perhaps a sweeping generalisation, but I would bet the majority of these clowns are on low income / welfare. Like many have said, implementing a strategy to get money from them is like getting blood from a stone.

End of the day, I would love to see this idea implemented, the positive flow on affects will be apparent in potentially reduced insurance costs, taxation, etc.  Even if reduced costs aren’t realised, the satisfaction that your property is being repaired at the cost of the perpetrator would be enough for me.

BT says:

10:43am | 04/11/09

Since when did Australians become so institutionalised that they don’t believe that they have the right to get drunk whenever and wherever they feel like it?  Are we really such a nation of boring, cold, judgemental control freaks policing each other on behalf of the powers that be and at the expense of our freedom? If I feel like going down to the park and getting drunk why shouldn’t I? I’m not hurting anyone. I pay my taxes, if an ambulance is required, so what? I’ve already paid for it!
Ah… for the days of ancient rome, where drunken debauchery was encouraged as it was seen as being good for the social fabric! How boring you all are!

E says:

10:46am | 04/11/09

I dont think its safe to say that the majority of binge drinkers are on welfare. Look at our business and political ‘elite’, they spend plenty of time working the wrist, and even sometimes hit the booze too.
The people frequenting inner city clubs and pubs are often young and often perhaps on Austudy, but most of them would be considered ‘middle class’. Yobbos and thugs come from all post codes unfortunately.

E says:

10:51am | 04/11/09

@N : Yeah dont think I buy the whole poor people angle, and its true that getting money from them is like getting blood from a stone, because they dont have any! Also, whatever we get is already the taxpayers, so we are robbing peter to pay paul, to pay peter…

@BT: Good point I reckon, but the flipside is that some of these people do hurt others. Also the whole mega-pub drink till you puke culture is unhealthy. Alcohol companies should not be profiting so richly from the credulity and ignorance of their customers.

N says:

11:02am | 04/11/09

BT: Congrats, you pay taxes, this isn’t a green light to be an idiot and go on a drunken rampage, damaging peoples property. I pay a tonne of taxes (company & personal), and while the amount taxed per year > than ambulance / police involvement if I were to be stupid while intoxicated, I realise that the money gained from my tax imputation shouldn’t be used solely to fix up my mess. It would be a great system, but pretty unworkable when you consider how dependant our entire system is on taxation.

SM says:

11:07am | 04/11/09

There’s really no way of overstating the problems caused by exessive drinking.  One area that highlights this , which goes to what Mike said about Big Liquor, is pubs, clubs and public drinking venues in general.  Try this one night.  Whilst sober, attend a crowded drinking spot at maybe 1am or 2am on a Sat or Sun morning.  Take a look around.  The behaviour you’ll see is, for me anyway, indescribable.  Any politician charged with any responsibilities with regards to alcohol fueled violence etc MUST be made to do this.  Forget about what the hotels association and the lobbyists say.  Go and have a look for yourself.  Having said that, I don’t know what the solution is.  Drunk people do terrible things.  So long as there are drunk people, there’ll be serious problems.

BT says:

11:18am | 04/11/09

Oh N, as usual singling me out on a totally unrelated issue. What is this obsession you have with me? I have a right to an opinion - get over it.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

11:56am | 04/11/09

I like it…it’s one of the few proposals which does not unfairly punish the innocent (unlike bar curfews, alcopop taxes etc).

Carl Palmer says:

12:01pm | 04/11/09

@Mike Cockburn says: 11:32am | 04/11/09
Mike I understand you position but surely the individual needs to take some responsibility.

Damaging property or a human being is an act they initiated. Blaming a VB add is a cop out. As SM says – “drunk people do terrible things”. I’m not suggesting that advertising doesn’t play a role here. That’s like blaming Ford for car accidents or that KFC and or McDonalds are to blame for obesity - there is plenty of material around to tell you that it ain’t the best for you if you eat it all the time.

Parents also have a huge responsibility to make sure their siblings behave responsibly. For those of us that have kids, I’m sure we all have had this conversation with our kids.  Have they always remained sober – mine haven’t BUT they are crystal that they are responsible for their actions AND the very likely possibility that they could become inadvertently involved in an incident initiated by someone else.

Should they end up damaging property or whatever then I would expect that they would go back apologise and reimburse the victim.

ceejay says:

12:18pm | 04/11/09

I agree with Chris, it should be the offender pays either with cash or time. Not all offenders are low income people or welfare reciepients. We also need to look at all venues.  Part of the problem with alcohol is when you go out to Pubs, clubs & even restaurants. They don’t sell low alcohol wine or spirits. At home I drink commercial brand wine with 5 to 6% alochol volume. I drink commercial brand vodka & scotch with 3.5%.
Yet have not found one venue which stocks any of these products.
When asking most bar staff have never heard of them. So what does that tell you.  We should be able to buy low alcohol drinks at all licensed venues, not just beer. Which in most cases they only have 1 brand.

David C says:

12:42pm | 04/11/09

maybe the police should use the powers they have already? How about a “surge” against these crimes over a few successive weekends and follow through against the offenders.

Todd says:

12:55pm | 04/11/09

Mike Cockburn runs the tired old socialist mantra - it is always the fault of whatever industry is involved - Big Liqour in this case - and individuals are helpless pawns in the face of advertising so Australia needs more rules and more regulations and bigger research funding and social marketing campaigns…. .

Mike Cockburn says:

01:13pm | 04/11/09

Carl, you are underplaying the role, effectiveness and responsibilty of alcohol marketers, read this link here:
http://pedestrian08.org/2009/10/03/an-evil-face-fevola-and-the-british-medical-association/
Property damage is the least of our worries. If/when anyone you know gets struck down by an alcohol related cancer or serious illness, trust me, your private health insurance will run out really quickly and the humble taxpayer will be picking up the pieces. BTW, in a lot of alcohol related illnesses a lot of your pieces go straight into the hospital incinerator!
You’re an intelligent guy, does an education promotion cut the mustard with culture change? Answer, not really, look at this:
http://pedestrian08.org/2009/10/21/education-vs-culture/
Where 41% of a target, highly educated test group were found to be ‘at risk of alcohol dependence’ - after all possible education measures were thrown at them.
This is why the WHO conclude that only those health campaigns with a hard legal edge have any hope of succeeding. Think of 05 campaign.
Can U imagine ‘Ohh please drink and drive safely. Just Think then Drive’ What a joke, we’d have bodies 2,000 high running the kind of policy we run now for general alcohol use.
Think of racial vilification legislation. Why not a wishy washy feel good program? Because they DONT work.
That’s why a pedestrian 08 limit puts the responsibility for the ‘safe’ consumption of alcohol onto the shoulders of those who need it most - the alcohol consumer.
Alcohol related violence disappears and you can walk the streets with comparative safety.

regards
Mike Cockburn

Tony R says:

01:16pm | 04/11/09

Top idea.

Those that think it’s every Australian’s right to drink to the point of insanity, might like to escort their families through a drunken melee one night. 

Then they’d have a bit more sympathy for cops and nurses, who have to deal with this social mess.

Jack says:

01:47pm | 04/11/09

NEWSFLASH: Police propose giving themselves power to subjectivly ‘fine’ anyone they decide an arbitary amount, impose penalties and collect funds without judicial process and oversight.

Lucky we dont have corrupt cops, cops that have issue with certain racial or ethnic groups, or a state government bent on revenue raising.

Why dont you just propose a new law allowing police to ‘confiscate’ my wallet, car keys and pin numbers if they dont like the colour of my shirt?

Mick says:

01:49pm | 04/11/09

Love it. Probably too logical to be introduced though.

Mark says:

01:50pm | 04/11/09

What a great idea except that trouble makers usually dont have any money unless they play for an NRL team, what happens when they cant pay or will we only force payment if the person can afford it. Interesting if the person had budgeted for medical treatment for someone else.
Why restrict it to alcohol, lets charge drivers who speed the full cost of emergency services and the medical treatment for the victim.
I have feeling this idea wont get up.

part time drinker says:

01:57pm | 04/11/09

There’s nothing wrong with getting a little drunk but when things turn violent that’s where something needs to be done. Unfortunately we need 2am curfews in all bars and clubs like they have in California. Also raising the drinking age to 21 will get rid of those little s—ts who can’t handle their drink. This is the only way I can see us reducing the binge drinking culture in Australia.

Elizabeth says:

02:00pm | 04/11/09

what the eff is ‘drink walking’?

Elizabeth says:

02:02pm | 04/11/09

Oh sorry. I should also state I was referring to Mike Cockburn’s comments.

Umair says:

02:35pm | 04/11/09

I agree 100% with Chris… It’s a great plan & implemented ASAP…I hope this suggestion implemented ASAP…

tracey says:

02:55pm | 04/11/09

brilliant idea and hope someone in a position to actually enact this type of legislation, does.  He would get my vote.

Michael says:

03:13pm | 04/11/09

Fines are only a deterrent to the people who can’t afford to pay them, I think fines should be dropped for all summery offences and instead community service should become the norm, fines may benefit the coffers of government but we rarely get value for money out of them.

There is plenty of work that needs to be done in our community, lots of streets have never seen a street sweeper, lots of volunteer organisations could probably use some unskilled labour and who knows the offenders may even learn something from doing it, they certainly don’t learn much from a big fine they can’t pay.

Josh Trevarthen says:

03:20pm | 04/11/09

Elizabeth, drink-walking means something similar to drink-driving…

This is all band-aid talk, the same ol’ that leads to more and more laws and the police state that we in the land of Oz live in.

Any effective solution will be long-term, starting right back in year 1 of school. Here’s an idea, how about instead of just teaching people how to be a good slave in our dollar-driven world, instead let’s teach them a thing or two about the life-24/7 deal. Most people are deluded, hateful, and greedy, not by nature, but because they’re taught to be. How about caring for your fellow man/woman like you would your brother or sister? What’s the difference?

Ken Smith says:

03:20pm | 04/11/09

Absolutely agree with abuser pays.Its time the acohol industry also contributed to cleaning up the mess.
Automobiles kill and maim, but the industry continues to make them safer. Its time the alcohol industry did the same with their products.Maybe reduce the % alcohol content of all drinks. This would also help the indigenous communities.

jme says:

03:36pm | 04/11/09

ok so someone who is stupid enough to stick a knife in a toaster should pay their costs, a reformed alcoholic who needs to go to hospital for alcohol abuse pay the costs, or how about someone who sits too long in the sun and has to go to hospital for sun stroke pay too!? yeha bloody right. How about their is stricter regulation on the sale of alcohol in off licenses and in bars, or stricter secuirty in clubs or more things for poeple to do in a community than drink. So many options… this one wont work and will open a can of worms.

Dennis says:

03:46pm | 04/11/09

Far to good an idea for our “do good”  politicians to implement. Hitting the back pocket is the way to make ratbags be accountable for their behaviour.

Cafrl Palmer says:

03:48pm | 04/11/09

Mike, my response was primarily in relation to Chris Gardiner article, the need for individuals to take responsibility for their actions and how that could be addressed. Chris’s article was addressing the “now” problem – “befoul public spaces, wreck the ‘quiet enjoyment’ of others, and divert our accident and emergency teams…”

I also said that advertising did have a role to play in selling the product to people. However I agreed with Chris’s approach or anything of a similar ilk that we need to get tough and confront the “now” problem head on. For me parents also have a critical role to play in this “space”.

If we take the longer term view of alcohol consumption resulting in alcohol related cancer / illnesses then yes this is also an issue and a cost on the system & community. Maybe we could learn from the huge strides that were made in significantly reducing smoking – but as we all know people still smoke!! And yes living in a house full of medical people I’ve got a pretty good idea of what happens.

Education like advertising has it place and neither will either collectively or individually “fix” the problem. In my younger days there was nothing stopping you from having a drink whilst you drove, actually, the police frowned if they saw you with a DA in your hand. We now know the damage that behaviour (particularly by the young – yes my generation) brought onto the community. The hard line DUI policy has been one huge step forward BUT people still don’t get it.

On the news this morning they were saying that 20% of road accidents were alcohol related. Yesterday afternoon a 43 YO female was pulled over in Woollahra with a reading of 0.25!! Maybe your $2k fine would have taken all of her cup winnings

I agree wholeheartedly with the “puts the responsibility for the ‘safe’ consumption of alcohol onto the shoulders of those who need it most - **the alcohol consumer**.” And it needs to be tough as Chris has suggested. One of the links you supplied also made reference to the “liberalisation of closing times” and yes pulling this back would also be a step in the right direction - though when I was a little younger the pubs closed at around 10pm and the bottle shop became very popular between 9:30pm and 10pm.

Mike thanks for the URL’s I’ll go thru them in a little more detail.

@ Jack says:v02:47pm | 04/11/09
I respect your right to have a view, but I think that you may have slightly missed the point and the essence of what Chris was proposing.

SM says:

04:03pm | 04/11/09

@Josh makes a lot of sense

It will need to start from year 1, and as such be generational.  So even in a utopian perfect world, there’s not going to be any real results from an approach like that for many years.

In the meantime, there needs to be some sort of mandatory drivers licence based national database (the costs of which are met by alcohol manufacturers) at every single public drinking venue in the country.  If you behave violently in a venue, you are flagged in the system. Serious offences carry a life ban -  you cannot attend ANY licenced premises ever again.

John Vance says:

04:13pm | 04/11/09

Typical! Sell someone enough alcohol, to get blind drunk, watch him loose all his inhibitions, watch him do damage to himself and others due to his state of mind, and then throw the book at him.
Why not start at the beginning. Ration alcohol to 3 standard drinks a week.
Nill for offenders. Whoops the Hotel industry would be offended.
Fine the offenders. Whoops theyre not able to pay. Put them in jail. Whoops that costs money. Shut down late nite pubs. Whoops you cant do that!
When are we going to find a solution. What about transport provided by people who sell the stuff late at night? Anywhere you want to go. The Taxi industry doesn’t like it, but what the hey, they dont like drunks either. Unfortunately the drunks are not bright enough at this point to demand safe travel and when sober don’t admit their problems, get ignored and are the patsy.

Peter Thornton says:

04:22pm | 04/11/09

It’s absolute ignorance to assume that only the underclass abuse alcohol. It’s such retarded thinking that I assumed it wouldn’t even enter into this discussion.

I think the cycle needs to broken right now. Perhaps then, in a few generations’ time (guess they’ll be called Gen-A) the problem may be reduced sufficiently to combat our increasing social disorder.

Considering 80% of those incarcerated were under the influence of alcohol when they did whatever it was they did to land themselves in the boob, something needs to be done before the breweries, distilleries and wineries start sourcing labour from the jails.

Duane says:

04:27pm | 04/11/09

I’m concerned at the way we’ve lost the cabability for self control and responsibilty. We seem to be trying to make up for this by becoming a Police State. There’s no excuse for drunken stupidity. We already pay a raft of taxes, fees, levies, stamp duties etc. The government - both State and Federal - is not exactly broke. Where do you draw the line? Do you charge accident vicitms? Do you charge smokers - bearing in mind that the federal government already makes a net gain from the amount of taxes on tobacco products. Do you charge the obese? Do you penelise everyone who is not as perfect as yourself? Or do we begin to teach people from an early age that they need to adhere to certain social norms and standards, and that certain things are not acceptable? ie - it’s not all about you, and you do not have the right to do what ever the hell you like, regardless of what any one else thinks. Six billion people on the planet, and then you, Sunshine.

Erwin Groeneveld says:

04:31pm | 04/11/09

We have a responsibility to make public places safe for everyone’s enjoyment. We should encourage responsible drinking behaviours and I would consider it reasonable to introduce random pedestrian breath testing with penalties such as community service for repeat offenders. A part of the problem is substance abuse in combination with alcohol abuse. we are seeing escalating drug fuelled violence and social disintegration - it is time to change our direction.

Matt says:

04:40pm | 04/11/09

Michael says:

“Fines are only a deterrent to the people who can’t afford to pay them”.  On the contrary.  In our wonderful responsibility free utopia, if you can’t afford something, the government takes care of it for you.  Do you really think remote communities with entrenched alcohol problems will be forced to give up some of their welfare payments to pay their fines?  Under this proposal, fines will only be a deterent to those CAN afford to pay them.  Just because people can afford something, doesn’t mean they want to pay for it.

Rocksteady says:

04:43pm | 04/11/09

Maybe we should just reimburse marijuana smokers instead, for not going out at all and just sitting at home watching Animal planet and just generally not annoying anyone at all. Oh hang on we don’t pay any tax at all to imbibe our substance of choice, no worries forget i said anything. Thanks Australia, keep it criminal, it suits me!

martinX says:

04:52pm | 04/11/09

I would like to see people (criminals) pay for police interrogation time, too. This would be an incentive to confess early and stop wasting precious public resources. If it’s set at a reasonable ‘break-even’ point, interrogations could even be outsourced to a private concern.

I heard they’re doing this in Brazil.

Don Oorst says:

06:29pm | 04/11/09

Uh. Anyone who’s dealt with junkies knows that one of the big killers of junkies is the belief they will get big bills if they go to hospital on an overdose. As intuitively appealing as this idea might be , it’ll kill people if alcohol overdoses remain untreated due to cost, especially with overdosing teenagers fearing parental repercussions for ambulance/hospital bills. And that’d be a tragedy.

N says:

07:05pm | 04/11/09

BT: My apologies if it would appear that I’m singling you out on this issue; it seems we come to loggerheads quite often. Not quite certain how it can be “unrelated” when you draw conclusion that as a tax payer it’s your right to act like those mentioned in the article.

As an open forum for debate, I’ll single out anyone with nonsensical arguments such as the one you (and BMJ) raised. No problems with you having an opinion, but I would suggest putting some significant thought into it before submitting.

Mike Cockburn says:

07:06pm | 04/11/09

Hey part time drinker, guess what? It’s part time, occasional binge drinkers who are most often involved in committing one punch homicides! These occur in Melbourne about 1 per month. Another subsidy to Big Liquor - 1 body in the morgue every month.
‘Elizabeth, the eff’:  drink walking is a term given by media to refer to the fact that at a BAC of 08 you don’t have the necessary skills to cross a road safely.  See http://pedestrian08.org/
Some 30% of dead pedestrians have a BAC well in excess of 05 and the vast majority, well in excess of 08. Don’t join them.
Most people do not know this. Despite millions of dollars of taxpayer funding, most people cannot clearly define what ‘drunk’ is, why alcohol can be dangerous, and that it can give you cancer and serious illness.  Millions spent on further normalising what should be marginalised.  Your taxes and a corruption of the body politic, at work!
If you can think of a better definition of what ‘drunk’ is than being not safe to cross a road safely, stand at a tram stop or train station safely, tell us all now.  And you also need to provide a ready to go method of measuring large numbers of drinkers. Breathalyzers appear to be that method.
‘N’, your assumptions about ‘them’ being low income. I’ve never seen evidence of that. Please advise if you have. No problem getting money out of ‘them’. If you have money for a binge, you have money for a fine.
‘Michael at 04:13pm’, the evidence doesn’t support your theory. The most successful behaviour change program in history to do with alcohol has to be the 05 campaign. They could not have done this without fines and other consequences. Also, government coffers are not a bottomless pit.  What you are proposing is very expensive, whereas setting and enforcing a pedestrian 08 limit, would be self funding, behaviour changing and effective.
Josh at 04:13pm, you can’t be serious can you? Last year in Victoria alone we had 4850 alcohol related ambulance callouts. How many will there be under your plan?

Craig says:

08:58pm | 04/11/09

At least we are now starting to focus on the real issue at long last.  That is the minority who can not behave themselves after a drink. 

We have taken one step forward and two steps back with this problem.

One step forward
1.  The introduction of Responsible Service of Alcohol Legislation and compliance through Police enforcement.  Good Move.

Two steps backwards by introducing
1.  ‘Move On’ laws instead of Police detaining high risk intoxicated persons.
2.  ‘2am Lock Outs’ for Hotels who have acted responsibly and reported more than 19 assaults in a year.  This has got to be the biggest disincentive ever introduced to Hotels co-operating with Police.

It is time for all parties concerned to accept that some people react badly to drinking alcohol.  Everyone knows someone who has a complete personality change after a few drinks.  It is impossible to identify these people until they are displaying their anti social behaviour. 

Lets introduce measures that encourage Hotels and Police to work together to manage the aggressive minority that cause everyone so much grief.

Here’s a suggestion.  If a Patron has become aggressive or violent towards other people call the Police so they can take him or her to a ‘Sobering Room’ where they are detained under medical supervision until they are released sober.  Then charge them a fee for the service.

Michael says:

09:20pm | 04/11/09

Well matt, you are wrong about welfare not being interdicted by fines, I failed to pay some fines and a garnish order was put on me, entire dole payment taken pretty harsh but that’s the way the cookie crumbles, you probably right about the remote communities though, I doubt they do it to black people in the outback.

BT says:

09:43pm | 04/11/09

N,
It just seemed to me that your argument was carried over from the vegetarian vs meateater debate from a week or so as it seems that every time, no matter what the issue you single me out. Just wondering why you felt the need to do that since many of the posts from other contributors conflict with your opinions.
It’s quite arrogant to suggest that just because someone disagrees with you, that there is no merit to their argument. It would be nice to think that you could engage in debate without being deroggatory to the person you are engaging with.
I did in fact put thought into my argument. I happen to believe that people have the right to their freedom and that comes above all rights of property. You imagine quite often in your replies to me that I have typed words that aren’t there. At no time did I say that it was ok to go on “a rampage” - you invented that phrase yourself. I said it was my right to buy alcohol and consume it in any place of my choosing because I don’t believe that anyone has the right to tell me not to. If someone acts out in violence whilst drunk, it is usually because they are upset about something anyway, the alcohol just lowers their ability to repress it. Therefore, instead of stupidly fining people which resolves nothing, they should be offered counselling which would resolve both the concerns of expenditure of taxpayers money (it’s cheaper than getting govt services involved) and the social disruption. Got it? Being a bully and standover merchant isn’t the only option when it comes to dealing with social problems.

Better not say says:

09:51pm | 04/11/09

Has merit, I recently dealt with a drunken 27 y.o. male who abused door staff, swore like there was no tomorrow at his grilfriend, damaged two cars (was then flogged and knocked unconscious by two passerbys), then when regaining consciousness swore and struck out at the attending amublance officers, abused hospital staff, told the police to f.off ... nice guy ... real estate agent ... thought I might rock up at one of his home opens and start behaving the same way.  Be great if he had to pay for the mayhem he caused and costs associated with ambulance, hospital, police, damage to cars (don’t worry he’ll be paying for that). Flogger of the highest order. Wish I could have filmed him and posted it on a website - that would hurt his inflated ego even more.

Martin Kennedy says:

10:48pm | 04/11/09

Excellent but what about all the kids that won’t make the call to help someone because they know it will either cost there friends or family money. And lets say there will be many of them that think exactly like that. I am a 42yo man with two engineering degree’s and I dont drink but that was the first thing that came to mind. That proposition in its simplest form is about as sensible as the 2/3am lockouts that have had have seriously increased violence and drunken behaviour on the streets here in Brisbane. From about 3am to 5am here its mayhem but the powers that be wouldnt want to admit its failing and have a terrible effect. Just check out the casino in brisbane after 3am the “only” place you can enter funnilly enough also the biggest revenue stream for the state government. I think education at an early age is the way to go. Many teenagers these days seem to have no respect for the law or themselves for that matter but when you meet some of the parents then you relise why these teens are the way they are. But of coarse the instant press/government bandaide effect of user pays is always the street we seem to steer down, maybe its time for some solutions based on looking a bit more outside the square and for the record this is all over one party, how many thousands of party’s took place last weekend without a single hinch!! Out of balance reporting maybe hmmm?

shabangabang says:

08:25am | 05/11/09

My attention was drawn to the “Only on 7’ watermark. No Mr Stokes. Drunken bogans appear on all networks, not only on 7.

Carl Palmer says:

09:13am | 05/11/09

Given that it’s Oaks Day in Melbourne I thought that I would share an experience I had.

A few years ago I had the pleasure of going to Oaks Day or Ladies Day where I quickly realised why they also referred to it as Blokes day. The two legged fillies were magnificently dressed and what’s more there were more of them than us blokes. If you haven’t been, you have to go – my wife keeps reminding me that I should take her to Oaks Day – one day I will.

Onto the serious bit - 

As I’m sure everyone knows, alcohol runs very freely at these events which starts mid morning and finishes late in the afternoon – I think 10am to 6pm. Quite a lot of folks are guests in various marquees and yes you guessed it the alcohol is free.  Now I’ve been around the block a few times and had my share of a misspent youth but I have to say that at the end of that day, I’d never seen so many drunken people – male and female. Actually, one young man was so drunk that he stopped breathing and someone had to call the ambulance. I’ve never forgotten the image of him lying down and slowly floating towards death. It was a very sobering image. The ambulance came really quickly, they stabilised him and got him sort of conscious.

My point is this – I can’t recall seeing a violent incident that afternoon even though everyone around me had their fair share of alcohol with some certainly having had more than others. There was definitely some frustration and yes there was a bit of agro in the Taxi rank – heaps of people waiting but no cabs. I can’t recall the level of security or the level of police presence – they must have been there but I didn’t see one punch thrown in anger, a melee or a fight. Nothing.

Was it the type of people who were there the fact that there were more ladies than blokes, the time of day? I don’t know. I don’t follow the horses so I’ll assume that a cross section of the community - young and the “not so young” rich and the not so rich were in attendance.

I’m no expert but it was interesting to observe.

I’ll leave it with you.

H says:

01:22pm | 05/11/09

Chris, great idea. A lot of the drunks will be unable to pay, but they can do community service in Lieu of payment.

My main problem with how some behave when drunk, is the offense it does to their dignity as humans. If you can’t act in a respectable manner when drunk…you shouldn’t drink.

Although its tragic, it might be a bit heavy handed to police people just because they sound like cackling Hyeena’s when drunk - but yes, if you have gone so far as to force some decent civic minded person like a paramedic to treat you while you simultaneously abuse him/wet your pants - you ought to be made to take responsability as you (tragically) haven’t learned that lesson yet. It might just help make men out of hedonistic man-childs

Liz says:

02:06pm | 05/11/09

Good idea.Community service to repair the damage,see the results and let some reality into the situation.Actions and consequences a winner every time!

Josh Trevarthen says:

03:22pm | 05/11/09

You can pick at the leaves of a weed all you like and it’ll probably grow stronger than ever, or you can pull the sucker out from the root. It’s requires a fundamental change in our not-as-smart-as-we-think western socities, which means wide open minds in government…a laughable proposition!

Alcohol is a drug, and a violent one at that; do you seriosuly think all these finicky solutions will do anything to curb the problems?

Thankfully 99% of the time all is well

tek says:

07:46am | 06/11/09

I’m 31 years old, and have been binge-drinking for, say 13 years. I love going out, and quite often I drink too much. Often I must been obnoxious, stubborn, boring and/or bad company in general. And at the time I probably thought I was being witty or insightful. I dance badly and eat unhealthy food in the middle of the night. I’m not defending myself.

But never have I or anyone in my group of friends or their friends, to my knowledge, ever been involved in any violent behaviour. One friend was once punched by a stranger, but that’s it. Sometimes, one or another of us has been threatened. Neither has anyone committed any criminal damage or vandalism, apart from maybe taking a shopping trolly for a ride or vomiting in the park, which occurred more than 10 years ago. Maybe watching us would be an unedifying experience, maybe we shouldn’t do it. But to say all people who are drunk are bad folk and potential criminals is not correct. We all have jobs, enjoy going out and don’t cause harm.

Lumping us in, and punishing us, with violent idiots is incorrect and lazy.