Festival booze: Australia’s most expensive drug

Tracey Conlan says:

08:12am | 06/01/11

Because all drugs are bad but alcohol is good ? Stay inside your box Reg. Its a big world out there.

Laura says:

08:15am | 06/01/11

oh no, not the ecstacy, anything but the ecstacy D:

While I don’t think Sam is necessarily condemning recreational drug use, I don’t think the point he’s trying to make is advocation either. Merely drawing a parallel to highlight the ridiculously high cost of alcohol sold at festivals after an already ridiculously high entry fee.

but really they’re the same as nightclub prices so it’s not a huge surprise.

Reg says:

08:48am | 06/01/11

I never mentioned alcohol was good, so thanks for your misinterpretation.

Good for you Tracey, I hope you find personal slight empowering.  How tough you are hiding behind your keyboard.

Luce says:

08:56am | 06/01/11

Firstly, Reg, a greater proportion of people die each year from legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) then do from illegal drugs.

Secondly, this article makes no clear statement what it is endorsing, it’s merely pointing out the inconsistency between banning drugs and making the legal alternative so expensive that youngsters are more likely to risk being charged then they are to spend what little money they have on ever more expensive, lower strength drinks. And I think it is a very valid point.  That, and many other aspects of this country’s drug policy, are in dire need of review.

Syl says:

09:23am | 06/01/11

Reg

Can you please supply a quote from the article that openly encourages illicit drug use?

I tried REALLY hard but couldn’t find one.  All I found was an article about people wanting a buzz and the stupidity of having the legal option ridiculously more expensive than the illegal option.

baz says:

10:25am | 06/01/11

so are we all happy with the consensus that reg is an idiot?

AndrewK says:

10:33am | 06/01/11

I’m with Syl on this one, Reg. This article is not pro-illicit drugs. It’s a “do you really think it’s a good idea to set up your music festival this way if you’re trying to discourage the use of illicit drugs?” article.

Shane says:

11:07am | 06/01/11

Man alive, Luce. Of course ” a greater proportion of people die each year from legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) then do from illegal drugs.”
It’s because they are used more widely than illegal drugs !

Straight Man says:

11:32am | 06/01/11

Read it again Reg, The author suggests it more “cost effective” to use illicit drugs than buy the legal ones. If you are a poor youngster looking for some fun you are going to go with what is more affordable.

I see nowhere in the article he encourages use of such substances.

If you can’t see why that is worth considering, then maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to play on teh intewebs.

Luce says:

11:35am | 06/01/11

Shane, I said greater proportion not greater number (even though greater number is also correct) specifically because there are more deaths as a percentage of users of alcohol and tobacco compared to illicit drugs. i.e. if there were equal number of users for all substances, you’d still see more deaths from legal over illegal drugs.

Anthony says:

12:57pm | 06/01/11

Drugs are only illicit, Reg, because money hungry politicians want you to believe that they are bad, when really they can’t find any viable way to tax them to their benefit. Pretty easy to grow a weed plant in your back yard, very hard to regulate that kind of thing. Alcohol is responsible for more deaths, health and social problems than any other drug yet it remains a legal mind altering substance. The only social problems that weed caused was who ate the last Twistie. I think this country needs to revise its laws and allow people to make their own choices in life, not scare monger the general populice into believing that drugs are satan and anyone who takes them is akin to a murderer or rapist.

Dave says:

01:33pm | 06/01/11

Good to see the junkies up so early today!

Veteran festival goer says:

04:31pm | 06/01/11

@ Laura..

They are not the same as nightclub drink prices.
You at least get your full shot in your glass for anywhere between 3-9 dollars. Whereas the festivals pump out mid strength for 10.50. Not equal in any terms.

I did hear that QLD was the only state enforicing that? Don’t know how true that is. Wishful thinking maybe.
Also, as others who have stated below. You can get drugs for much cheaper that will get you off all day. An LSD cap, standard eccy pill and others go for around 10-30 dollars.. depending on who you know and who likes you.

Mitch says:

02:30pm | 07/01/11

I love this article. Thank you! It is difficult to see how something is pro-drugs when its entire essence is suggesting a very real and pragmatic solution to discouraging drug use. Quite simply - I am a young person. I go to festivals. I don’t take drugs. I do drink occassionally - YOUNG PEOPLE DON’T HAVE MONEY TO BURN AND WILL ALWAYS LOOK FOR THE BIGGEST BANG FOR THEIR BUCK!!! Provide a better option and they’ll take it!

JKM says:

03:47pm | 09/01/11

Reg, the author is making light of a commonly known microeconomic pattern recognised as the ‘substitution effect’. As the price of a particular good rises (e.g. Alcohol), the relative price of its close substitutes falls (e.g. Illicit drugs), even if the latter’s nominal price has held constant. We’ve seen this effect demonstrated by the so-called ‘Alcopops tax’, whereby the sales of bottled spirits skyrocketed in response to the price rise on RTD premix spirits. The overall level of alcohol consumption did not experience a significant change in volume = policy fail.

Reg, the laws of supply & demand do not care for your subjective ethical considerations. The author did not advocate drug use, Reg you must have extremely poor analytical/comprehension skills, or perhaps English is not your first language? Notwithstanding, even if the author were to take such a line is not his responsibility what others do, there is NO SUCH THING AS COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY. Mere words do not physically harm a person, nor force/coerce them into a course of action; that decision lies with the individual, hence personal responsibility.

Dave, good to see the moral authoritarians up so early today imposing their will upon others; their intolerance and control-freak nature never fails to amuse.

I always get a laugh at how zealots try to explain why an action taken by other humans, that doesn’t affect them in any way, shape or form, has GOT to be illegal. These types of people are not just happy controlling people in their own immediate circumstances (family, friends, colleagues), but insist upon controlling complete strangers whom they’ve never met.

Forget the Liberal/Labor/Greens BS, there are only two types of political classes in this world: those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. Recognising the danger posed by the former is extremely important for the self-preservation of liberty within our country.

Austin 3:16 says:

09:10pm | 09/01/11

JMK,

Of course, that’s why the liquor industry was so against the alcopops tax, because it would not affect overall sales.

Crikey in May last year quoted ABS data as showing that:
“Beer and spirit consumption increased but not by enough to offset the decrease in RTD consumption so the overall effect was a decline in per capita consumption. ”

Perhaps you could have also considered price elasticity of demand ?

“I always get a laugh at how zealots try to explain why an action taken by other humans, that doesn’t affect them in any way, shape or form, has GOT to be illegal.”

Murder hasn’t affect me in any shape way or form, and (on probability) it never will. Yet I remain steadfastly of the opinion that it should still be illegal. The same for a number of other criminal offenses, yet I very much doubt that makes me some kind of control freak.

Personal freedoms are not limitless.

JKM says:

02:12pm | 10/01/11

Austin perhaps I should have clarified that better, murder has a real tangible victim. Teenagers taking drugs/alcohol at a music festival does not have a victim; it is self-inflicted.

Any criminal offences such as assault, trespassing or property damage inflicted under the influence are still separare offences in and of themselves. The actual act of consuming drugs does not affect anyone but the user; it is self-inflicted. This is how alcohol is treated, which has really shown to make people violent and aggressive, yet we get some reactionaries complaining about music lovers just wanting to relax and have a good time.

TChong says:

07:55am | 06/01/11

mayday - the illegal drugs are CHEAPER than hitting the piss?
Must be very very cheap glucose powder palmed off as eccys, or the alcohol must be Dom Perignon. (sic)
And no folks , I dont approve of kiddies doing drugs or alcohol, or adults who cant handle drugs or alcohol causing problems for others.

pat says:

08:25am | 06/01/11

TChong most illicit drugs are unquestionably cheaper than alcohol at any of these events.  For example LSD retails at around $15 a hit, and half is enough and lasts all day.

DanieL says:

08:28am | 06/01/11

TChong, yes it is cheaper. An e at $30 will give you more bang for your buck than 3 beers will. Drugs are a regular part of youth culture. Noone thinks its a big deal to take drugs, and society does us a disservice when it chooses prohibition over harm minimisation.

TChong says:

08:56am | 06/01/11

DanieL, Pat I was attempting (fail) at having a go at the outrageous prices of any drink, alcohol , or not, are at these BIg Day type events.
Wholehearedly agree that the prohibition against soft drugs for adult users is crazy.

Rog says:

09:02am | 06/01/11

TChong - drugs are definitely cheaper than alcohol at festivals like this, which is why increasing excise taxes on alcohol are fuelling greater demand for the untaxed, unregulated black market of illicit drugs.

More people end up using drugs as an alternative substance to alcohol, dealers recognise the spike in demand and supply it. It’s a near pure market without the overheads of legitimate industries and no tax. It certainly is cheaper per person, especially when dealers are supplying a large market and achieving great economies of scale and are therefore able to drop prices to undercut competitors (competitors I guess can include the alcohol industry, too).

Dr McKay says:

09:20am | 06/01/11

Perfect Daniel, that highlights the real trouble with this double edged approach.  If it is a more desirable option to double dump, with it’s extreme risk than it is to pay $10 for a single drink and getting the pills into the festival is too hard then we are left with the worst of the three possible options.  Way to go nanny state.

BTW, the war on drugs has only achieved one thing.  Giving gangs a steady and high income stream.

Tripper Smurf says:

11:37am | 06/01/11

Legalise it… or at least decriminilise it.  Make it in pharmaecutical lab conditions with quality standardisation and then place the same taxes on it as on tobacco/alchol or any other drugs.

Overdoeses from impurities would drop and many of the kids that are doing it for the thrill of the illegal would probably stop seeking out the high so much…. Not to mention it would take this revenue away from the criminal gangs that control the drug trade and are largely funded by it.

Um says:

12:01pm | 06/01/11

Realistically, sniffer dogs at concerts are used as a deterrant. They are ineffective at actually detecting anything as there are too many drugs/ smells that they are overwhelmed and struggle to detect where the smells are coming from.
However, unfortunately what you’re saying is still true and some people will double dump- increasing the dangers to them.

Hmm says:

03:07pm | 06/01/11

Um, you are completely correct.  The amount of times I’ve managed to get drugs past sniffer dogs is ridiculous. And that’s doing nothing more sophisticated then just putting then in my bra.

Jenna says:

11:26am | 06/01/11

I did 2 mini vodkas snuck into my bag of Snakes Alive. The buzz of sneaking them through far out-weighed the alcohol buzz

Um says:

11:57am | 06/01/11

If you’re a girl, the hip flsk in the cleavage also works well. Even if security suspects, they won’t question it.

Former serial festival goer says:

10:07am | 06/01/11

You cant even bring in bottled water to some of these things, let alone food. With no passouts they know they have a captive market.

Bex says:

10:31am | 06/01/11

As a former and current festival goer I can assure you they can’t refuse you fruit. I’ve never been refused when I’ve taken it to the Falls or BDO since it’s commonly used to boost blood sugar in diabetics - for example.

Luce says:

10:06am | 06/01/11

Romli065, it’s not necessarily a NEED to be under the influence for these events. The simple truth is its just more fun that way. Don’t judge others for doing it (since the beginning of time humans have been looking for ways to experience something outside of sobriety, this is no different), instead, try it yourself sometime

The Badger says:

10:53am | 06/01/11

Romli065
It’s a rock concert, not the philharmonic orchestra.

Perhaps we should go the cricket, the footy and the rugby and not have a beer?

Romli065 says:

10:54am | 06/01/11

Been there, done that Luce.  It’s not something that ever really stuck with me though.  I guess I’m just the type of person who can enjoy the simple things in life - like music - without the need for any exterior influences. Also, so much despair and destrucrion so often comes from alcohol and/or drugs that I just can’t support such rampant use of it in our society, especially amongst young people who have so much to live for and often die young unnecessarily because of drink driving or drug overdose. Personally i think it’s gotten out of control.

Eugene Shnorkelbean says:

11:00am | 06/01/11

Because you can’t have fun sober. It’s a scientific fact.

Romli065 says:

11:22am | 06/01/11

I love my sport and can watch the footy, cricket, tennis etc. all without “having a beer”.  See, that’s what I see as the problem, people often think it’s actually abnormal if you don’t drink!  Why?  What’s so weird about me if I don’t drink or take drugs and enjoy life just as much as the next person, and have a good time at concerts, sporting events, parties? I think people who CAN’T enjoy themselves unless they’re out of it are the ones with the problem.

Tripper Smurf says:

11:42am | 06/01/11

Its the different between needs and wants Romli.  When I go to a festival or a football game or any other social setting with drinks/drugs present, I dont NEED to partake, but it doesnt stop me from WANTING to do so.

I guess the point is though, is that if I went to a festival with yourself, I would not expect you to get drunk or high, just because I was.  At the same time because Im not judging you or trying to convince you that your way of doing things isnt as good as mine, I would expect the same from you.  In fact I have quite a few good friendships that largely operate on this principle.

Everything in moderation my friend, and that includes moderation itself!

Luce says:

11:45am | 06/01/11

Romli065, fair enough, its not everyone, thats for sure. But judging those who do enjoy it does nothing to help the situation.

This country treats alcohol and drugs as a criminal problem, when it should be tackled as a health problem. As someone said above, “society does us a disservice when it chooses prohibition over harm minimisation”.

We have to accept the fact that people are always going to look for ways to get intoxicated. If all we do is try stop them, it’ll lead to dangerous situations as they will just find other avenues to do it. If we focus on providing a safe environment, where people can a) make fully informed choices, b) not feel like they’re rebelling and hence are less likely to go overboard, and c) if they need, can access help, we’d see a lot less bad coming from these situations.

The government needs to take a much more practical, and much less backward approach then what they’re currently doing.

JKM says:

04:24pm | 09/01/11

Richard, in theory prices should come down “year on year” as supply expands, however the economy has to contend with a central bank (RBA) that prints money out of nothing (also backed by nothing but the notion of a so-called ‘balance sheet of the nation’) in arbitrary quantities every year.

As you can imagine, the deliberate inflation of our money supply year after year can overwhelm some of natural economic processes you cite. Computers & electronics are one notable exception, but most other markets have steady price rises every year in response to the continual debasement of our currency.

Richard says:

12:42am | 10/01/11

Yes, that is correct JKM.

Whilst Glen Stevens has performed rather admirably the old chap, his professional vocation in question has been getting a bad reputation lately, in light of some catastrophic blunders by his peers; Mssr Jean-Claude Trichet of the ECB and <a=href “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k”>thebenbernank</a> from the fed.

I think its eminently likely that;
like 2007 was year of sub prime crisis,
and 2008 was year of credit crunch crisis,
and 2009 was year of global financial crisis,
and 2010 was year of sovereign debt crisis,
that 2011 will be year of currency crisis,
and we know who we’ll be blaming for that one!

The simple solution is to harmonise money supply in circulation in equilibrial relationship with objects of hard physical presence. There is no need to leverage and abstractify mathematical ratios out the realm of reality, because we do happen to exist primarily and basically as physical incarnates. So its important to consider microeconomic implications that relate to humanity’s ability to attain safety and self-actualisation when dealing with matters of international supply and demand.

Now I won’t criticise the great Treasurer Peter Costello, but I will suggest that he privately regrets the selling of that $2 Billion of Gold Bullion on that day back in November ‘97. If not we would have had a good head start, but even still I think now would be the time to start backing the thigh-slapping sunburnt splendour of our Aussie dollar with the eye-melting shine and lustre of yellow gold and white silver in weight.

With real, heavy money, we are in a much better position to protect ourselves against the rampant price hikes and inflation that will ravage our living standards over time, if we allow our everyday money to be otherwise apparated at will.

JKM says:

02:21pm | 10/01/11

Well gold and silver has a strong recognised value internationally, the American republic in its early days after the revolution got by on Spanish dollars just fine. Plus, the Chinese, despite their predilection for strategic deception, are doing their very best to shore up supplies of hard assets such as gold & silver, investing in mining operations around the world and of course buy up some cheap land/housing at depressed prices. Indian culture also has played very well into the Indian’s advantage; their liking for gold jewelry will be real useful in the coming years.

When you get down to the bottom of it, the whole monetary system (fiat money, central banking, fractional reserve banking) is based on confidence. Confidence like any other commodity can be inflated into a bubble… 2011 or 2012 we’ll see that US treasury bubble pop I reckon you’re right on your time-lines.

One thing I don’t understand is how anyone who is remotely familiar with the history of currency, can possibly explain how the US (and the West at large) is going to get out of this. PRINT PRINT PRINT!!!

At the rate they’re going I can really see the union breaking apart.

Tripper Smurf says:

11:48am | 06/01/11

I think that just goes to show that the general ethos of the people that go to Woodford is slightly different to the ethos of the people that go to Summerfieldayze etc.

James1 says:

11:55am | 06/01/11

National Folk Festival in Canberra is similar - $5 for Coopers and $6 for Guiness.

J says:

12:27pm | 06/01/11

Yes the ethos of the people who go to festivals like Woodford is very different to the Summerfieldayze/Big Day Out kind of crowd.  Despite the lower drink prices, I didn’t see any drunken behaviour (or overt drug use for that matter) and apparently the average alcohol consumption there is two drinks per person per day.  Could also have something to do with the wide variety of good quality food, coffee and other drinks on offer.  At the Big Day Out kind of festivals I’ve found that the food is terrible - the kind of thing that you would only eat when drunk!

Tripper Smurf says:

11:52am | 06/01/11

Whole reason why I stuck to my peyote at BDO last year and only drunk the free water/ free promo drinks people were handing out instead.  After paying $150 bucks to just get in I aint going to pay more for the privledge to getting a drink ticket, then the privledge of getting a plastic cup of watered down light beer with this ticket.

hot tub political machine says:

04:24pm | 06/01/11

I can’t remember the name of the study, but you could find it through ProQuest, from a University of Adelaide researcher who found permanent changes to the brain structure and mood changes in people with very limited use of ecstacy

JKM says:

05:02pm | 09/01/11

“A little more religion and a little less freedom…”

So glad we don’t live under a totalitarian theocracy… separation of church and state was devised with people like you in mind!!

Take your servile anti-liberty policy prescriptions elsewhere where they are more welcome, North Korea or Iran would suit your views quite well; I hear over there they LOVE denying choice to the population.

Seth you fail to realise that here in Australia we are governed (in theory at least) by the rule of law, NOT by the rule of man.