I have a terrible drug and alcohol problem. For decades now, it has resulted in shame, lies and the devastation (or, at least, slight irritation) of my loved ones.

Somewhere in the background, the author enjoys a lemon, lime & bitters and an episode of Nurse Jackie. Image: Liam Driver.

No, I don’t have an exciting, out-of-control addiction a la Christopher in The Sopranos or Nurse Jackie in Nurse Jackie.

My drug and alcohol issue is actually that I’ve never much liked taking them.

And while the Just Say No propagandists may suggest this is a desirable state, if you have spent any time outside a government health leaflet you’ll understand that this makes me an enormous social liability. Possibly even un-Australian.

Fact: while most drug and alcohol scandals focus on overuse, abstinence or immoderate moderation can also cause social mayhem.

(Only those of us who have a secret not-drinking problem can know the shame of being unable to participate in chain sculling during celebratory toasts, summer barbecues and girly cocktailapaloozas.)

Fact: while popular mythology – not to mention popular phraseology – suggests drugs and alcohol are separate entities, both alter your consciousness, cause health problems in excess, and are linked to extraordinary peer group pressure.

(Only those of us whose idea of a big night is a single champagne snifter know the relentless badgering from heavier drinkers to loosen up, learn to have fun, stop being such a sour-sack sober-puss and so on.)

The overwhelming normality of heavy social drinking and, yes, also discreet social pill-popping is the debate du jour thanks to New South Wales Labor Government Scandal Number Ohgodnotanotherone.

The back story is that Matthew Chesher, chief of staff to the Roads Minister and rising political star, has stood down after allegedly being busted for buying a $20 tablet of ecstasy.

While many Sydney-siders consider “procuring party drugs” as tautological with “Friday night”, the political reaction to Chesher’s charging has been one of pantomime shock horror.

Premier Kristina Keneally is insisting – yet again – that she is furious with the self-indulgent behaviour of her staff, while Chesher’s wife, marginally seated Education Minister Verity Firth, says she is angry, hurt and disappointed.

Chester is slated to appear in a Sydney court on April Fool’s Day – shortly after NSW voters have the chance to express their own disappointments with the rorterific state government at the polls. 

It’s unlikely, however, that many punters will be protest voting solely because someone linked to the government was linked to a naughty tablet.

This is partly because there is so much else to protest vote about: corruption, office underwear jiving and computer smut ogling to name just three. A dill with a pill hardly constitutes a Watergate-strength – or even Iguana Joe’s-strength – political scandal.

But it’s also because many members of the public reckon the real crime here is that possessing a party pill is still regarded as such a crime.

“The fact that Matthew Chesher feels that he has to resign from his position because he was caught carrying a single ecstasy table highlights the absurdity of the drug laws in NSW,” read one letter to a newspaper.

“If everyone in Sydney who possessed or used drugs on Friday night resigned the city would come to a standstill.”

And from another citizen concerned about all the concern: “For many weekend users, popping an ‘e’ is no more unusual than cracking a champers.”

That many people sometimes do something is not in and of itself an adequate reason for changing the law. If that were the case, we’d be allowed to belt people up or knock folk off whenever we didn’t like the cut of their jibs.

But the main argument against the legalisation of illicit drugs is rooted in subjective (and, given the widespread tolerance of alcohol abuse, highly selective) morality rather than evidence-based decision-making aimed at harm reduction and efficient law enforcing.

As previously admitted, I say this as someone who has no personal, vested interest in changing the status quo.

I grew up close to the drug capital of Nimbin and many of my teenaged peers were dab hands at whipping up ripper bongs out of old Orchy bottles, bits of hose and halved macadamia shells.

Despite admiring their craftstonership, I soon discovered my tolerance for Aunt Mary was sub zero. As a result, I always ended up in the derided non-smoker’s corner with the Mormons and the asthmatics.

When I set up camp in Sydney in my 20s, the illicit drugs preferred by hard-partying pals often came in pill and powder form.

Once again, my insurmountable psychological and physiological incompatibilities with mind-altering substances rendered me positively freakish at many social events.

My teetotal tendencies were most conspicuous before rock gigs where I may have been the only punk bass player in history to desperately try to score raw vegetable sticks backstage.

Drugs weren’t just around in the head-banging scene either. Many mates from less rock professions such as medicine, teaching and law thought nothing of pill-popping or Peruvian marching dust-snorting to help make sense of duff music or shout about their new screenplays for hours at trendy parties.

And man, did they give me heaps for being such an unadventurous, straight-laced, early-to-bed nana.

Now I’m in my 40s and am getting old and atrophied round the edges, I’ve been hoping the whole pressure-to-party thing will diminish.

Unfortunately, it’s worse than ever. Most of the time, the social dealers traffic bottles of wine. The cliché of the tattooed narcotics peddler targetting vulnerable teens is nothing compared to the chardonnay pushers at middle-aged, middle class dinner parties.

And oh, the adolescent accusations hurled if your shindig drinking habits don’t precisely mirror their own.

I much prefer those professionals cusping on senior citizenship who still indulge in Alice in Wonderland substances at dance parties.

They’re less vocal because they feel like their habits now constitute mutton-dressed-up-lambness – though research actually shows an increase in the number of middle-aged people using ecstasy.

“Most people taking illicit drugs do so because they enjoy the experience,” says the director of the Alcohol and Drug Service at Sydney’s St Vincent’s Hospital, Alex Wodak.

“For many people life is quite stressful. A brief chemical vacation is one of the ways many people cope with the vicissitudes of life.”

It’s a cogent point – though politicians and their staffers should probably choose slightly more licit locations for their holidays until Lisbon-style law reform transforms low level drug use into a health and social issue rather than a criminal concern.

That said, as one shrewd letter writer to The Australian put it this week, those connected with the Keneally Labor government are likely to continue being desperate to escape reality any way they can.

Read Emma Jane at The Australian here
ej@emmajane.info

95 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:52am | 07/02/11

      There are plenty of people around with mental illnesses who haven’t done it to themselves.  Why would any sane person take the risk of ingesting uncontrolled pharmaceuticals which have probably been made by an unqualified backroom chemist?  At least the breweries and distilleries are controlled by qualified staff under government supervision?  When someone gets stuffed in the head by either alcohol or drugs, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill?  It’s just that drugs are a quicker route!

    • Tim says:

      08:00am | 07/02/11

      So what your saying is the government should start manufacturing, regulating and selling drugs?

    • Grumpy says:

      08:14am | 07/02/11

      that poor taxpayer. Always flipping the flaming bill..

    • Luce says:

      09:27am | 07/02/11

      Its funny then, acotrel, that a larger percentage of alcohol and tobacco users die from their habits than do illicit drug users (note: larger percentage, not just larger number), which tax payers also foot the bill for, yet I don’t see you censuring the breweries and cigarette companies.

      This is just an example of the hypocritical myopic attitude many people in Australia have towards drugs. They are not only widely used, but highly stigmatized as one of the great evils of our society, and yet they do less damage then the perfectly legal substances the critics so enjoy themselves. Go figure.

    • Tim says:

      10:00am | 07/02/11

      Luce,
      got any evidence for that?

    • Luce says:

      10:58am | 07/02/11

      Tim,

      “The health and social impacts of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use are substantial. In 2004/05, the total cost of drug use in Australia was estimated to be $55.5 billion. Of this, tobacco smoking accounted for $31.5 billion, alcohol misuse $15.3 billion, illicit drugs $8.2 billion.”

      http://www.health.qld.gov.au/atod/drug_statistics.asp

      Also please note, not all the problems which occur due to illicit drug use are not from the drug itself, but rather the circumstances in which they were manufactured / used. eg: HIV and Hep C being transferred via dirty needles, heroin overdoeses in back alleys where they’re unsupervised and unable to reach help, dodgey chemicals being put into ecstasy tablets by shifty producers. These problems can be dealt with in a much more practical and beneficial way then what policy makers are currently doing.

    • Steve says:

      11:33am | 07/02/11

      @ Luce that study you quote was by Collins and Lapsley, and it has been very heavily criticised by economists for its methodology and results.

    • Black Hole Magnetism says:

      12:13pm | 07/02/11

      Steve,
      Would these be the same economists people like Abbott get their policies costed by?

    • Luce says:

      01:27pm | 07/02/11

      I wouldn’t mind seeing that criticism Steve.

      Either way, the government’s current drug policies are not adequate to deal with the problem. They treat it as a criminal problem when it should be treated as a health problem. Prohibition doesn’t prevent drug use, it simply makes it more dangerous by pushing it underground, not to mention opening up avenues for organised crime.

      Complete legalization may not be the best solution either, but there has to be more practical ways to approach it they are currently.

    • Steve says:

      03:06pm | 07/02/11

      Luce

      The critics of Collins and Lapsely include Access Economics, and the Henry Tax Review and some NZ economic academics named Cramption and Burges, who criticised the identical methodology being used by a NZ research consultancy.

      The Henry tax review at page 435 “These costs (of alcohol) are more limited in scope than those used in the cost of illness methodologies that have been developed in the public health literature (for example, Collins & Lapsley 2008), which also include many of the costs that individuals bear themselves.”

      Read the Collins and Lapsely reports yourself.  I did.  Make your own judgement.

    • Luce says:

      03:18pm | 07/02/11

      Thanks Steve. I’ll do that.

    • Steve says:

      03:23pm | 07/02/11

      @Luce,

      The Henry Tax Review at page 435:
      These costs (of alcohol) are more limited in scope than those used in the cost of illness methodologies that have been developed in the public health literature (for example, Collins & Lapsley 2008), which also include many of the costs that individuals bear themselves.

      I think Access Economics also had a paper on it, and there was some harsh criticism about using that methodology in New Zealand.

    • Kerryn says:

      07:06am | 07/02/11

      I don’t drink alcohol because I have no idea what it will do to my mind.  If people don’t like it, then they can forget the pleasure of my company.  Not that I go out much anyway, and when I do, it’s with people who are mature enough not to care what I drink.

    • acotrel says:

      03:37pm | 07/02/11

      Kerryn, it’s not uyour mind you need to worry about with alcohol,  it’s your liver.  It takes a lot of effort and expense to become an alcoholic.  With drugs you get there a lot quicker, but it’s usually not damaging to the liver.  The economists quoted above, obviously don’t take into account the cost born by families when they care for a schizophrenic kid, who’s stuffed in the head from drugs?  I heard a ‘funny story’ about a kid who’d gone schizo through smoking skunk.  She told her sister that when she goes down the street everybody looks at her, and talk about her.  The sister ( an aged care nurse) replied ‘don’t worry all those people are my friends, and I’ve asked them t o keep an eye on you’. Sorry, it’s not really that funny?

      Jeff Kennett took heed of the Richmond Report, and closed the Vic mental hospitals, just when they’re most needed! Hence he is now doing penance with Beyond Blue!

    • MarK says:

      07:25am | 07/02/11

      http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/western-bulldogs-players-in-youtube-disgrace/story-e6frf9nx-1226001109037

      “But Hawkins said that modern AFL players were paid very well to represent their club responsibly.

      “To be totally honest, they shouldn’t be behaving that way, they should avoid it,” he said.

      “But it’s not the end of the world to have a few too many drinks on a footy trip.”

      Again

      “But it’s not the end of the world to have a few too many drinks on a footy trip.”

      Sigh

      ““But it’s not the end of the world to have a few too many drinks…..”

      Why do we condone this as culturally ok?

    • rufus says:

      09:48am | 07/02/11

      Because it’s not the end of the world. I got that the first time. Don’t know why you couldn’t.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      10:02am | 07/02/11

      “Why do we condone this as culturally ok?”

      Explain to me why it is “the end of the world” and we can possibly have a reasoned discussion.  Until then, I have no idea where you could possibly go that isn’t simply subjective moralism.

    • rufus says:

      10:09am | 07/02/11

      Why? Because it’s not the end of the world. I got that the first time. See more below.

    • MarK says:

      10:25am | 07/02/11

      “Because it’s not the end of the world.”

      But it is for some people.

      Just like drink driving isn’t the end of the world either, to keep the theme rolling, or an overdose victim. Except if you are the stat they clean up or are the one left of course

    • mary says:

      07:50am | 07/02/11

      I can only disagree with the title Emma. What do you mean ‘sometimes?’

    • Terry Wright says:

      07:51am | 07/02/11

      The simple fact is that ecstasy(MDMA) in moderation is safer than alcohol. This also applies to LSD, GHB, cannabis etc. Even cocaine is only slightly more addictive than alcohol. The difference is that alcohol is the most violent drug on earth. Forget ice, alcohol is responsible for 47% of all homicides and the driving factor behind most domestic abuse.

      How booze can be sold freely while causing so much carnage is just mindblowing considering the laws that ban other, safer drugs. The truth is, most illicit drugs users never have a problem but we are led to believe the opposite.

      Until the government acknowledges that prohibition has failed and is the root cause of most drug problems in society, then we are doomed to repeat the same, useless strategies year after year.

      The biggest problem is the media, devious politicians and anti-drug nutters like Drug Free Australia (DFA) and the misleading, Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc. What ever drives these groups to constantly cherry pick data, use junk science reporting and flat out deceive us, goes on without very little scrutiny. Nearly ever anti-drug rant they make can be dismissed with only 15 minutes research on the internet. Where’s the investigative media and brave politicians when you need them?

      If this was any other topic, there would be major scandals and media headlines screaming out about liars and ignorant buffoons but since it’s drugs, they seem to be free to say whatever they like whether it’s true or not.

      If you don’t believe me, spend 30 minutes on the web looking at the research and numerous studies by experts. BTW, research doesn’t include Miranda Devine, Narconon or government propaganda.

    • Steve says:

      09:35am | 07/02/11

      The scale of the alcohol ‘carnage’ has to be considered against the scale of the use of alcohol.  Whatever ‘harm’ illicit drugs cause has to be similarly considered against the scale of their use.

      Some public health advocates say that alcohol is the most damaging drug, but as it also the most widely and frequently used drug by a long way. 

      “Alcohol is the most damaigng drug” is a somewhat misleading argument for decriminalising drugs.

    • Thommo says:

      09:39am | 07/02/11

      Exactly. Amen

    • Tren says:

      09:49am | 07/02/11

      ahhhh statistics.

      put everything on a level playing field for me, tell me how many violent injuries are cause by alchohol when it is consumed in equal proportion to your acid, lsd, etc…...

      make them all illegal, increase the fines for speeding to counter the loss in government funding from drug taxes and then see what happens.

    • rufus says:

      09:55am | 07/02/11

      Ice users proportionally are responsible for more violence than alcohol drinkers, is the information I’ve seen. Stats from emergency wards. True, both promote violence more than do any other substances.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      11:03am | 07/02/11

      You may well be correct Mr. Wright but I daresay that internest “research” is not going to be enough to change many minds. Anyone can say anything on the net, to really convince people either way that prohibition’legalisation is the way to go - you probably needed a very robust literature review of peer reviewed research - both for an against - prohibition. Then the weight of evidence coming down strongly (or not) on one side of the ledger would be much more convincing.

    • Terry Wright says:

      12:13pm | 07/02/11

      The problems from alcohol vs illicit drugs is already weighted. The argument that there are many more drinkers than drug takers is often dragged out but the research usually adjusts for that. A night of heavy boozing can be more physically and mentally harmful than someone reaching the same level of intoxication from heroin, ecstasy, cannabis, LSD etc. The other factor is the behaviour of those who are pissed. They tend to take far more risks like driving fast, climbing things and getting in fights.

      As for researching the internet, you would obviously only read articles that use quantified studies from universities, professional groups etc. who submit their findings to established medical journals. Experts who study the subject for most of their professional lives are a lot more convincing than opinion writers in The Daily Telegraph.

      Ice causes a fraction of the violence that alcohol does. Amphetamines do not naturally cause violence but the opposite. The usual reason is sleep depravation and temporary psychosis from staying up for days on end but by far, the main cause is the excessive alcohol consumed as well. Rarely are amphetamines the sole cause of violence with many health professionals in the AOD industry dismissing the so called “ice epidemic” as a media myth. - http://upclose.unimelb.edu.au/transcript/15

      “Most methamphetamine users do not become psychotic. There are some people who do, a minority who do, and that’s usually related to extended periods of binge using, with people not sleeping, not eating - that sort of thing,”
      -Annie Madden. AIVL

      Moderation is always the key and abusing any drug(including alcohol) increases the risks.

      BTW: Booze is my favourite drug.

    • Adam Diver says:

      12:27pm | 07/02/11

      I love the logic….

      Drugs are not as bad as alcohol.

      Therefore Drugs should be legalized. Following the same process I would of thought the logical conclusion is to ban alcohol.

      Unless of course you are advocating that drugs are indeed good for you.

    • Ando says:

      01:45pm | 07/02/11

      Adam Diver,
      Youre using the same logic, either ban them all or ban none.

    • Adam Diver says:

      07:56am | 07/02/11

      How is looking at porn or dancing in your underwear worse than buying an ecstacy tablet (most likely to be used at a Labor party)?

    • fairsfair says:

      11:50am | 07/02/11

      How is one Johns brother having consensual group sex worse than another Johns brother having an ongoing and serious drug habit.

      There is inconsistency in social judgement and reaction.

      Fair point though Ads, if he was headed to a Labor party party he probably should have thought of procuring something with stronger effects.

    • kj_storm says:

      08:03am | 07/02/11

      I don’t drink very often. Maybe 4 times a year. I will admit that when I do drink I usually dirnk a lot but I have never been out of control, falling down drunk (or even had a hangover the next day). Most of the time I’m the one ordering water at the bar (which always gets me strange looks from the staff). I will admit that at first friends would always ask me if I was sure that I wouldn’t want a drink. They’d buy. They have since realised that I am quite happy not drinking. It’s a bonus for them too as they have a designated driver/taxi director/nurse (will only deal with people falling down no vomiting!!!!) and general supervisor.

      I think in the beginning the reason why they were asking me so much if I wanted a drink was to make sure I was enjoying myself. Once they realised that I could dance and party with the rest of them without drinking they started to relax about it.

      I don’t have a problem with people drinking as long as they know there limits. They stop before they get to a point where they are going to hurt themselves or someone else. As far as drugs go I personally don’t like them and would never touch them. I do however have some friends who do them and as long as they don’t do it near me I don’t see how its any of my business.

      In response to Mark I’m not an AFL fan so I don’t really know what happened with the players but I would like to note that as a society I think that we are putting a great deal of pressure on football players (of all codes) to stop drinking when it is something that as a society we won’t do. I mean you ask my sister to give up her champers and you had better duck for cover there is no way she’s doing it and she will kill you for suggesting it. I just think its hard for the players that even in the off season they’re being scrutinised so closely.

    • G$ says:

      11:26pm | 07/02/11

      I drink every night

    • Tim says:

      08:07am | 07/02/11

      I think there’s a point in there MarK, but I’m stuffed if I know what it is.

      If this is a scandal, then something is very wrong but it’s not the fact that players were getting drunk.
      Sure the players may have acted a bit silly, but there is nothing in any of the reports that says the players were anything more that a slight annoyance.
      Big deal.

    • MarK says:

      08:58am | 07/02/11

      Let me draw you a map.

      We advertise to say no to drugs.

      We advertise to drink moderately and to remain in control.

      We see from the article the author is one of many (myself now included) that is ridiculed or pressured into drinking by others at social functions. It happens believe me.

      The author also points to a growing acceptance that drug use such as ecstasy is growing increasingly common and is not confined to the teen/twenties party culture.

      We then see a video of some fine young Australian sportsman, supremely well paid, supremely fit, privileged and with the best counsellors and support network to help themselves behave in an appropriate manner. We note in the video their behaviour might be construed as inappriate.

      We then get a “football” legend say while it wasn’t a good look, there is nothing wrong with a little fun whilst on the piss. Incidents on end of season football trips should stay there. So we have this divergence and clash of the public vs private persona and cultural norm. For an excellent and critical look at public vs private check out Philadelphia the movie.

      You see what I was highlighted, again, was the expectation that we as Aussies imbibe. Drugs or drink getting shitfaced is a right of life.

      Oh we wax lyrical in public about the need to curb excesses, about how raising an alcopops tax is a tax for the good of the kiddies. We have AFL teams actively promote health and safety issues - then we have “scandals”. It is the same in other sports.

      We then have Hawkins tell us this is all ok and the real crime here is that it was released on YouTube.

      Public vs private distinctions.

      I do know one thing for certain though Tim. Australians smell a bullshit artist a mile off. We are prepared to give them a go for longer than they deserve I will concede but don’t think this type of behaviour and subsequent defence only reinforces the cultural norm that to party hard is our birthright.

      I am not a wowser although it may seem so. But I am heartily against the norm of the Aussie being pissed as a parrot on regular occasions. It is a stupid cultural acceptance that needs to be addressed.

    • rufus says:

      10:08am | 07/02/11

      Rubbish, MarK. If you think any amount of counselling of footballers and media hyper-attention will stop them over-indulging in alcohol on an end of season football trip, you’re just being prissy and unrealistic.

      Like you, I don’t drink or use drugs, but I won’t object if others do, even to excess, as long as they hurt no-one but themselves. Which, it seems in this case, they didn’t.

      It’s alcohol, a chemical which is consumed because of its intoxicating effects, and it’s not surprising that at moments of exuberance, alcohol users will become intoxicated.

      I agree with the guy who said it’s not the end of the world. Alcohol abuse leading to addiction, violence, damage to bodily function, impairment of senses while driving - those are serious matters. That’s not what we’re dealing with here.

      The problem here is the insistence of some (including, it seems, you) that sports stars need to be seen as ‘role models’ and avoid any even slightly doubtful behaviour. That’s unrealistic.

    • Tim says:

      10:14am | 07/02/11

      Mark,
      Firstly you say there is pressure to drink at social functions. That may be the case but I’m sure you’re a big boy and can look after yourself.
      I really don’t have any time for people who do not have enough personal control and responsibility to not be pressured into drinking if they don’t want to.
      I also will agree that there is a difference in the public/private stance of many people and organisations with regards to this issue.
      I would however say that the public stance is more to do with the wowser pressure put on these organisations by people who want to control others lives and fun.
      It offends my liberal sensibilities that people are not allowed to partake in legal activities without some threat of scandal from wowsers just for having some fun.
      If people want to drink and get drunk in their own time, then as long as they are not hurting anyone else then I couldn’t care less.

    • Ben C says:

      10:21am | 07/02/11

      @ Tim

      Slight annoyance? Big deal? These guys are in Hong Kong, most likely parading around the fact that they are Australian. Being of Hong Kong descent, and with relatives over there, do I tell my relatives that these guys are a true representation of what Australians are like, common sense and self-preservation go out the window, replaced by stupidity and blatant disregard for others after a few drinks, and we’re not concerned about that? By your reasoning, that’s exactly what I should be telling them.

    • TimB says:

      10:46am | 07/02/11

      Rufus, this is the issue I have:

      “but I won’t object if others do, even to excess, as long as they hurt no-one but themselves”

      All well and good in theory, but once people are under the effects of these substances you really don’t know what they’re going to do. It’s all very well to turn around in hindsight and go “well they didn’t hurt anybody”, but what if they did[/d]?

      Then you’d have the media howling about how they were doing the wrong thing and they should be cut off from alcohol, be better disciplined with regards to drug use, how was this allowed to happen, outrage outrage outrage , etc etc etc.

      I look at it like speeding. You could make the same argument that its ok for some moron to tear through Sydney’s streets at 200 k/h in his pimped up care, as long as he doesn’t hurnt anyone but himself. But it’s entirely possible said moron WILL crash into someone else and not simply wrap himself around a telegraph pole. And that is why the speed limits exist.

      You can’t give people the benefit of the doubt with this sort of thing. Not when the public are potentially at risk.

    • MarK says:

      11:32am | 07/02/11

      rufus says:

        10:08am | 07/02/11

        ”  Rubbish, MarK. If you think any amount of counselling of footballers and media hyper-attention will stop them over-indulging in alcohol on an end of season football trip, you’re just being prissy and unrealistic.”

      No.

      I didn’t say that. I didn’t allude to that.

      the point was they have various things in their lives to help them avoid these situations. They are elite athletes and theoretically should be schooled in health and fitness. They have “minders” and the AFL breathing down their neck to behave. They also have footy legends telling them its ok lads - bad luck about the video.

      I wonder why these kids are confused?

      ”  Like you, I don’t drink or use drugs, but I won’t object if others do, even to excess, as long as they hurt no-one but themselves. Which, it seems in this case, they didn’t.”

      I don’t object.

      I am jealous/envious of those that can

      If you read my statements again I am amazed of the juxtaposition of message in the public sphere vs the private sphere. Keeping on the AFL theme how about Caro Wilson? She has been done for DUI at least once yet she reports on football scandals for a living.

      See the issue?

      ”  It’s alcohol, a chemical which is consumed because of its intoxicating effects, and it’s not surprising that at moments of exuberance, alcohol users will become intoxicated.”

      No.

      It is a drug which when used in excess doesn’t do anything good for you. When you give the message that it is ok to get smashed for whatever reason then you have a problem. Ergo we in Australia have a cultural problem because it is part of us.

      ” I agree with the guy who said it’s not the end of the world. Alcohol abuse leading to addiction, violence, damage to bodily function, impairment of senses while driving - those are serious matters. That’s not what we’re dealing with here.”

      What we are dealing with here is the beginning of the cycle. What are seeing here is the acceptance by influential members of the public that getting pissed id what you do when you “have a good time”

        ”  The problem here is the insistence of some (including, it seems, you) that sports stars need to be seen as ‘role models’ and avoid any even slightly doubtful behaviour. That’s unrealistic.”

      Nope not at all.

      I think Australia has a huge cultural problem with acceptance of alcohol consumption (to excess) as a birthright.

    • Tim says:

      11:37am | 07/02/11

      BenC,
      can you point me to the part of my comment where I say that these guys should be or are a “true representation of what Australians are like”?
      What I said is that they acted a bit silly but did nothing more than that.
      By your reasoning anyone overseas that watched Steve Irwin’s show would think every Australian was a Crocodile Hunter.

    • MarK says:

      12:01pm | 07/02/11

      ”  Tim says:

        10:14am | 07/02/11

        Mark,
        Firstly you say there is pressure to drink at social functions. That may be the case but I’m sure you’re a big boy and can look after yourself.”

      Of course I can. As can many others.

      But don’t you think that it is strange the pressure is put on in the first place? And trust me some of it is not mild. I have had idiots try and spike my coke because it will do me good to have a drink.

      The point is the pressure is there. And it comes from a cultural narrative.
      ”  I really don’t have any time for people who do not have enough personal control and responsibility to not be pressured into drinking if they don’t want to.”

      Nor do I. But when society is pressuring you to do something which appears to be a bit silly then we have to question society.

      ”  I also will agree that there is a difference in the public/private stance of many people and organisations with regards to this issue.”

      The narrative is all over the place.

      ”  I would however say that the public stance is more to do with the wowser pressure put on these organisations by people who want to control others lives and fun.”

      Maybe. At its core though is a genuine health issue. Hop down to emergency on a Friday night/Sat morning. Sure is fun.

        ”  It offends my liberal sensibilities that people are not allowed to partake in legal activities without some threat of scandal from wowsers just for having some fun.”

      Sure no argument.

      Again I will emphasise I feel there is something wrong with a culture that believes drinking is mandatory.

        ”  If people want to drink and get drunk in their own time, then as long as they are not hurting anyone else then I couldn’t care less.”

      Hmmm.

      Sort of the same but are you equally willing to let the public purse help out those people that find they cannot control themselves?

    • Tim says:

      12:59pm | 07/02/11

      MarK,
      I think we’ve got a similar opinion just from a different perspective.
      I can’t say i’ve ever felt a major pressure to drink from others. Whenever I want to drink I do and if I don’t then I don’t. My friends may joke around but if someone doesn’t want to drink then they don’t have to. Trying to spike someone ele’s drink is a sure sign of a d*ckhead.
      I’ve seen the emergency ward on the weekend and yes there are no shortage of people in there that have been injured either self inflicted or otherwise on the grog.
      My argument would be that we should have tougher penalties for people that cause problems when on the grog. Being drunk should not be used as a mitigating factor for bad/criminal behaviour.
      And no, I don’t believe taxpayer funds should be used extensively for people who have trouble controlling their own behaviour. The government should provide programs for people who want to help themselves but If you mess up then deal with the consequences.

    • rufus says:

      02:38pm | 07/02/11

      TimB - so if anyone drinks, we should immediately worry about the worst case - and do what - wring our hand? criminalise alcohol? There are laws and restrictions governing alcohol sale and consumption, and about the crimes committed by the intoxicated, just like there are road laws. There are education campaigns in both cases. Road fatalities -including alcohol related - are much lower than 30 years ago.

      I think society has gone about as far as it can there.

      MarK - I still think you’re being prissy and unrealistic if you think a group of footballers on a holiday getting p!ssed, and   making gooses and nuisances of themselves is the end of the world. This may be as good as it gets. Society may have gone about as far as it can in limiting the ‘damage’ to this much.

      In both cases, TimB and MarK, trying to tighten it up more will cause more harm than good.

    • TimB says:

      04:51pm | 07/02/11

      Inspired by Elphaba:

      Hope that fixes that.

      Rufus, I’m not saying we need to tighten the laws (although I can see how I inferred that). I meant moreso that we need to address the attitude that going and getting completely trashed is “harmelss”. It’s not neccessarily the case and people need to realise that. 

      MarK is right, its a cultural & attitude problem.

    • Ben C says:

      08:14am | 08/02/11

      @ Tim

      I never said that you said that, I’m owning up to saying that myself. I’m saying that you are downplaying their actions, some of which were actually illegal (did you see the guy on top of the taxi?), saying that they’re “a bit silly”, and just a “slight annoyance”. The problem is, the people of Hong Kong don’t see it that way, they see this as a major disruption. If we go by your reasoning, that what they did was a “slight annoyance”, then by your reasoning, something similar is to be expected of all Australians when they’ve had a few drinks.

      You can’t compare the Western Bulldogs with Steve Irwin, Irwin was doing his job, these guys aren’t, they’re just being everyday people.

    • Brimstone says:

      08:11am | 07/02/11

      People think i ‘don’t drink’ because I have an average of 3 drinks a night… trying to drink more this New Years.
      But yeah the alcohol consumption here is insane.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      09:15am | 07/02/11

      I know what you mean Brimstone. I’m a 4 drinks a night guy - and people who notice complement my self control - I hadn’t been aware I’d been showing much.

    • Macca says:

      08:53am | 07/02/11

      Ugh, it’s Monday, I need a drink to get over the hangover…

    • Paranoia says:

      09:01am | 07/02/11

      When I drink, I drink.  When I don’t feel like it, I don’t.  I’ve had a couple of times when I’ve had to explain that to people… but mostly they accept it after the first question.  I used to smoke a bit of mj, but when a doctor shows you pictures of emphysema, that tends to put that into perspective.

      I don’t tend to like dealing with drunk people - I’m always responsible for myself, even when completely paralytic, so I don’t have much tolerance for anybody who just wants to get maggot and let someone else look after them.  Sometimes I’ll volunteer to be the driver, but honestly, if you’re going out for a night and you anticipate drinking, save enough money for a cab!!  It’s not rocket surgery.  If you can’t afford a way home AND drinking, then make a choice.

      But I agree, it shouldn’t be the norm to expect people to be off their faces.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      09:13am | 07/02/11

      Yes illicit drugs are main stream. Not that long ago I saw an advice column online about how to hold a good yuppie dinner party and it included advice on whether you should provide the marijuana or let people bring their own. One of the few times I’ve seen it acknowledge that marijuana is mainstream – even though here in South Australia our wine industry (which I believe is either the 1st or 2nd biggest wine export business in the world) has a lower turnover than the marijuana industry. In this I am a weirdo too, because I have never really felt the urge to try the wacky tobacco – precisely because I spent a couple of parties as the guy who hadn’t had any in the company of the most repetitive and giggly schoolgirls (even though they were boys) I’d ever known.

      But yes it’s mainstream and I can’t help think health costs are going to be very high in a decade or so.

      Also, There is something very “mutton-dressed as lamb” about the older drug users though. No one likes spending time round a forty-something teenager.

    • Luce says:

      10:17am | 07/02/11

      hot tub political machine, health costs as a direct result of substance use are already high… from alcohol and tobacco use. Marijuana is not the problem here. The myopic and judgmental attitude of policy makers, and people from the public such as yourself, is the real problem.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      10:48am | 07/02/11

      I normally don’t bother responding to the level of the ad homines, but it seems there is a basic misunderstanding here. I’ll just politely point out that if you think I was saying MJ cost more than alcohol and tobacco you should improve your comprehension.

      It is possible to be concerned by “more costs” to what already exists from two other drugs. Its not always either or.

    • Luce says:

      11:47am | 07/02/11

      “But yes it’s mainstream and I can’t help think health costs are going to be very high in a decade or so.”

      “I’ll just politely point out that if you think I was saying MJ cost more than alcohol and tobacco you should improve your comprehension.”

      I never said I thought that. What I was trying to say is the “mainstream” use of marijuana or other illicit drugs is not the driving force of rising health costs due to substance use. Yes we should address is it, but along with alcohol and tobacco, which are actually a greater problem.

      The trouble is alcohol and tobacco have less stigma attached to them, and hence people tend to overlook the problem more easily and focus on what are seen as the more controversial substances (that and the revenue the government receives from excise taxes, and the political favour gained by jumping on the anti-drug band wagon). This, being the ad hominem argument you were referring to, is a valid point.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      12:53pm | 07/02/11

      Luce, the ad hominem i referred to was not your reasonable argument just stated, but this point:

      “The myopic and judgemental attitude of policy makers, and people from the public *such as yourself*, is the real problem:

      ...but then again you already knew that didn’t you?

    • Luce says:

      02:08pm | 07/02/11

      Ah right, well I apologize for that because it was a little aggressive in retrospect.

      I still hold that opinion about our policy makers though..

    • hot tub political machine says:

      02:44pm | 07/02/11

      No hard feelings. I think you have some strong points in post 2.

    • James1 says:

      03:53pm | 07/02/11

      You two need to hug now…

    • hot tub political machine says:

      04:36pm | 07/02/11

      Can you feel the love tonight?

    • The Badger says:

      09:17am | 07/02/11

      I liked the way you used the phrase “relentless badgering ” in your article.
      Very appropriate usage.

    • MarK says:

      09:34am | 07/02/11

      Funny how I read that as “..less badger..” and nodded with sage approval.

    • The Badger says:

      12:09pm | 07/02/11

      Not the first time you didn’t read something properly and laughed at your own joke, I’m sure.
      In your comments, you often seem to miss the MarK.as well.

      Perhaps in Thyme you will get it right.

    • gonzo says:

      08:30pm | 07/02/11

      3 drumrolls. great dad jokes.

    • The Badger says:

      01:11pm | 08/02/11

      gonzo is old enough to be a great granddad
      Time to move up in the balcony with Jerry Statler and Conrad Waldorf if they are still around.
      Think you can fill their shoes gonzo?

      Waldorf: Just when you think this show is terrible something wonderful happens.
      Statler: What?
      Waldorf: It ends.

    • Thommo says:

      09:37am | 07/02/11

      Marijuana and Ecstacy should be legalised.

    • MarK says:

      10:10am | 07/02/11

      Smack?

      Coke?

      Why stop at those two - or is it really “whatever I rake should legal in case I get caught”?.

    • Thommo says:

      10:18am | 07/02/11

      No, they are both safer than Alcohol according to the British Medical Association. common sense really. remove the black market and take away the crime. Are you one of those people who doesn’t want to see them legalised because it would ruin your massive profits?

    • Tren says:

      10:45am | 07/02/11

      make it all illegal.

      thats as good if not better solution.

      ohhhh but thats just going to make a black market for it….. like child porn or any other illegal activity right?

      well whats your point? should we legalise everything that poses less a threat than some other arbitrary item in the common domain? what about urban nudity… wheres the harm in that? or driving an unregistered vehicle? i bet there are statistics that prove that less accidents occur in unregistered vehicles than in registered ones!! so lets make it legal too!!

      nope. a line needs to be drawn, and it needs to be more prohibition, not less.

    • MarK says:

      11:18am | 07/02/11

      Not at all Thommo.

      I am an alcoholic that has spent quite a lot of time in psych wards with users of many fun recreational drugs that have some minor irritable things in their lives like psychosis and suicidal tendencies to name a few of the more minor ailments.

      AA is a great organisation. As is NA.

      Did you know there is a NA. Their meetings are quite good and I go along sometimes. Real eye opener actually.

    • Tim says:

      11:54am | 07/02/11

      Actually Tren,
      unregistered vehicles and unlicensed drivers feature much higher in accident statistics.
      I think Thommo’s point is that making one drug illegal whilst legalising other drugs that are higher risk is stupid policy.
      All drug policy should be evidence based rather than silly moralising from people who want control of other people’s lives.

    • Benrama says:

      09:55am | 07/02/11

      I don’t drink alcohol. If i’m in the company of someone who doesn’t know me well and they decide I should be having a “real drink”,  I lie and tell them I’m an alcoholic. Instantly I’m off the proverbial hook and met with “Ahh, no worries mate. I understand”.

    • Pork says:

      10:15am | 07/02/11

      I’m not much of a drinker either.  Can’t stand hangovers.  But drunkeness is a human tradition that has been going on since the first person noticed that fermented juice was fun. Prohibition didn’t work, just made organised crime rich.  You can’t stop people abusing themselves.
      Some quotes to lighten you all - up from good sources:
      “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”—Benjamin Franklin
      He was a wise man who invented beer.—Plato
      “Give my people plenty of beer, good beer and cheap beer, and you will have no revolution”—Queen Victoria
      and finally:
      Mr Burns: I want you to love me! Homer Simpson: OK, but we’ll need to get some beer…..

    • mary says:

      11:06am | 07/02/11

      Do you know why they say ‘wakey wakey’ when some-one has passed out after a night boozing?

      Well in the past anyways, Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a wake.

      This is from the reliable source answers.com.

    • Em says:

      11:07am | 07/02/11

      The reason I dont use drugs and drink only in moderation is not because its illegal or because people say I shouldnt do it, its because it doesnt create a healthy body and mind. Statistics could tell us which drug is worse than another drug but at the end of the day they all do damage. Id rather have a natural “double rainbow” experience (the one that comes from real life experiences) than to artificially create one. Thats just my opinion though.

    • beowulf says:

      12:34pm | 07/02/11

      As a non-drinker and for a very long time a non-drug taker I really do sympathise with Ms Jane. I no longer live in Australia, but the memories of having to explain to people why I did not drink are still quite clear.

      I do not really have a problem with people taking drugs, but what I do have a problem with is the culture associated with taking drugs. As a previous poster has alluded, it appears now that the only way to have a good time in Australia is to take drugs. Because I have decided not to take drugs I have been told by many people that I am “closeminded”, “uptight” and “need to relax.” When I inform said provocateurs that I can relax myself quite sufficiently without drugs their brains start to melt, because the concept of having a good time without drugs is just so foreign.

      I just think we have start teaching people that moderation is really important when taking drugs

    • party on says:

      12:40pm | 07/02/11

      Don’t drink much myself, much prefer to use party drugs. And yes, it is my choice.  I can’t figure out why I have some nanny state telling me not to use one chemical, but make others legas.

    • Elphaba says:

      01:02pm | 07/02/11

      I hope this fixes the italics, they’re annoying </I>

      @party on, whilst I’m not a party drugs user, you do make an excellent point.  One must be living under a rock to not know the dangers of cigarette smoke.  Cigarettes are unique when compared to alcohol and fatty foods, because you can consume the latters in moderation, and your life expectancy will not be diminished.  But since there is no safe way to smoke cigarettes, why are they not outlawed like other drugs that have been deemed unhealthy in all doses?  Or why aren’t illegal drugs legalised?

      This disparity makes mockery of the Govt’s attempts to crack down on smoking.  They either need to ban cigarettes along with hard drugs - or accept that people will kill themselves however they feel like, and they should just stop sticking their noses in.

    • Jade says:

      01:23pm | 07/02/11

      My problem is that most people who choose not to drink in this country seem to relay a smug sense of superiority over those of us who do choose to imbibe. This is most evident in the comments I frequently get from non-drinkers that imply that I have a problem with alcohol because I choose to go out and have a few (sometimes too many) drinks. Comments such as, “Why do you need to drink to have a good time?” Or, “I don’t need to drink to enjoy myself just as much.” or “I don’t like getting out of control.”, implying that because I do drink, I do get out of control. Or the whole, constant barrage about alcohol-related violence, alcohol-related injury etc etc ad nauseum. Which applies to those who choose a different form of chemical enhancement as well.

      To be really honest, I don’t really have an opinion on the legalisation of weed or ecstasy. But I hate the people who harp on about the dangers of alcohol being worse than these drugs, and take it knowing full well that it is illegal, then complain when they get caught that they shouldn’t be in trouble because it’s less dangerous. If you believe that the law is wrong, fight to change it. Don’t break a law and then whine about the consequences.

    • matt says:

      01:25pm | 07/02/11

      I don’t drink or do drugs because they are harmful to my body. I don’t care what people think about me if I refuse to drink alcohol. People don’t like being told the truth and get defensive when you highlight the frivolity and pointlessness of their substance use. You don’t need to harm your body to have fun.

    • Tim says:

      02:09pm | 07/02/11

      “People don’t like being told the truth and get defensive when you highlight the frivolity and pointlessness of their substance use”
      What truth is that you speak of? Your own personal opinion?
      And i’ve found that most people aren’t receptive when others try to tell them what to think, do or feel. Funny that.
      You sound just like a militant vegetarian who just has to tell everyone else around them at a restaurant that “meat is murder”.

    • Pork says:

      02:22pm | 07/02/11

      tasty, tasty murder…

    • Terry Wright says:

      03:09pm | 07/02/11

      “People don’t like being told the truth and get defensive when you highlight the frivolity and pointlessness of their substance use.”

      Tell that to the million plus Australians who are frivolous every weekend or the 240 million people worldwide.

    • HappyCynic says:

      03:47pm | 07/02/11

      Frivolity and pointlessness are two of the most fun things to do in life, matt.

      You would know this if you weren’t so humourless.  I respect your right to not drink or do drugs but for f**ks sake don’t you dare criticise how I treat my body.  It belongs to me I’ll do what I want with it.

      Better I live a shorter, fun-filled life (frivolous or not) than a long, healthy life that denies me any of the good things.

    • Luce says:

      04:35pm | 07/02/11

      I think we all agree matt needs to lighten up.

      If you don’t to partake in the consumption, no worries. But don’t bring the rest of us down. We’re just enjoying life in a different way to you.

    • matt says:

      01:26pm | 07/02/11

      I don’t drink or do drugs because they are harmful to my body. I don’t care what people think about me if I refuse to drink alcohol. People don’t like being told the truth and get defensive when you highlight the frivolity and pointlessness of their substance use. You don’t need to harm your body to have fun.

    • Luce says:

      03:08pm | 07/02/11

      Sure you don’t NEED substances to have fun, but that doesn’t change the fact that using them is still fun. If it wasn’t fun, no one would do it. Its a fact of life we all need to accept: some people enjoy taking drugs.

      What we should focus on is harm minimization. Unfortunately outright prohibition doesn’t really help in that respect.

    • Pork says:

      02:26pm | 07/02/11

      No one better threaten caffiene or I assure you there will be bloodshed!  That is one hard core legalised drug.  The morning rush as the fresh Java Juice coarses through my veins is something special…
      But I’m not addicted.  I can give up any time I want.  I just don’t want to…

    • Henry says:

      02:39pm | 07/02/11

      I don’t know how you survive Sydney without being constantly on drugs.

      What a vacuous, culture-free, bitter, try hard little place.

    • Andrew says:

      03:21pm | 07/02/11

      I don’t drink, and when people ask me why, I just say it’s not my thing.

      As for legalising more psychoactive drugs, why on earth would they want to do that? They already have so many issues with the legal ones now.

    • mary monica roche says:

      06:47pm | 07/02/11

      The Liberals have always practised abstinence from policy making, policy implentation, and future planning.
      They just recycle the past as the future.

    • P. Thornton says:

      07:17pm | 07/02/11

      Alcohol causes massive problems and it’s sanctioned by the Government. Drugs often cause worse problems than alcohol and they are sanctioned by covert agencies of international Governments. Hey, all you wooden soldiers, all you ex-hippies, all you indie coolsies, you anti-Da Man brown rice dudes, you wanna get back at the enemy? You wanna stick it to Da Man? Stop drinking and stop drugging. It is in the greater financial interests of ever civilised (actually, they’re anything but civilised) Western Government worldwide, plus many others who don’t fit that category, to ensure that you keep drinking and keep drugging.

    • The Badger says:

      08:45pm | 07/02/11

      I have always been a person of moderation. I try never to tell lies or do things to excess. Matter of fact, I don’t curse, I don’t drink and I don’t smoke

      Now where are my…...
      god damn it I left my cigarettes at the bar again.

    • Grant says:

      11:40pm | 07/02/11

      How far should we go; ban alcohol?

      The cost of alcohol on our society is worth the price that is paid.

      Because choosing to have a drink, or eat a burger, or saying something offensively is a freedom.

      People choose these things, and we need to have a choice; regardless of the positive or negative outcomes.

    • Amanda says:

      09:48am | 10/02/11

      Hahahahaha!!! Excellent article!!! smile The most interesting on eot come out sinc this whole debacle started.

    • Louise.C says:

      08:33pm | 30/03/11

      I have seen too much hurt from a son or daughter smoking pot or drinking too much over periods of time. It is not just the individual that uses that gets hurt. The family members also carry the shame and results of erratic behaviour.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Weekend Punch: Tea or coffee?

Weekend Punch: Tea or coffee?

This is the week that Craig Thomson defended himself in Parliament, Schapelle Corby got clemency and…

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter