Targeting drivers is one thing, what about drinkers?

Steve says:

04:26pm | 04/11/10

I went to Flemington on Cup Day. They opened the gates and no security was there to check bags. Ok, fine. But what is confusing me, and even more so because im thinking that I was drunk, even though I never had a drink all day- I had my backpack checked on the way OUT for alcohol!
Unreal- do they really think someone would go into Flemington and pay $10 for a can of beer and then stock up his back pack and take it outside the course?? This country has gone mad!

DG says:

01:04pm | 06/11/09

J (01:25pm | 06/11/09)

“So now ordinary people have to monitor their behavior at public events or else they risk unflattering photos being plastered all over news internet sites”

I’m genuinely worried that it takes a photo on the internet to make some people realise that they should monitor their behaviour in public places.

You should ALWAYS monitor your behaviour in public places. It’s called self control.

Sympathy factor : ZERO.

J of WF says:

12:57pm | 06/11/09

J: If people are silly enough to get smashed in a public setting and place themselves at risk then they do run the risk of having their picture splashed across the national media.

I’m not a wowser, Ive been very very drunk in public and I’m infinitely lucky that I didn’t have my picture published or worse, taken advantage of. No one has mentioned that this girl doesn’t necessarily know the two guys who are apparently taking her off the course.

J says:

12:25pm | 06/11/09

So now ordinary people have to monitor their behavior at public events or else they risk unflattering photos being plastered all over news internet sites. I can’t believe this is what the world has come to. I couldn’t care less about people who drink too much. I do care about photos being taken of them for the purpose of creating ‘news.’ It’s a disgusting sign of the times.

SM says:

12:14pm | 06/11/09

@BT
1) Nor have I.  And I’ve done some incredibly stupid things on the drink myself.  But I’ve never done anything like some of the things I’ve seen drunk maniacs do in bars.  And If I had, in the clear light of day, I’d understand that I’d now lost the right to drink freely in a public place.  It’s not about rehabilitation and changing behaviours - that’s what academic approaches like education campaigns and indentifying the root causes behind these peoples behaviour is about.  But that’ll take years, if it works at all.  This is about doing something now. And it’s about getting rid of the animals so that non violent people who like a drink can do so.  Metal detectors on the door?  You want these guys who routinely take knives out with them when they go to the pub to be allowed to drink to excess?  Maybe they’ll just go to the venues that don’t have metal detectors.  Or the places that don’t even have security staff.  I say they go to no venue. They’re a disaster waiting to happen. It’s also about placing some responsibility on those that profit from the sale of alcohol. Because the drunken violent animals are simply incapable of controlling themselves.  And until some of these grassroot, cause identifying, educational approaches start to get some results, the current situation simply cannot be allowed to continue.
2) No I’m not.  I’‘m assuming violent behaviour in bars is based on some sort of lack of discipline and morality.  Which it is
4) A waste of whose time? Yours? Mine? The time will be invested by the venues themselves. If it stops these animals from being in the venues, then it’s time well spent.  And the resources you speak of would be provided by the venues themselves.  The same people who, at the moment, do close to nothing to address these problems. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming in order to get them to do anything. Make them do this, and make them bear the cost.

And the rest of us, and our girlfriends, can have a drink in peace

Cheers

Peter of Adelaide says:

12:09pm | 06/11/09

It has been said on many science shows / documentaries that is Alcohol was discovered today it would be a restricted drug.

But since it has been around ‘forever’ it is still legal, it is still allowed.  It is what I call a loophole drug, one that because of its current social acceptance cant be re-classified - yet.  If the idiots keep up messing up, perhaps it will be.

The simplest answer is to make it a restricted drug, or ban it outright.  Of course America tried that option and it didn’t quite work all that well.

I don’t drink, and have never been drunk, so I’ll cast the first stone.  Make it a restricted drug.  There simple. Accept that no politician will ever do that, the backlash would be massive, so what to do?

I don’t have the answers.  I have an opinion as stated above though for what it is worth.

BT says:

10:48am | 06/11/09

@SM
1. Hypocritical because I am yet to meet a person who hasn’t either lost their temper/done something stupid/got drunk/made a mistake etc Unless you are claiming to be Jesus I think you’ll fall into one of those categories.
2.Unfounded because you are assuming that alcoholism is based on some sort of lack of discipline and morality - which it isn’t.
3.Judgemental - see above.
4. Unfeasible because it would waste so much in time and resources, resources that would be better spent serving the community in long term solutions rather than increased bureacracy and restriction.

There is no quick fix solution to complex social problems, that’s life. Having at least an understanding of why they occur is a start though.

SM says:

10:20am | 06/11/09

@BT
Hypocritical?  How so?
Unfounded? Ditto
Judgemental? In what way?
Unfeasible? Why?

You can’t explain why it won’t work, and still, you have no solution of your own

BT says:

09:43am | 06/11/09

@SM,
My point is that your suggestions are hypocritical and judgemental in the extreme, not to mention unfounded and unfeasible. I thought mg pretty much explained that to you. It is important to at least have some compassion and understanding of social situations before you start calling for the prescence of authority otherwise you are leaving the door wide open for abuse of power to occur - which is far worse than any pub brawl. Why such a militant stance on something that pretty much everyone does, I’m sure you went on a bender at least once in your life?

SM says:

09:15am | 06/11/09

@BT
Yes, and a stitch in time saves nine.  Additionally, too many cooks spoil the broth, and not to forget, you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.
Still waiting for you to outline what you found so funny about the suggestion though

BT says:

09:02am | 06/11/09

@SM
I’m not religious, but one of the best lines in the Bible was,“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

SM says:

07:41am | 06/11/09

@mg says
“These are the questions that need answering, maybe then, we will realise what is wrong and the best approach to manage the situation.”

You spruik on about “finding the cause” but as you yourself admit, you don’t have any answers.  Guess what? Something needs to be done now.  We can’t wait for you to have a d&m with every single drunken animal out there, to discover what “the cause” of their violent, criminal behaviour is . While your search for utopian paradise continues, my suggestion protects you from these animals when you go to a licenced venue. Grab yourself a drink, take a seat, and you can philosophise in relative peace, knowing that your chances of being randomly king hit from behind have been reduced.

persephone says:

07:53pm | 05/11/09

How is something ‘useless’ and ‘great’ at the same time, Senator?

As someone who has done a RSA course, one of the things you’re told is that, no matter how vigilant you are, you are going to give someone alcohol when they’ve already drunk too much.

This is because alcohol takes a while to take effect (something like 10 minutes, if memory serves). So someone can look bright eyed and bushy tailed when you serve them at 8.10 and be obviously drunk at 8.30.

And, anyway, I thought people took their own liquor into the Cup?

Joe Quimby says:

07:15pm | 05/11/09

Does this apply to Brendan Fevola too?
Or does Crown and the AFL need to be the ones that pay the price?

Old Bert says:

06:04pm | 05/11/09

The photo of this lucky woman, who just won a motza on the trifecta, supported on one side by a bloke who put in 50%, and on the other side, by a bloke who didn’t, is “proof” she was only ’ tired and emotional’. Steve, go back to engineering old son. Cheers.

Mike Cockburn says:

05:47pm | 05/11/09

For a what seems like an enternity, people have pushed that dracula in charge of blood bank nonsense argument outlining Responsible Serving of Alcohol. What a joke!
What’s missing on this issue is an effective control. RSA is not effective.
It’s never worked anywhere!
What hasn’t been tried is an easy to understand, unambiguous Consumer control. We need to give consumers a clear BAC line in the sand not to cross. This line has just been run on A Current Affair tonight.
Focus on the consumer. A consumer based law making consumers responsible for what they drink.
If you are affected by alcohol you may feel in control, but that’s the trap this drug sets for you.
Remember the drink drive tests? When 05 was new, they had to take hoons to the track and prove to them that they couldnt drive properly affected by alcohol. At no stage did the hoons believe it. Even after running down all the steer around obstacles. Why? Because they were affected by a mind altering substance called alcohol.
Kieran you should know that research exists that shows that the magic BAC number associated with most violence is WELL under your 0.25…
Sure Breathalysers in Bars are a massively good thing to do. But there needs to be a clear, culture busting motivation to stay under a researched derived max BAC. The motivation has to be felt by the Consumer.
Vote 1 for the Pedestrian 08 Campaign.
Mike Cockburn

mg says:

04:38pm | 05/11/09

@SM

It is a bandaid solution which fails to look at the root cause of the issue… I for one would have no support for any process that monitors our movements and our activities - this can be misused by the “authorities”.

We are looking to solve the problem (violence, health issues etc), when rather, we should be looking to solve the CAUSE:

1. Why are the people of the nation drinking to excess? The answer probably lies in question 2.

2. What are we missing as a society that requires us to binge drink to reach a form of high? The answer may lie in the fact that we are being misled daily by our “leaders”, who generate the need to “escape” the “dangers” of this world - e.g. the “GFC” - through drinking excessively - but that is only my perspective.

These are the questions that need answering, maybe then, we will realise what is wrong and the best approach to manage the situation.

Patrick says:

03:14pm | 05/11/09

All I see here is Fielding trying to atatch himself to another populist cause.

What else is on?

DG says:

03:12pm | 05/11/09

Oh no, Not people getting drunk. What a travesty…

“Yes the individual has to take some responsibility. ” ?!?! How about the drunk takes COMPLETE responsibility for what they put in their own mouth.

That’s not to say that the responsible service of alcohol laws should not be enforced, of course they should. But to blame the pub for people being drunk is to ignore the real problem: Personal responsibility.

Now the bartender has a bloke come to the bar, slightly glassy eyeds but clearly not ‘intoxicated’, “G’day. Can I grab 3 [insert beer of choice]”.

Mr Fielding, should the bartender serve them?

If the answer is “No”  there will be more people pushing to get to the bar causing frustration and aggravation for the the punters (increasing the risk of violence) and have just spelled the end of a great Australian tradition of “The Shout” for a couple of mates having a quiet beer after a day at work. If “Yes” you’ve given a bloke 3 beers that he could drink in quick succession and become “Drunk” in a very short time.

What’s the solution?

@SM (02:28pm | 05/11/09)

National identity cards - what a novel approach. Good luck with that. You’d be surprised how many things could be fixed by making people carry papers.
Can you really see either of the major parties announcing a policy that requires all citizens to carry identification papers? How many seconds would it take before the privacy banner was unfurled?

Not only that: Who decides that I should be banned from the pub? What if I get kicked out of the club “for being drunk” but haven’t had any alcohol? Where’s my right of appeal? How it is to be proven? Are you going to have police in every pub or is it just the world of the bouncer who says you were drunk? I’ve been asked to leave a pub for being drunk and I was not drinking at all - should I have been banned for 3 months? or banned pending an appeal? What about Jane Doe sitting in the corner getting merrily sloshed, not causing any one any problems - after all you claimed it was to punish people causing problems?

SM says:

03:03pm | 05/11/09

@mg
A police state?  Not at all.  Just a way to effectively (unlike the situation now) put some responsibility onto those who make a profit selling the stuff.  They’ve shown that they’re incapable of serving it responsibly, just as the drunken violent idiots have shown that being ejected from a single venue just for that night is no incentive to behave better.  They’re animals, and people who do know how to behave should be able to drink responsibly in a venue without having to deal with them

mg says:

02:40pm | 05/11/09

@SM
The fact you want to implement a police state?

Kieran says:

02:40pm | 05/11/09

Steve I agree that there need to be a more responsible service of alcohol but the problem is how do you enforce it. At large events like the Melbourne Cup staff serve thousands of people each day which would make it almost impossible to remember everyone that buys a drink and that’s if they buy the drinks themselves. Maybe to alleviate this problem we could introduce breath testers at bars and anyone with a blood alcohol level over 0.25 cannot be served a drink.

The problem with society currently is that there is the attitude of drinking to get drunk. People no longer go out to have a couple of drinks and a good time, they now go out to get smashed.

SM says:

02:28pm | 05/11/09

@BT
what do you find funny about them?

BT says:

02:18pm | 05/11/09

@SM,
I almost laughed at your comments until I realised you were serious. You really should get out more buddy.

Jade says:

02:02pm | 05/11/09

Who cares if people get that smashed, how do you know she is exclusivly drinking alchole and hasnt taked any drugs as well?

As long as us drunks are not being violent, damaging property or being a problem why make a fuss? Just wasting more money go and find the real criminals.

SM says:

01:28pm | 05/11/09

Senator, I have an idea that I think would have a significant effect on reducing the violent trouble caused by drunks within licenced premises

it revolves around those who create problems in a licenced venue because of excessive alcohol consumption being barred from not only from that venue, but from EVERY venue in Australia, for a period of time

A photo id based national database is created.  Anyone who wishes to attend ANY licenced premises (including race meetings, restaurants, bars, whatever) must have their photo id checked before entry, regardless of age. Their details are matched against the database.  If they have previously been responsible for alcohol related problems within ANY venue, their penalty is recorded on the database.  Accordingly, they are refused entry, and the police are called.  Attempting to enter a venue whist barred attracts an additional penalty.  A rough guideline as to penalties follows:

Being ejected from a venue due to excessive consumption - 3 months
Perpetrating any violent act - 1 year
Serious Violent Offence (ie: glassing) - Life

All the costs associated with implementing this strategy are borne by alcohol manufacturers and venue owners.  If this cost is then passed on to patrons, so be it.  I’ll happilly pay a bit more to know that I’m safer than I am now

Venues must comply and enforce these rules at all times.  Venues found not complying have their liquor licences cancelled (no warnings), and face criminal charges

Mitchell says:

01:00pm | 05/11/09

Mick Cockburn… hahaha what a name. But seriously that chick is wasted, Who gave her, her last drink! I think Fielding has a point, even though he has plenty of bad ones to. I’ve never seen anyone turned away from a bar for being to drunk. And believe me that’s a worry given how much I go out and what I see going on. At the end of the day I guess no one cares because it not them who picks up the piece of all the crap that goes on in our society.

Scott Bridges says:

12:57pm | 05/11/09

The one in the middle looks like Jeremy Sears.

Mike Cockburn says:

12:41pm | 05/11/09

So Steve, at what BAC should this woman have been told to stay under?
If she was taking the tram home, what BAC is the max safe for her crossing the road, standing at the tram stop, dodging the tram as it pulls in - and not getting killed?
Same for navigating trains?
Have you ever seen a Big Liquor - Government advertisement clearly indicating a BAC someone should simply STOP at?
If not, why not?
How many ineffective millions are spent by Government on ineffective alcohol control advertising ‘campaigns’?
Also, I suspect your position on this is a political advisors creation rather than one with any prospect of success.
For instance, this woman may have ended up one of our 5000 alcohol related ambulance call outs.
After you get whatever you want ? - whatever that is - then what would be your measure of success? A reduction of say 1000, 2000? What number are you morally comfortable with Senator?
Mike Cockburn

Darren says:

12:25pm | 05/11/09

The ‘individual has to take some responsibility”  - I suppose she could pray to her invisible friend to help her -

John A Neve says:

12:21pm | 05/11/09

Steve Fielding’s comments have no basis in reality. No one needs to serve a drunk. Any one in their group can buy it for them. Once again, are we debating the right question?
Money, so the saying goes, makes the world go round. Alcohol is big business, provided a person does not infringe the rights of others, who cares if they are drunk?
I believe our police have better things to do than nurse maid drunks, if there is an altercation, yes step in, if we have a happy, sleepy, dopey drunk, why get involved?