Living in a country town myself Peter, I know exactly what you mean. The responsible service of alcohol laws are a joke, a friend of mine that works in a local hotel says that she is reluctant to cut off supply to drunks, because that is exactly when they turn violent, against the staff member who cut them off. She is often working with only one or two other women, who have no way of dealing with drunken violent men themselves in any physical sense.

The damage to people and property, by drunks, is increasing, from assaults to smashing bottles on the streets, and smashing windows, it has to stop, but it will take political will of gargantuan proportions to actually do anything meaningful about this problem, and that is a will that does not exist in our society today.

Well put Kim. Another cause of drunken violence at set closing times forcing lots of people out of venues all looking for public transport home at the same time. I also find that pubs and clubs are now in concentrated areas and lots of the "local" pubs have closed down.

Darwin was a scary place after closing at 3am. Hobart (Town) used to have 1 public house per 26 houses in the whaling days.

As John points out below, other illicit drugs now play a role in the alcohol problem but I would say that is due to an increase in supply of amphetamines.

What breed of free speecher is this? We are free it seems to choose to enter known danger zones and equally free to stay away. This leaves aside issues of the rule of law within the danger zones themselves. This is an absurd argument. The rule of law must apply laws equally regardless of geograpy or demographic differences or, for that matter, regardless of a whole range of communal and individual differences.

Kim Darcy's attitude is a recipe for barbarism. Of course, we'd all be safe if we were free to carry guns, I suppose. Geez, I've always wanted to get around with a hand weapon. Cool. Maybe there is something to tea Party philosophy after all.

Anthony, the "law" is always geographically-specific, depending on the jurisdiction of the relevant law-maker. We have different laws according to street area, suburbs, local councils, states, and so on. Sure, if you want, mandate the same law across all the different jurisdictions. In which case, you will naturally get vastly different outcomes, as we do now. It's called 'diversity'.

Anthony, look we know you're a fanatic for State power, and for State surveillance. We get it. But you're too late. The history of the post-war era had been about resisting State power, and the lickspittles whose interests encroaching State power serves. We beat you guys. Deal with it.

Kim do you think we should just let the violent drunks rule the night? Why shouldn't people, in a supposedly civil society, be able to walk the streets at any hour they please, without having to worry about being attacked by a drunk?

I do however, agree with your proposition of cutting back hotel and club opening hours. More could also be done to enforce the laws we already have, such as the responsible service of alcohol, and street drinking.

I used to love going to local events such as the horse racing cup day in my town, but drunken violence has made this into a nightmare. Going to a hotel to watch a band now involves having to put up with drunken violence, and anti-social behaviour, and has made what was a fun and pleasant night out, a risky venture. It wasn't always this way, so what has changed?

Judith, while I agree with you about being able to walk where we want, the fact is, we already cordon off all sorts of areas for particular purposes that are not permissible in other areas. I do not think teenagers should be able to drink all night in pubs, but if it is going to happen, best it is restricted to very small areas. I really don't think yours or my civil liberties are infringed by sequestering the vile drunks into George Street on Friday and Saturday nights.Let's face it, we wouldn't to stroll around there in broad daylight on a weekday, let alone at 4 am Saturday/Sunday morning!

Oh, so it was you who wanted the state to 'wither away' all the time then was it?

You are waging a straw man campaign that is so wide of the mark that it can only be described as peculiar.

Now, I'll tell you about my experiences working for the state, in the NSW Dept. of Community Services, as a child protection officer, which experiences led me to the view that the entire organisation ought to be abandoned, that entrenched staff with profoundly bigoted views ought to be weeded out, that Pru Goward's move to engage the private sector as care providers is the best initiative possible. Want more? The department is unaccountable and the children's courts are little more than rubber stamps for departmental staff who routinely fabricate evidence and misrepresent their own actions; decision making is amateur, to say the least.

In the light of this you might want to position me elsewhere on your set in concrete sliding scale of political understanding.

Anthony, thanks for sharing your 'up close and personal with the State' experiences. I gotta say, I've always thought that DOCS folks really are stuck between a rock and a hard place. It would not surprise me at all if, as a workplace, the place was psychotic. But nowhere have I even hinted that "treating The Rocks or The Cross or Hunter St, Newcastle as criminal free fire zones where citizens must fend for themselves is bizarre." What I am saying that I oppose passing laws that restrict the liberties of the vast majority of the country and the population because of the appalling alcohol-fueled violence in late night districts. All this baying for civil blood - BAN booze! 100% taxes! - is sick.

Kim,
Levels of alcohol abuse and it's symptoms (domestic violence and street violence) correlates with accessibility of alcohol (ie numbers of bottle shops in a suburb, opening times etc). Moreover, the Newcastle experience shows how opening times (or rather closing times), as well as other restrictions, can lead to a decrease in violence and presentations to ED.
What public health advocates are stating, i imagine, is restriction on the accessibility of alcohol. I fail to see how this restricts the liberty of any individual.
Whilst any public health law must strike a balance between nannyism and good societal governance it is clear that more can be done to restrict east accessibilty of alcohol, particularly to those who are already vulnerable: ie the already drunk.
Our society, along with the UK, seems particularly vulnerable to binge drinking, alcohol related violence (in and out of the home) and driving whilst intoxicated. Self - regulation appears not to work in this instance.

Seamus, that is not correct. In Newcastle, all they did was tweak the conditions in the late night boozing district. In fact, all they did was move pub closing hours from 5 am to 3.30am, plus lock outs after 1.30am, and a ban on shots and doubles after 10 pm. In no way was the rest of the city affected. I do not support 5 am/24 hour licenses for pubs. As far as I'm concerned, the "liberty" argument gets weaker very quickly, for every hour open after about 1 am. After 1am (and maybe 2 am in some areas), let the ragers move on to private clubs. Only, I would raise the legal age for these private clubs to 21. In other words, all the pissed kids just have to go home at 1 am. There is NO need for Nanny Roxon tax-grabs, or "public health" "strategies" and "guidelines".

A "strategy' and a 'guideline' seems like an excellent idea; or rather, anything that is likely or proven to work sounds like a good idea.
We either accept the status quo and are fine with high levels of alcohol related violence in and out of the home or we are not.
if we are not than a strategy is required to moderate the problem or mitigate it's effect sufficiently.
You contention that cordoning the drunk, or staying away from known drinking areas, as an efective strategy is problematic as it does nothing to curb domestic violence or violence between patrons.
We're not just talking about rival thugs bashing each other in the streets here, we're talking about spouses and children harmed by violently drunk adults in the home, brain damage by chronic drinking and road deaths from alcohol impaired drivers.
Furthermore, without taking personal responsibility away from the drunk who are prone to violence, in a sense they are victims of the status quo as well. If they were not permitted to drink to excess would that curb their potentiality for violence? Well, it's reasonable to suggest that this may be so as rates of violence have increased in the absence of any other plausible explanation.
It seems like a prudent zoning issue to restrict the availability of alcohol, and a prudent licencing measure to curb 'speed drinking' and supply to the already drunk. You can call this a strategy or not, but it is as likely to reduce violence in melbourne as it is the main street of goondiwindi.

Seamus, I'm not even sure what this means:
"You contention that cordoning the drunk, or staying away from known drinking areas, as an efective strategy is problematic as it does nothing to curb domestic violence or violence between patrons."
Where have I made any such "contention"? And where did I proffer this as a "strategy", "effective" or otherwise? When you say this contention is "problematic", is that a good or a bad thing? After that, we can discuss what I actually have said. I have posted it about five times now. The most recent repost is two posts above you. It is also, in fact, a reply to you.

KIm,
You wrote:
'The best advice is, however, just stay away from these areas after midnight on Friday and Saturday nights.' and

You're right, stating that this 'as a contention is problematic' is not correct. What I should have said is "kim, this is plain B.S.". For the reasons that I have already elaborated on.

'

And once again, I repeat, please go back to what I have posted on the issue, just a few posts above, and elsewhere on this thread. And yes, if you ask for my advice this Saturday night before going out in Sydney, I will advise you very strongly to just stay away from george Street.

Repeating it doesn't make it more sensible, Kim.
You state:
'...Nanny State Jackboot across the whole of civil society is not the best response.... the best advice, however, is to stay away...etc'

well, 'staying away' is not the best response. You do state that 'Cutting back hotel licensing opening hours is one possible response' but then reassert to me that to reead what you've written... which is The best advice is to stay away...

The best advice is a range of policies to control the sale of alcohol, the overuse of alcohol and the violence engendered by such use.
In the interim, those not seeking a fight ARE best advised to stay away from problem areas. This does not help those who suffer violence in their homes or outside their homes whn they are located adjacent to known party pubs. Unfortunately violence is not segregated to close proximity of drinking establishments, it may be brought to bear distant to the premises. This makes your comment 'best advice...etc' superficial at best.

Well if people are suffering violence in their homes, they really need to move out. It's like "hullo is Mr. Wall home? No. Is Mrs Wall, home? No. Are any of the walls there? No. Well you'd better get out quick, because your roof is about to collapse on you."

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/its-2013-and-theyre-burning-witches/558/

"It was around 5pm when “the marijuana boys” let Angela go, more than four hours after they began their assaults. When Angela’s elderly mother tried to attend to her they set upon her too, breaking her leg and her pelvis."

Gary, I thought the article here was about alcohol violence in Australia. I guess you are baiting on my assertion about the relative non violent profile of cannabis users.

However the article you link is very good and indeed throws another conundrum into the mix. The mining industry and its role in the degradation of societies impacted by the rampant nature of the beast and in the inequality it brings.

Anecdotally I have observed that the rise of violence in Australia over the last 2 decades has a correlation with the rise of the mining industry, the rise of amphetamines, the rise in militarism and the rise of jingoism.

The use of amphetamines in the military and the mining industry in this country is off the charts.

What is the relative level of amphetamine abuse in the military (and miners) compared to the same demographic in the community now, John? You must have those figures at hand in order to make such a statement.

"To put all illicit drugs under the one banner is disingenuous at best."

You'll also notice that the vested interests are very careful to always put alcohol under a different banner altogether to illicit drugs. A better, though still wrong, headline would have been "only alcohol together with some other drugs causes violence".

The line between what drugs are legal and what aren't is more political and arbitrary than many people want to admit. Using it in this discussion rather than objective scientific data about each substance is unhelpful.

"You'll also notice that the vested interests are very careful to always put alcohol under a different banner altogether to illicit drugs."
Yeah, those "vested interested" being the 90% of Australian adults who like to drink, as we have for centuries.

Kim, I don't understand your comment. What do adults who enjoy a drink stand to gain from perpetuating the idea that alcohol is not a drug? By vested interests I meant those who stand to lose money from anything that might correctly recognize alcohol as part of our overall drug problem.

I suppose drinkers (which includes me) might get some emotional benefit from incorrectly thinking that they are not "drug users" but that seems like a stretch.

In a discussion about the harms caused by drug use, excluding alcohol or placing it into some special separate category is unhelpful and dishonest.

"What do adults who enjoy a drink stand to gain from perpetuating the idea that alcohol is not a drug?"
Tobin, we have distinguished between drugs and alcohol for thousands of years. The ancient Greek word for "drug" was "pharmakon" (from which we get our 'pharmacology'). In ancient Greece, a "pharmokon" - just like our modern "drug" - could be both a poison and a medicine to cure, often used by magicians and sorcerers nefariously. Hippocrates and the ancient Greeks would have understood our modern day proscription of "drug" use, except when authorised by a medical doctor.
But wine was never even imagined as a "pharmakon". As Thucydides said "the peoples of the Mediterranean began to emerge from barbarism when they learnt to cultivate the olive and the wine." While the Greeks and Romans brewed beer, they weren't all that taken by it. You would have liked Tacitus, who worked out that the Germans were lager louts nearly 2,000 years ago. As Tacitus sniffed, "If we wanted to make use of the Germans love of beer by giving them as much of it as they want, we could defeat them as easily by means of this vice as with our weapons." But no Greek or Roman ever imagined "beer" was a "pharmakon". That distinction between booze and drugs continues to this day.
So, no distinguishing booze and "drugs" is not dishonest or incorrect. That is the way language works. It evolves socially. In fact, it is those who think that the way our language has evolved over thousands of years is "unhelpful" and "dishonest", who really need to get with the program.

Anne, I agree entirely.

I like the idea that operates in a few US states where the person (publican, restauranterur or homeowner) who supplies alcohol is legally responsible for the consequences at least in part. Tends to drive home the Responsible Service of Alcohol message with a sledgehammer.

Do you reckon the owners of Liquorland and Dan Kelly's would like that US idea?

Consumption taxes need not be intended as "punishment", just an application of the "user-pays" principle. Mind you, advertising around this alcohol consumption tax would emphasise that it is specifically intended to fund the emergency services that, statistically, alcohol consumers need - "breathe easy, you're already paying for the ambulance, X-rays and blood transfusions you'll be wanting later tonight".

I'm fine about consumption taxes on grog - seems to have had good effects in those Scandawegian places. But then a scotch will set you back about $15. So the poor snort ether. Talk about a cheap night out. Over a bit quickly though and hardly memorable.

I'm also not averse to taxing drug dealers like publicans - folks who make their profits from old Frank with his permanent spot at the bar 7 days a week. Makes them rich Frank does. And his liver.

Actually if we were to try and do a full cost recovery based on a serious economic analysis of the real costs of alcohol consumption and abuse - the road kill, the maimings, the ambos, the crime, the violence, and eventually the chronic health conditions ... I'd have a sneaking suspicion that a bottle of scotch would probably come close cost-wise to a couple of weeks on the Amalfi coast.

I don't think Mr Murphy or Coles would go much on that idea either.

A spray can of ether is on sale this week at Supercheap Autos -$15 for two. See you under the bridge.

Peter,
I beg to differ. I just spent a couple of weeks on the amalfi coast, in Amalfi itself. It cost 2/3 as much to spend a night in Amalfi as it did to spend a night in Canberra last weekend...
In a vain attempt to bring this back to the topic, I noticed a lot of revelry in Amalfi town, I noticed people of all ages having a glass of wine or a beer with lunch, a campari of aperol before dinner and a glass of wine with dinner. I saw italian 'yoof' out on the town (and also young and old in the square mixing with drinking diners) I saw no violence, alcohol related or otherwise, I didn't see any drunks yelling and staggering at 2 in the morning either....that may be because it was off tourist season and the brits weren't there. The absence of drunks and the presence of all ages out on the town enjoying themselves and drinking responsibly was shocking to me.
It wasn't just amalfi... france, spain the same.... sshocking how some cultures can have alcohol for sale everywhere and yet have streets not filled with vomiting drunken yobbos.
lest I get too pious, 20 years ago I was a drunken yobbo, along wiht my mates - what's wrong with our country?

Not stupid: cynical, self-interested and disengenuous. Oh, I forgot smug - the look on his face when confronted with the reporter's comment on the power of the liquor industry was one of satisfaction and of surety of his position. The man's not stupid, just cunning.