This came up at work today while we were talking about Scotland being decalred the most violent developed nation, mostly due to alcohol related stuff.

Basic idea:

An "alcohol" license would be required to purchase alcohol, or to be legally drunk (0.05 or beyond). It would be issued through the RTA or DMV, possibly as a flag on your driver's license or Proof of Age card.

Being 0.06+ or buying alcohol without a current license would attract hefty fines and eventually a criminal charge / gaol term.

A variety of offenses would result in your license being suspended for varying propids. Drink driving, drunk and disorderly, drunken violence.

Perhaps a points system would be appropriate for lower-grade, non violent crimes.

Thoughts?

they've always been drinking running around in them little kilts eating up haggis while drunk i dont think anyone can stop it O_o

and i dont trust phone surveys too much either

last edited by darius at 11:21:07 20/Sep/05

ya don't get between a scot & his glen fiddick, thems fighting words! I reckon leave it to the scots to sort thier own problems out.

That's a neat idea, though some might argue its a bit of a privacy invasion and adds a lot of slaw - but alcohol-related violent crimes, drunk driving, etc are a major problem even in Australia. If people can't learn some f***ing self control when they go out drinking, then stopping them from drinking at all seems like a reasonable solution.... although you'd need to introduce a slew of laws that punish people from supplying alcohol to people without this licence (ie, you'd have to stop friends from buying alcohol for their banned friends, which of course would be the first thing that would happen).

Maybe it'd be enough though to stop violent offender-types if they just can't buy any more alcohol when they go out - they can get tanked at home, then go out and they'll just get more and more sober, instead of continuing to drink.

Oh, we were talking about licensing booze for Australia, not for the Scots, I just thought that article was interesting in its own right and worth a mention.

Edit:

Especially given this form the article:

The study, based on telephone interviews conducted between 1991 and 2000, said 3% of people in Scotland had suffered an assault, while the figure for England and Wales was second highest at 2.8%.

Both Australia and New Zealand had the next highest proportion of assaults among their population at 2.4%, exactly double the level reported for the United States.

We're not much better!

last edited by Hogfather at 11:34:42 20/Sep/05

Being 0.06+ or buying alcohol without a current license would attract hefty fines and eventually a criminal charge / gaol term.

What the f***? So for walking down the street with a Bac of 0.065 or whatever I'm going to do hard time (ok maybe stumbling, thats not the point) or get fined to f***?

I don't like your ideas and I don't want to subscribe to your newsletter...

Also RE: the stats bit, lol dude we've got a population of about 20mill theirs is like 300mill... I think 1% of people getting assaulted there could be a touch more then 2% of the population here.. But my maths is a bit shakey on that one

last edited by Boxhead at 11:45:22 20/Sep/05

They won't give licenses to Irish people at all anyway

Thats because we can drink you all under the table you bunch of softcockcadburypansies!

Back to my previous point, maybe a better idea would be to better incorporate Bac levels into the charge system, like have a whole host of bac related crimes or charges, similar to drunken misconduct but like inebreiated aggrivated assault etc (fear my spelling of doom) so people who are picked up are then prosecuted to the more fuller extent of the law.. I don't think its a good idea to go after joe schmoe walking down the street minding his own business... More emphasis may need to be placed on these newly created laws however in this instance prevention is a hard plan to introduce because quite frankly you never know when or why a person is going to fly off the handle when they've been drinking (lol pave i swear i got change for the pool table :p)

Better training of bar staff, security staff to recognise the signs and possibly give them the power to breath test people to let them come to a better more accurate time when a person has had enough?? So to stop the whole 'lol the barbitch denied me service because i spilt some water or someone bumped into me' I think it'd be better to make the whole denial of service thing more up to law then a subjective thing anyway... It'd take out the agro a fair deal but without going to the its illegal to be over a certain limit which your ideas sorta hint at...

Then again maybe i've gotten it all wrong and thats what you were saying at the start :p

last edited by Boxhead at 11:53:17 20/Sep/05

Being 0.06+ or buying alcohol without a current license would attract hefty fines and eventually a criminal charge / gaol term.

What the f***? So for walking down the street with a Bac of 0.065 or whatever I'm going to do hard time (ok maybe stumbling, thats not the point) or get fined to f***?

The only reason you would be fine for being 0.06 is if you didn't have a license. Such a fine would scale in severity, like a speeding ticket.

If you want to extrapolate gaol time for unlicensed 0.06 from what I proposed, then I suggest you read and think again, because that's not what I suggested at all.

Are you likely to lose your booze license Boxhead? Do you drink drive, or engage in violence while f***ed up? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you're the reason why a license is a good idea.

this isnt going to work at all ... for it to work you would have to radically change the system with policing resembling something like a secret muslim/nazi police where they do such things, it wont work here at all

Are you likely to lose your booze license Boxhead? Do you drink drive, or engage in violence while f***ed up? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you're the reason why a license is a good idea.

Couldn't tell you to be honest, I've seen people be a 'victim' of circumstance when dealing with drunken violence... As i said before you just don't know when things are going to bust out, when a person might lose their cool etc when they're drunk... Its just too hard to tell.

As i said before I wasn't sure of where you were going with that particular point.

this isnt going to work at all ... for it to work you would have to radically change the system with policing resembling something like a secret muslim/nazi police where they do such things, it wont work here at all

Customer: I'd like beer, please.
Beer vendor: Sure, can I see your license?
Customer: I don't have one.
Beer vendor: Sorry, no beer for you!

Sounds complicated, I don't know how that could ever work!

Politician A: Vote for me and I'll bring in fines for being drunk. 2.4% of people will be safer.
Politician B: Vote for me and I won't bring in fines for being drunk. Beer is part of the aussie way of life.

Public: sif vote for A.

I dont like the idea at all.
I go into the valley alot, and i MIGHT have 1-2 drinks tops. I think drunks are just f***ing ridiculous and very annoying. However as long as they dont directly affect me i am completely ok with it.
If they wanna shout out "nice pants" to me, im more than happy to reply nicely with a "thanks mate!".
If they want to be drunk and act like a tool, its their choice - however as soon as it adversely affects someone else then they should be punished.
So id aggree with more strict punishments for verbal/psychical abuse and drink driving over a certain limit (ie the .05).

Who are you to stop someone else having a good time?

It would be just like carding someone.
I don't think the bartender, supplier need see the licence everytime, but like underage drinking if the premises are caught serving someone who is unlicenced they may get fined.
But this could easily be avoided by bouncers checking at the door.

Please tell me this doesn't apply on private property

it almost seems like a move to re-criminalise alcohol, very similar to proposals for the de-criminalisation of pot. i.e. if you are found with it, you get a ticket, like a parking ticket and if the ticket is not paid, then you go to jail.

the only problem with this is the gradual introduction of a police state as more and more public servants are arer required to be employed to enforce this ridiculous mess of laws.

every law requires enforcement. every enforcing officer requires salary and every public salary requires taxes.

maybe they could just jack up the price of booze so much that drinkers can onily afford 2 or 3 each days. won't get any hooliganism that way. if each beer served in a pub cost $15 then your normal night on the town which costs $100 would get you 6-7 beers which would get the aevrage drinker quite comfortable.

not that i support this - just another thought. i love to get hammered!!

last edited by infi at 12:44:06 20/Sep/05

Man all I have to say is I hope none of these ideas ever see the light of day. We have enough party poopers as it is in this world. If you can't handle drunks/drinkers why dont you find a nice little cave to spend your life shaking.

Thoughts?

Ban alcohol altogether.

I can see my popularity going up 200% now

when do we stop trying to legislate "every thing"?
When do we start taking responsibilities for our own actions.

IMO it isnt a law required here, its education, and tougher penalties for assaults, drink driving etc

"I was drunk officer, i didnt mean to run over that girl and kill her" is not an excuse

IMO it isnt a law required here, its education, and tougher penalties for assaults, drink driving etc

"I was drunk officer, i didnt mean to run over that girl and kill her" is not an excuse

What's better - tougher penalties on people that run over girls, or laws that make it not possible for people to run over girls in the first place?

Ah well if it is just for Australia then I say 'The current system is fine.' People are already penalised for assault & the like, whether alcohol is attributed or not. It seems crazy to me to have a freakn huge entertainment industry all geared towards the selling of alcohol & then to drop a law that it is illegal to get drunk.

An "alcohol" license would be required to purchase alcohol, or to be legally drunk (0.05 or beyond). It would be issued through the RTA or DMV, possibly as a flag on your driver's license or Proof of Age card.
Being 0.06+ or buying alcohol without a current license would attract hefty fines and eventually a criminal charge / gaol term.

0.06% blood alcohol is not drunk... that's like just barely tipsy. They set the level low because of the driving part of the equation. The limit used to be 0.08 & even then I wouldn't call that 'drunk'... staggering violent drunkedness would be up around 0.2 imo.
Ban black rum... we all know it's to blame for the biff ;]

edit

What's better - tougher penalties on people that run over girls, or laws that make it not possible for people to run over girls in the first place?

c'mon... you know it's impossible to stop someone from getting alcohol if they want it. There are just so many ways, given the huge industry for serving alcohol, that anyone could use to illegally get theier hands on alcohol. Like getting a job as a distributer truckie for instance, or even knowing someone who was, or just grab a bottle of metho & some really sweet cordial :P

last edited by demon at 13:21:05 20/Sep/05

I think it is quite a nice idea.

It would be pretty much just like a blue card, that is
- Fill out application form for Blue Card/Drinking license
- Wait few days for govt to check for any kiddie fiddling/alcohol-related criminal record
- Get the Blue Card/Drinking license

Then IF you get done for child abuse/alcohol-related crimes the card gets cancelled and thats it.

Interesting, thanks for the rpelies everyone who bothered!

A few responses are in order. Sorry I don't typoquote everyone but I'm lazy.

"I haven't been bothered by alcohol abuse so it doesn't worry me."

That's great for you, but alcohol abuse is a big problem and chances are you or your family will eventually be bothered by it, possibly even fatally with no ability to do anythign about it.

"I like to drink alcohol, don't ruin the party for everyone because some people can't handle themselves." Enjoy your party - this wouldn't change a thing you do.

"0.06 is too low."

I chose 0.06+ because that's the limit for driving, and is an easily-understood level of alcohol. It would require no additional education to let people know what the limit for unlicensed drinking was. If that's your only objection, then what is the mean point at which the average bloke will turn from a responsible drinker to a potentially nasty one?

The point being, that you would be subjected to a 0.05 limit if you f***ed up, and pretty badly. We're talking about being repeatedly dragged away in the paddy wagon for being a drunken f***head, or bashing someone.

"Its the start of the end of our rights, Nazi, fascist state blah blah blah."

I challenge anyone to convince me that alcohol is not a potentially dangerous substance. Alcohol-related crimes, injuries and assaults costs the community a lot both socially and economically.

In Australia, we regulate access to dangerous substances and items. We license the use of cars, the ability to drive boats, and ownership of weapons. We have systems controlling access to other potentialy harmful substances, but for some reason not alcohol.

"People should take responsibility for their own actions."

That's great, people should do lots of things, but as a mass, people are f***ing stupid and need to be told what to do. We wouldn't need any licenses fo ranythign if peopel were socially and economically responsible, but they're not.

"Tell me this wouldn't apply within the home."

Convince me that the worst cases of alcohol-fuelled violence are not domestic.

As good as all this sounds we have to remember one thing, Prohibition didn't work last time around. All you are doing is setting up a system that the criminal/black marketeers can very easily take advantage of.

reminds me of the line from dennis leary when he said that one day he predicted we would only be able to smoke between 12am and 2am, in our bedroom under the doona cover with torch LOL

seriously this would result in a booze police like these public servants whose only mission in life is to ticket people who smoke too close to a doorway.

also keep in mind it is the stupifying effects of alocohol which
a) provide a reason for a police force; and
b) keep the masses so distracted that they don't really how they are getting ass-raped for taxes by big spending government.

alcohol is one of the only legal drugs left for people to forget how miserable their lives are. government and societies have been permitting (hell, encouraging) intoxication for as long as civilisation existed. next you will be wanting laws to regulate the number of times you can visit a hooker per week.

That's great for you, but alcohol abuse is a big problem and chances are you or your family will eventually be bothered by it, possibly even fatally with no ability to do anythign about it.

The article you linked in your first post says the 'chances are' 2.4% in australia. So in reality, chances are 97.6% that you won't be bothered with it. Those are damn fine odds imo.

Calm down fella life aint that serious, I will let you in on a little secret. Bad things happen out there in the world, and they happen to good people. If you don't like to drink that is fine, but don't start preaching about booze. Move to that cave, and hide from all the bad things in this world. I would hate to think what the world would be like if it was run on such silly knee jerk reactions. Yes people will drink to much, yes they will hit each other & yes it causes problems. I think it is a safe thing to say that people will still do these things with or without booze, once an arsehole always an arsehole.

c'mon... you know it's impossible to stop someone from getting alcohol if they want it.

Yeh, I think its sort of a nice idea in theory but doomed to failure

Yeh, I think its sort of a nice idea in theory but doomed to failure

sorta like everything the dogooders come up with.

Calm down fella life aint that serious
... snip condescending crap ...
I think it is a safe thing to say that people will still do these things with or without booze, once an arsehole always an arsehole.

I'm hardly upset, and don't need to calm down :) I don't find alcohol-related violence and deaths acceptable as you seem to.

I enjoy a drink actually, and I don't live in a cave. But I don't want to live in a world where we just throw up our hands and say "that's just how things are it won't change." Bad things about society should be changed. One way that this can happen is through good legislation.

This is not about prohibition, because prohibition rather obviously doesn't work. Its about regulation. I just don't think that someone who has a history of being a nasty drunk should be given free access to booze, crazy fascist cotton-wool life idea I know!

C'mon trog, that's sloppy thinking and you knwo it.

Our laws against drink driving are a great exampple. Of course you can't flat-out stop people from doing somethign illegal if they want to do it, but that's not the point of legislation, its both the threat and the punishment.

We stil have people dying on the roads to drink drivers, just a LOT less than we used to. I don't think anyone is surprised that this is because its illegal.

I'm sure a "do gooder" came up with that one too.

The Funnyest thing I have ever seen was in darwin. There was a drunk scotsman inhaling helium ballons and doing the hakka.

I think that anyone who wants to limit someone else's intake of beer should be shot.

Drunken people doing silly drunken things is pretty funny.

Here's some less funny counter examples for you. Should these people be allowed alcohol?

The aboriginal guys who hang out in Mossman over the weekend passed out in the street due to abuse of alcohol.

The drunk guy I once saw have the s*** kicked out of him by three thugs on a Sutherland train station.

The drunk guy who caused a huge fight at my Grandfather's wake 3 weeks ago, splitting a guest's lip requiring 4 stitches.

My fiancee's ex who smashed her mother's front door and in the melee gave her 5 stitches.

I can go on and on, but just tell me why these people should have free access to alcohol please?

oh come on!, Get over it. The first problem we need to focus on is drug abuse. The police are doing a s*** job controlling the drug scene in Brisbane imho. I noticed a growing number of people who seem to think drugs are cool and ok in moderation, it seems youth were never educated properley on drugs. Alcohol can pose many problems when consumed in excessive amounts. We saw this with the young boy being killed in the city over his shoes.

Now the state government has introduced new laws for pubs/clubs to promote responsible drinking. They did the right thing. You cannot stop people from drinking if they want to (just like was mentioned before, if they want it bad enough, they will find a way) i dont think this card system would ever work. I mean underagers seem to get there hands on booze anyway, ID is not stopping them. The blue card would have the same problem.

Having worked in the industry, and seeing people fight every weekend at work, it is all alcohol fueled violence yes. The main problems have already been adressed, I think the current laws are doing there job. Any more extreme measures are to hard to implement and could easily be circumvented.

yeah drugs are way out of control and i would happily pay more taxes for the proper policing of illegal drugs. the first thing i would do is double the salary of all drug cops so at least they made a decent living and wouldn't have to taker bribes to buy their plasma tv's etc.

I prefer the idea of a bloddy idiot tatoo on the forehead of anyone that gets charged with alcohol related crimes.

Great deterent value too.

There seems to me to be two seperate arguments here.

Firstly,
"Your idea is sooo evil because i like to get s***faced and am scared I might do something terrible while s***faced and never be allowed to get s***faced again. So I am going to be all narrow minded and shrill (all the while talking about how broad minded and altruistic my point of view is) in the hope that somewhere under all the noise the idea is forgotten..."

Secondly,
"This idea is good but it will never be implemented"

As for the first argument, I say to all who have taken that position, ritards.

As for the second argument, I agree. Unfortunately we live in a society where the number one concern of governments when evaluating new ideas is whether it will adversely affect the convenience of the majority of voters.

You just need to look at proposals for reducing the death rates of young drivers. Things such as a 9pm curfew for Jonny Just-licensed unless in a car with a person over 25, or a limit on the number of passengers unless a person over 25 is in the car. On the whole I think a limit on passenger is a good idea and a night time curfew not a particularly good idea, but what possible purpose can the person over 25 have except to ensure that mum or dad can still have too much to drink and have 17 yo Jonny to drive them home at 3am. I mean, s***!

I suppose in the end we get the laws we deserve, so that is why this idea, while I think it is very good, will never get up.

whats wrong with being fined for being too drunk in public.
im happy with that.
drop the tax abit on alcohol and let all the fools pay the fines.

^^there are laws against drink driving...

also probation periods for criminal offenders in certain cicumstances concerning alcohol mean the offender is legally bound to a period of sobriety.

d[o_O]b you are very right about courts being able to order a person not to get drunk for a certain period, but at the moment, it is almost only policed by accident. In other words you can, while under a court order that prevents you from drinking, go to the pub, order a motherload of alcohol, get s***faced, maybe act like a tool, do damage to property, etc. It is only if you happen to be caught doing it, or arrested for some other reason that you might actually get in trouble for violating your court order.

I cannot tell from your post where you stand on the issue, but it seems to me that a great way for courts to enforce these orders would be if everyone had a card that identified them as a responsible drinker that the courts could suspend for a while if they weren't.

:(
im not a responsible drinker

but taht said, i dont pick fights or drive my car
i just say/do dumbs*** and dance badly

i would be very sad if i coudlnt go out and dance badly

This is the gayest idea ever.

thoughts?

yes you are stupid.

last edited by SCOGGEX at 19:13:42 20/Sep/05

I suppose it's a good idea in theory, but I don't know that people would check... there's been all too many times friends and I haven't even been carded when buying alcohol from bottle shops (we're all 16-19) - it's amazing what you can get away with when you have tits.

Also, wouldn't nightclubs that, despite what they say, depend on trashed people for clientele, lose business and therefore not like the idea all that much?

They all strongly opposed the 3 am lockout and drink advertising laws. Although it still went ahead. Not all pubs depend on trashed people for clientele, but a pub like the vic would. If you want to see trashed trouble makers, go there on a thursday night. In fact i got kicked out of the vic 2 weeks ago for being to drunk - but i am not a violent drunk. I never go looking for fights or cause them. Violent people cause the problems, you cannot always blame alcohol anyway.

Like I said before, this would never work or even get considered either. Come to think of it, it is the dumbest idea ever.

it's amazing what you can get away with when you have tits.

Especially if you're a dude!

Read some of the thread, sounds gay. About as gay as having a regular ass raping by the government every month which I think we're approaching with these draconoian laws.

To finish off the post, nazi germany.

tits?
pix or lying

^ those 14566 posts ain't fake. He's a true QGLer

In fact i got kicked out of the vic 2 weeks ago for being to drunk

sup hunter!

Heh, I forgot this forum's demographic when I posted this, my bad!

Back to your booze and trolley bars etc.

shutup f***wit. Its a stupid idea. forget demographics.

Wow you convinced me.

what I find amusing is that empty-headed people like yourself could quite easily end up as another f***witted bureaucrat dreaming up stupid ideas and implementing them on the masses.

God bless Australia.

Here we go...

If you still free, run away and leave these two to go it in peace

If I could find my phone i'd take a pic of me drinking while on qgl

Firstly, heya Hog, long time no see :)

"In Australia, we regulate access to dangerous substances and items. We license the use of cars, the ability to drive boats, and ownership of weapons. We have systems controlling access to other potentialy harmful substances, but for some reason not alcohol. "

We also dont license cigarrettes, petrol, junk food, half the base ingredients for various and sundry home made bombs.

The fact is laws covering stuff like alchohol, ciggies, steroids, etc etc just dont / wont work. Those who really want something will get it either way.
IMO i could buy anything on this list within a week and i include pistols, knives and sword canes!

IMO my point remains, why do we continually try to legislate for every thing, especially when the current legislation we have hasnt stopped anything anyway?

And then where does it end? Do we legislate to stop junk food coz it kills?

IMO, responsibility and consequences !



I read recently about this guy in Bondi (?) who apparently went to the beach an able bodied man, and went home in a wheel chair. He went in for a swim, dived into the surf, banged his neck up and was paralysed.
Now personally i feel sorry for teh guy, he was a tool for diving in with out checking but its a harsh punishment for stupidity.

But this self same tool, went to the courts and sued the local council and WON on teh grounds that they hadnt placed signs up to say that there might be sand bars there.

Now hang on a sec... ur at a beach. U walked on sand to get to the water, ur standing on sand while u start your swim, u have sand in your bloody togs ... HTF can u not know there is sand and potentially sand bars etc?

HTF can a court sanction paying someone for their own stupidity and potentially wrecking it for every one else? (what happens if the local council decides... hmm we cant possibly afford the cost of insurance for all possible accidents that might occur to stupid people, therefore we are banning access to teh beach?)
Dont laugh, imo its on the cards.




Responsibility for your own actions imo!

People that get drunk and get into trouble every time they drink should be put to sleep. In saying that I'm talking about smack-tards that always start fights or belt women, that type of stuff. Happy and love-able drunks are fine.

8-)

While I agree with you whole-heartedly Agamemnon, stupid people deserve stupid things to happen to them. However I think Hogfather is looking at this from a different point of view - if I'm not mistaken the view is that these stupid people are hurting innocent people.

Someone said earlier that 97.6% of people aren't affected by alcohol abuse/whatever. That says it all. Most people love a good drink, making it harder to get one would ruin the fun. Only control things if you need to, the problem isn't that bad so let it be. When I think "alcohol" I think of good times, not people getting bashed, etc.

Hey Aga - how you doing bud.

Funny thing about nicotine is that it doesn't make a ceratin portion of the population dangerous to the rest of it. Alcohol does. Nicotine can be harmful to ot others through passive smoking though - and guess what, we now have regulations in place to minimise the harm that this causes.

Licensing as common a commodity as petrol is a bit silly. We do, however, regulate access to nitrates which when mixed with diesel form the most basic sorts of explosives.

We don't seem to have many regulations on access to alcohol, even though its detrimental affects on society are clear. While courts can impose mandatory sobriety, this is rare enough to border on myth. We are very permissive as a socirty with regards to alcohol, which I personally think is a mistake.

I've seen and heard of enough people who through no fault of their own have been injured, maimed or killed because someone who shouldn't drink has an almost inalienable right to do so. If you honestly think people who regularly and repeatedly become sociopaths when drunk should have essentially no restrictions on their access to booze then you are certainly entitled to that opinion, although I don't really understand it :)

We don't seem to have many regulations on access to alcohol

You're kidding right? 18+ and the f***tonne of regulations licensed venues have imposed upon them.

I've seen and heard of enough people who through no fault of their own have been injured, maimed or killed because someone who shouldn't drink has an almost inalienable right to do so

Oh boo-f***ing-hoo. There's a word(s) for that and it's called bad luck. What do you propose? That we sit down and analyse every single incident of bad luck, find out the root cause of it, and ban or impose stupid rules like the ones you have suggested?

Here's an idea; wrap yourself in cotton wool and never leave your house. Just make sure you cut your network cord first, though.

last edited by fpot at 15:50:59 21/Sep/05

At least you chose your nickname well fpot, you got one thing right.

Its not bad luck when someone full of booze kills someone in a drunken rage, its someone's f***ing fault.

That whole "cotton wool" argument is getting old too. At least Aga had a valid argument instead of insults and hyperbole. If that's all you've got maybe you should sober up before posting?

Like I said, if you or anyone else doesn't think that alcohol-related violence is a problem in Australia, good for you. Not everyone thinks the same, and everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Maybe when you have children of your own to care and worry about you'll start thinking about other people's rights and safety, instead of the rights of wannabe f***tards to get boozed up and go on a rampage. I know it has been a big wake up call for me.

Alcohol is a part of our society and any sort of regulations apart from the ones they have now will not be accepted and will never happen. All you've said in this thread is a big bunch of sensationalized garbage that would be right at home in the Sunday Mail.

last edited by fpot at 16:06:36 21/Sep/05

I'm not sure about your assertions regarding wider public acceptance of an alcohol license. Do you have something to back that up or did you make it up? The reponses in this thread have been pretty divided.

Nobody who has been aggressively objectionable about this has really addressed what is a pretty simple assertion: Why should people with a history of being violent drunks have free access to alcohol?

You're very good at being derogatory fpot, I won't beat you in an insult game so I'm not going to try. But I don't think you have a good response to the above and you'll resort to some sort of fiendishly witty put-down again.

I suggest a Today Tonight reference next, but then I'm still reeling from the aftershocks of that riotous Sunday Mail riposte.

Sorry if what I say seems derivitive to you but you truly do sound like tabloid journalism with your 'your family could be next' tone you bring out throughout the thread. And which way this thread swings has no bearing on whether this scheme would work or not; common sense tells me it wouldn't.

Why should people with a history of being violent drunks have free access to alcohol?

This question is utterly pointless, because the simple fact is anyone who wants alcohol will always be able to get it. It doesn't matter how many impossible to implement laws you come up with, it wouldn't stop them anyway. Which brings me back to the initial point I was trying to get at - get over it because there's nothing anyone can do about it.

This question is utterly pointless, because the simple fact is anyone who wants alcohol will always be able to get it.

The question is not pointless, it is in fact pertinent, and you as predicted failed to answer it. Why should we bother to legislate anything that involves personal choice, such as drink driving, drugs, violence? After all, you can't stop people doing what they want to do! Heavy fines for drink driving sure hasn;t stopped people doing it - but I wonder how many lives have been saved?

The fact is fpot, society legislates and controls things not to provide a 100% deterrent, but to provide a deterrent and establish clear consequences of ignoring them. It is not the question that is pointless, it is your response.

You don't seem to have a good answer? I gather that you don't personally like the idea of an alcohol license, and that you don't think that it would have a chance of becoming a reality. That's really fine and OK, I'm sure many people on this forum don't like prohibition of narcotics and lots of laws, doesn't make the laws stupid or invalid.

I disagree with you, and don't find your position very compelling at all.

Why should people with a history of being violent drunks have free access to alcohol?

Fpot is saying that the legislation is pointless since people have access to alcohol in a number of different shapes and forms.. Hell almost a uncontrollable number of sources...


ps there are aboriginal communities in the north that are 'dry' yet there have been manny an arrest of drunken aboriginals wandering the streets... I use this example not to stereotype aboriginal people but to demonstrate the point that where there is a will there is a way, being in such a remote community, away from every thing everywhere they are still able to get access to alcoholic substances.. What real chance is there in more built up areas where there are pubs, bottle shops and supermarkets on every corner almost???

Legislation is fine and dandy, the ideas you propose are fine and dandy but time and time again the regulatory bodies have proven their inability to actually enforce the laws that they showcase as being social reform..

As for the drink driving, i don't believe thats solely based on the legislation, more of a social stigma is now attached to reckless endangering peoples lives then it was years ago

There was a period in the US during which there was a complete ban on alcohol - people "bootlegged" it anyway, knowing they faced huge fines and prison terms were they to be caught...

Supposing the Australian government was to implement this licence, I imagine it would have much the same effect. For better or worse, alcohol seems to be a huge part of Australian culture, and while it is unfortunate that people die and/or become horribly injured due to irresponsible alcohol consumers, I would think possibly the damage would be worse if people had to resort to illegal means to get their hands on alcohol. People who couldn't get a licence - alcoholics in particular - would likely go to any means they felt necessary to obtain alcohol; and then be just as dangerous to everyone as if there was no licence.

Also, there's the issue of Australia's problem with authority. If you tell Aussies they can't drink alcohol, then that's exactly what they're going to do... just to thumb their noses at authority.

You follow the script well Hogfather.

You:

a) talk out of your arse
b) make stereotypical assumptions about who reads this message board on the internets

and

c) have an answer for everything and dont know when to STFU.

I suggest you go to jobs.qld.gov.au and apply now, that is unless you arent already employed by the government already.

i think its a good idea its only a fine

hey you your being a a****** drunk heres a $200 FINE piss off and sober up

what kind of bum cant afford a $200 fine

No forms of prohibition have ever worked. Total alcohol pronibition in US didn't work. War on drugs isn't working. What chance does selective prohibition have?

Can't defy market forces. Economic liberalism for the win.

its not prohibition u have licence to drink thats all good u dont heres a fine

obivously u have stuffed up to loose the licence

drinkin part of aussie culture but
i dont think being a complete drunken tool is.

Do you understand the word "selective", retard?

isnt the licence for over o.o6 blood alcohol
so u can drink just not too much
i dont think that is prohibation

SCOGGEX: that's a bit better, but you still don't have anything to actually contribute to this converstaion other than to attack me. When you present an actual opinion about the topic we'll talk OK?

The examples where regulation and legislation have actually worked to curb and limit the affects of dangerous substances are actually far greater than the examples where they have NOT.

Here's a new one for you to chew on. Fireworks, and "firecrfacker night" were once a pretty integral part of Australian culture. When I was very young I remember it as one of the ig nights of the year, up there with Christmas and family birthdays. There's an almost total ban on fireworks in Australia now outside of the ACT, and the event has basically disappeared and there has been almost no underground development of fireworks, even in NSW where its a trivial matter to transport them out of the ACT!

The stigma of drink driving is a factor, however I would suggest that the BIGGEST reason people don't drink and drive is fear of being caught by the coppers, and the heavy consequences of what will happen if they do it and hurt someone.

Oh, and the dry communities in FNQ have been reported as being a pretty strong success actually. You'll NEVER get 100% adherence ot ANY legislation - that's not the point.

Prohibition is not what I'm advocating in this thread. Education, the driving home of the social stigma of alcohol abuse, backed up with the sort of laws that can make it actually sting if you f*** up.

Anyway I posted this to get thoughts, with a ? for a reason - and thanks for the responses that actually were thought provoking and vaguelly well thought out. I think I'm starting to repeat myself so I'm gonna make SCOGGEX a happy man and STFU on this now.

SCOGGEX is an awesome poster

As much as i dont aggree with Hogfather, SCOGGEX i vote you back yourself up or STFU

ahah yeah ok, which one of my long-winded posts would you like me to quantify?

ahah yeah ok, which one of my long-winded posts would you like me to quantify?

What like these?:

thoughts?

yes you are stupid.

shutup f***wit. Its a stupid idea. forget demographics.

what I find amusing is that empty-headed people like yourself could quite easily end up as another f***witted bureaucrat dreaming up stupid ideas and implementing them on the masses.

God bless Australia.

stick to comments about your sheltered life d*******. Its good you decided to stfu because the more you post the more obvious it is you wouldnt know your head from your arse.

Yeah really long-winded....

I agree with boxhead.
Idiots who are a problem when drunk should be banned from alchomohol.

However i still maintain as does most people here that it is nigh on impossible to stop people buying what ever it is they want despite various and sundry laws prohibiting same.

IMO make the punishments for the "i was drunk and killed someone", "i was drunk and bashed my wife" MUCH bloody harder and combine that with education and see how that works :)

And to those ppl bashing hog just because he happens to have a different viewpoint... either come here with an argument or logical counter or stfu!

lol how stupid are you fireblood?

I think the experience is similar to how alcohol affects your eyesight, makes them a little drowsy and lowers the refresh rate (I swear use to get down to about 5fps when I first started drinking, slideshow all the way