“Going out” - three ways to tackle a negative drinking culture
April 13, 2008 by Seb
As we have heard more and more in the news recently, alcohol fueled violence is on the rise. This has of course raised the eyebrows of many a politician keen to expand their regulatory agenda. As usual, the solutions presented such as shortening opening hours, removing high alcohol drinks and increases in taxes are off target. These are problems born of regulation and cannot be addressed by further regulation. Following are five real solutions to help quell the violence:
1. Liberalise the liquor licencing system
For those that have lived in a major city, particularly Sydney, this is easily identified as the most obvious problem. If you were to head “out” on a Saturday, you are all but restricted to a venue whose sole purpose is to serve liquor. Complex and difficult liquor licensing laws really reduce the ability of a young person to avoid violent cesspools which are designed to accommodate only two types of patrons, drinkers and gamblers.
2. Provide an alternative - deregulate, deregulate, deregulate.
Gone are the days when there was something you could do on a weekend night, cheaply, other than drink. No longer can a group of mates grab some poles and go down and fish on a whim. No longer can a group of mates grab their .22s and go get some rabbits. No longer can you take your dog to the park for a run. Licensing, registration and regulation put an end to that. This is not 1960 and I do not wish to suggest these are the only alternatives, however it is little changes like this that are symbolic of a shift in power from the people to the government. Public land and individual autonomy have become accepted as things of the past; the people in Australia have no power to exercise a responsible choice because all responsibility has long been taken from them.
3. Foster a climate for responsible choices
Perhaps a combination of the above, but in order to expect a person to make responsible decisions about their drinking habits it is time to force an understanding of the consequences of alcohol consumption. Alcohol should never be considered a contributory factor in the defence of a violent perpetrator. We all know the effects of alcohol just as the violent offender does. Why do we still enjoy an incredibly low murder rate? Why aren’t drinkers offing each other in massive numbers? Because a drunk makes a moral choice just as a sober person does. If alcohol diminished the ability of a person to make a choice to the degree that is often suggested, it would be illegal. If anything, violence committed under the influence should be more heavily punished than it would otherwise.
Maybe these are something of an over-simplification. However, from my experience living in working class suburbs of two of Australia’s largest cities, these three points should certainly be primary considerations for any place wanting to reduce alcohol fueled violence.
Good suggestions, i would also add, charging the drinkers for the cost of the consequences when their habit gets out of hand, like turning up at the emergency room to get their asses saved. If they have money to buy that much booze, then pay for the consequences.
I would go one further MK and suggest that any trip to the hospital should cost money, perhaps in a HECS style system. That being said drinkers technically already pay for the “social cost” of drinking by paying extraordinary taxes when they buy their liquor. I often hear the same argument against smokers, but in reality smokers pay more tax on cigarettes than many pay in income tax every year.
The best solution I have heard is not so much denying health care under any circumstance but still charging with zero interest for services rendered. The last thing we want to happen is people becoming reluctant to seek health care when they are ill, self induced or not.
Until about a month ago, when I got around to investigating the party’s position, I had a very low opinion of Libertarians. Then I took a political quiz that placed me squarely in that party. Great post; very practical solutions (although based on the assumption, ever waning, that we can expect a certain % of people to act responsibly. But that’s their problem!).
i’m sure we can look forward to a rise in the drinking age to 25, banning of any alcohol beverages above 1% alcohol etc etc introducing more and more bans - punishing those who drink responsibly and follow the regulations of the current govt.. meanwhile those who, in the first place, had a blatant disregard for the laws governing society and the negative effect of their actions on others, will continue their underage abuse of alcohol and violent behaviour… yawn! same old same old - thats our australia!