Senator Steve Fielding - Leader of Family First
No silver bullet in the binge drinking debate
Posted by Senator Steve Fielding on September 04 2009 | 9 Comments
Australia’s binge drinking culture sure is a divisive issue. But to put it simply we have two options. Stand by and do nothing and risk the $16bn alcohol toll escalating further out of control, or do something to break the cycle and make us a safer country.
Are shock ads such as this one enough?Are shock ads such as this one enough?
Last week, when I asked the readers of The Punch for a solution, there were some comments which suggested that I wanted to turn Australia into a nanny state.
This couldn’t be further from the truth. And just so we’re crystal clear I don’t want to or ever plan to introduce prohibition.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Alcohol is a legal product and like most Australians I like the odd drink here and there. What I’m against is the excessive consumption of alcohol which leads to the $16bn alcohol toll.
I personally think that the $16bn of taxpayers’ money which is wasted mopping up after drunks could be better used elsewhere. I also think that our police shouldn’t be wasting 40 per cent of their time dealing with alcohol-related issues because we have a cultural problem. All of this to me is just a total waste of time and money.
So with that explained I think state and federal governments need to act in some way to address our binge drinking culture.
I know some readers of The Punch are worried about alcohol restrictions infringing on our free society. To them I say sorry, but something needs to be done. We have laws for a reason, and that reason is to protect ourselves from venturing too far and doing too much harm to society.
At the end of the day those people who are doing the right thing end up paying. They either pay with their taxpayers’ dollars through the health system or with extra police numbers. Or they pay for it when some drunk kills a family member in a car crash. And quite frankly I think people are sick of paying in this way.
There were some suggestions left on The Punch last week which recommended that we should deregulate our alcohol restrictions and lower the drinking age. Readers suggested that this had worked well in other countries as it takes the gloss of drinking.
I’m not convinced this is a good idea and still believe its a cultural problem that needs actions that would lead to responsible drinking. But so far the Rudd government has decided to use a tax hike on alcopops as its main solution - this falls well short of addressing the cultural problem.
Many other suggestions were left as well, but sadly many will be hard to implement. I read time and time again the call for earlier closing times. This is an idea which I think on the surface has merit, but will be hard to implement given public concerns.
If they don’t like it, then it might not have the desired affect. However, it certainly is an idea both state and federal governments should consider when looking at addressing the alcohol toll.
I think Imogen had a good point with her approach of making drinking ugly. This is something which has worked well with smoking. The alcohol giants like to make their drinks look sexy and advertise them as such.
However, if there was a campaign which did the opposite it could break the cultural link between Australians and the need to binge drink. But the question which needs to be answered is what sort of campaign would work best? A positive campaign like Slip Slop Slap, or a negative one like that with the road toll. Both I believe are worth exploring further.
The suggestion the responsible service of alcohol laws aren’t enforced is something I’ve heard plenty of times. I have been told by many people that they have never seen anyone turned away from a bar for being too drunk. That’s despite the majority of people in a nightclub being well intoxicated at 3am.
So are we being too soft on nightclub and bar owners? Are the State Government’s doing enough to enforce the law? Would the alcohol toll be reduced if the law was enforced? It’s a possibility. The idea of tougher penalties is one that could be look at by both state and federal governments.
Jack from Perth wrote:
“Its soft sentencing and weak cops that cause violence. In Perth, on Murry Street, a police officer will gladly give you a $150 fine for having an open bottle of win on the street but once a fight breaks out he is no where to be seen.”
It’s an interesting point which Jack makes and one which should be looked at. On the surface there could be merit in tougher penalties. But when do restrictions become to much?
So where does all this leave us? One thing sure is clear - there is no silver bullet to solving our culture of binge drinking or alcohol-fuelled street violence. But that doesn’t mean governments should give up because it’s all too hard.
I think one program which could go a long way to helping solve some of the problems on our streets is the ‘Just Think’ program. It’s a program which was started by the Geelong Football Club and the Geelong Advertiser is one I hope to take to the Federal Government to get more funding.
It’s designed in a way which doesn’t stop people from drinking, but more getting them to think before they drink and think before they act. It’s a program which gets people talking and thinking about the consequences of binge drinking, not just for them but for the community. It now has the backing of the eight clubs involved in the AFL finals, and I think through them it can send a pretty positive message to our youth.
What needs to be implimented are consequences and severe penalties for the people who insist on making damaging society in late nights.
You dont blame the gun for the actions of the shooter in law? It is time that police had phsical rights to abuse those who seek to damage and threaten the general society whislt intoxicated.
Comment by Chickenwire on 19 March 2010 at 08:54:08 PM
How about we all recognise that there are always going to be addictive personality types.
There will always be a “structural” alcohol problem , no amount of legislation will change these people.
What you have left is the social drinker who on occasions has too much. These people are the majority - do we really want to punish the majority for having a good time?
Again there is a ‘structural” need for people to enjoy themselves particularly the more stressful modern society gets. Perhaps the answer is to legislate so that society does not have to work as long and as hard to sustain a huge mortgage…... ah but that would hit govt revenue too hard so will never happen<
Comment by peterwe on 12 November 2009 at 10:19:37 AM
Steve Good on you for taking up this issue. Australia needs a culture change, not just laws and it should start with a ban on advertising, and then advertising as to it’s physical and social effects, and so on. Police should be able to pick up drunks as antisocial people in the streets like they use to to show that it’s unacceptable in our society. Why is it that zealots have campaigned against smoking for so long, and spent so much money on advertising, when alcohol has caused so much more injury to others, child and woman abuse and murders, road deaths, brain and liver and pancreas damage etc. Is it because so many politicians and law makers drink? Maybe you know the answer.
Comment by Helen on 27 October 2009 at 09:08:38 PM
Great to see someone taking some action on all the alcohol fueled violence and trouble we now have in Australia.
It’s been going on for far too long and it needs to stop now before more young people are damaged.
driving school
driving school
Comment by driving school on 10 October 2009 at 01:49:09 PM
Mike, don’t you think that there are enough people trying to control others (with all the best intentions, of course ha ha)?
Do you really want to push people around for their own good(because you think that you’re just so much smarter than everyone else) or is it just the power?
Either way, the unintended consequences are great, and vastly outweigh any alleged benefits.
For a start, the majority of people including myself will ignore any more interfering in our lives. Just another silly law to mock, as so many are today, not because most people are naturally lawbreakers, but because there are too many laws. This is what brings the law into contempt. As for raising the drinking age to 21, that is one of the silliest ideas I have heard. Able to vote but not have a beer, able to marry or get killed in war, pay full taxes on your wages as an 18 or 19 year old but not receive full rights. Sure to increase contempt for the
law. Are you going to throw all imbibers under 21 into gaol.Sounds like Sharia law to me.
Secondly,have a look at the result of the Prohibition in the US, put the mafia in power, corrupted the cops and bred contempt for the law. Notice the similarity of effect but on a vastly greater scale with the current prohibition of drugs.Challenging and subverting national governments(Mexico and Columbia for a start). See how things develop over a long enough period?
OK, I know that you’re not suggesting a prohibition on alcohol outright, but where do you people stop in your desire to interfere with others?Are you going to tell me what to eat?Force me to exercise? Take my car away or tax it to the hilt (they kill people too)? Make everyone have nice thoughts? Tell me what words I can say?Where does it stop??
Do you really think that you have the right to inflict, in your words a “culture busting policy” on us? I dare you
to say that to people face to face instead of sneakily trying to get others to control them. You’d be lucky not to see the inside of a hospital.
Perhaps the solution for you is if you don’t want to drink, then don’t. The world and its people are not here
to fulfil your idea of society, and I suggest that you get used to that fact.
As for having a go at Steve, give it a rest. Impugning his integrity simply because he doesn’t agree with your silly counterproductive draconian approach says all I need to know about you.
Comment by Ron Mortimer on 10 October 2009 at 04:38:23 AM
There are plenty of silver bullets, Senator, we just dont have anyone in Canberra with the guts to load and fire them!
Mike Cockburn, The Pedestrian 08 Campaign. We are not sponsored in ANY way by Big Liquor.
Dont take their money!
Comment by Mike Cockburn on 07 October 2009 at 11:09:31 PM
Steve, let me suggest an approach that might work. Think of the key indicators, 1. percentage of 11 year olds getting drunk every 14 days; 2. No of alcohol related ambulance callouts per year in each State (Vic. currently 5k). Next step: What numbers are you morally comfortable with?
Our Health minister is happy to take 15 to 20 years to get a minor nudge on these numbers. Look at her report. Have you criticised her for this yet?
The British Medical Association point out that the only measures that have any chance of success are those with a hard legal edge.
Some suggestions: 1. Ban All Alcohol Advertising and Promotion. Result 30% off the top of most alcohol related tolls. What’s the problem? Why hasnt this been done? 2. Compensate all alcohol advertising and promotion businesses with a guaranteed 2009 level taxpayer funded replacement funding plus 20%, for 10 years, dropping by 5% for each year after that. This would include All Newpapers, Radio Stations, TV stations, Sporting Clubs. What would pay for it? Taxation on Alcohol. Tax Alcohol according to a rapidly sliding scale of alcohol content. This too would reduce consumption and has long been recommended as a measure, by Australian and British Medical Association Experts. What next? Establish a register of ‘Dangerous and Addictive Drug Manufacturers and Suppliers’. Only listed DADMS are legally able to manufacture, import or otherwise supply Dangerous and Addictive drugs like alcohol to Australian Consumers. The Rub? No DADMS associated person is able to lobby, bribe, patronise any elected official in Australia, any media outlet, in any way in relation to their business or on behalf of their business. Next? Take on the consumer and consumer behaviour. Up the min age of alcohol consumption to 21 in line with USA. Only thing they’ve done right! Anyone supplying DAD alcohol to be heavily fined and or imprisoned. And? Set a BAC of 08 as the max allowed street legal pedestrian limit. Enforced by RBTs. This does 2 things. Directly challenges consumer behaviour in line with BMA recommendations that decry Some Dont Think and DrinkWatchWise like, wishy washy education campaigns as being ineffective and counterproductive, protecting the interests of Big Liquor. Provides a motivation for all consumers to get educated about what level of drinking would push them to 08 and/or beyond. Without a hard legal edge you do not get culture change. A Pedestrian 08 Law gives you a culture busting policy that will work. Guaranteed to work.
So how many bodies in the morgue are morally acceptable to you Senator? Have you ever seen a bullshit education campaign advertising the following. This from the British Medical Association: ‘As the World Health Organisation (WHO) reminds us, alcohol is no ordinary commodity, but a toxic and addictive drug that should be carefully regulated and controlled. Strong measures are required at a population level to eliminate the unhealthy cues and prompts that serve to encourage alcohol consumption. By far the most important of these is the marketing and promotion of alcohol.’
Drinkwisewatch do not want you to know alcohol is toxic. Or Addictive. Or a Drug. Or Carcinogenic. Or the 3rd biggest killer of Australians. Some Just Dont Think is run out of a newspaper marketing office. One minute she’s selling liquor ads. The next, she is doing what? Trying to save youth from her own adverse effects. The football club backing it, is sponsored by alcohol companies.
You have either not done your homework Senator or have lost any claim to a moral core!
You either put lives ahead of money or you dont.
If you have to weigh Big Liquor Interests against the lives of 8, 9, 10 year olds who the BMA find are actually targetted by Big Liquor, then you, like the rest of the pollies up there, are suffering from a DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE. Look up that phrase on Google and see what it defines in US law…
Mike Cockburn, The Pedestrian 08 Campaign. We are not sponsored in ANY way by Big Liquor.
Comment by Mike Cockburn on 07 October 2009 at 10:57:21 PM
The whole problem of binge drinking seems to be a white anglo protestant cultural thing, the same culture that tried Prohibition in the US with disastrous results. Remember the 6 o’clock swill here? Same cause.
All the fear and loathing and demonising about alcohol simply reinforces its desirability to the young and impressionable(stupid).
The more it is regulated, taxed, preached against the more it is perceived by the young to be the daring or cool thing to do.
When alcohol is seen as just another product, as it is in most of the world(buy alcohol absolutely anywhere in Europe, in vending machines in Japan etc) it won’t be the problem it is.
Same thing goes for drugs, we never had a drug problem until some smartie tried to prohibit them.
Now look at the mess that created. The kids see drugs
as cool because it is illegal. This creates the drug culture that is so attractive to the young. Same as the drinking culture is created by the do gooders who frown on drinking and want to control it.
Comment by Ron Mortimer on 27 September 2009 at 03:42:07 AM
Unfortunately the answer is to be found in an area that government cannot nor will ever be able to legislate.
Australia has been engaged in a social experiment to see what life would be like without God the Father. It is a bit like me refusing to believe that the police can pull me over and give me a speeding fine because they don’t exist. My opinion would be irrelevant. So it is with a loving God that has shown us how to get the most out of life in relationship with him.
Until we turn to Him we will see more social collapse.
Comment by Scott S on 21 September 2009 at 07:35:18 PM