-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Happens now. Being drunk anywhere can lead to trouble. And fun.
Drunk in public place is a subjective assessment? Not like road rules....cop cannot say you are drink unless you read over 05 , and you cannot say I'm not drunk if you are over 05.
And if 05 is "drunk In public place" then I am guilty several times a month, drinking at home. Footy, sport, pub, friends place.
Last edited:
That is happening now, and people arent being charged with being drunk. it will be interesting to see if these sort of assaults increase with the law change. highly unlikely i think.
the law is changing because at present the vast majority of people who are charged with being drunk on public are either homeless or have significant mental health issues, and no private place to drink, and are addicts. they get charged and fined, they often dont pay the fine because they have limited money, and either the fine is waived anyway, or they end up in jail. typically those get fined are getting repeat fines. their behaviour is not change by the fines.
i would hazard a guess it costs the state more in police and court time, and jail costs to enforce this law than it makes in fines. for little or benefit to the public.
There are literally millions of Jekyll and Hyde drunks. This only encourages them to metamorphose in public.
Jail is entirely appropriate for them to dry out and avoid hurting themselves and others. How many drunks stepping in front of traffic do you think it will take before this law is considered an abject failure?
Correct. These laws are applied to those who drink or are drunk in "public", not those who drink or who are drunk in public houses (see what I did there). These are people who typical would be denied entry to pubs because of clothing, mental illness, or the real clincher - *already being too intoxicated*.
The idea that homeless/mentally people get drunk in public then wander in and out of pubs looking to commit acts of violence, is frankly, bizarre.
Doesn't have to be pubs. Could be a movie theatre or a train station or a McDonalds. They've got the green light to fight, vomit or just be hopeless wherever they please. It's a recipe for more incidents like the Seaford stabbing. I'm sure hospital ED's will be overjoyed.
Oh my mistake, I thought you said "pubs will become bloodhouses" somewhere in one of your unhinged rants on the topic. I think it was near the one where you compared it to legalising incest or gay marriage or something. It's a slippery slope after all.
I know it's probably pointless to continue arguing with the Donald Trump of PRE politics, but note that the changed law is actually around decriminalisation of public intoxication.
It's about not locking up people who would previously have been locked up.
Oh look, cops and doctors are pissed off, as predicted.
Police slam Labor plan to scrap public drunkenness offence in Victoria (paywalled)
Matt Johnston
HS
November 28, 2020
Police and doctors have slammed the Andrews government for announcing a plan to scrap public drunkenness laws without any detail on how violent cases will be managed.
Attorney-General Jill Hennessy defended the legislative reform yesterday, saying it would help protect Aboriginal people and “no one should be placed into a police cell simply because they are drunk in public”.
But Police Association secretary Wayne Gatt said changing the law before a safe system was in place to manage alcohol-fuelled problems was “dangerous virtue signalling” and the Australian Medical Association fears emergency departments will become dumping grounds for drunks.
The decision to scrap the laws was recommended by a panel set up by the government after the death of Yorta Yorta woman Tanya Day in police custody in 2017.
The report says police should be used as a “last resort” when dealing with drunks with low-level cases sent home or to friends with the help of health services. High-level cases should be taken to hospital.
It also recommends “strict limits to police powers” be introduced.
AMA Victoria president Julian Rait said the changes would have to be managed carefully to ensure emergency departments weren’t overwhelmed, given doctors were already dealing with growing mental health cases.
Mr Gatt said police feared they would be used as a “taxi service” without adequate funding, however, with the government’s promised $16 million for trials falling short.
“Who will respond to triple-0 calls for assistance from the community when intoxicated people are putting them at risk?” he said.
“For decades police have fought to remove alcohol-fuelled violence from our streets. We cannot compromise on this work by making rash decisions.”
Victoria’s Aboriginal Executive Council chair Esme Bamblett said police would soon be “free” from enforcing an “antiquated harmful law” — under which an average of 8269 people a year are charged — and that the public stood ready to “build the health and support response for vulnerable intoxicated people”.
The government is yet to say whether special areas would be set up to take drunks to sober up, but a spokesperson said there was time to address the details before the laws would come into effect in two years.
“We will spend the next two years working closely with Aboriginal communities, health experts and other stakeholders, including police, to address any concerns and ensure the public health model provides the care and support required.
- - - - -
If I'm the Trump of PRE, you're the Antifa.
People who are violent will still get a police response. the current law means anyone who is drunk in public should be charged, and get a criminal record. is that what you think should be happening?
those who are violent or putting others or property at risk will still warrant a police response.
I am amused though that the Hun is reporting the police union as representing the entire police.
You only have to research what happened in SA NSW WA after they dropped the DIPP laws to test your theory.
Belgian by birth, and was there until he was 25. You will need to find another rascict slur.
Do you have some before and after crime stats for other states? I couldn't find any.
Even looking at the mildest fallout, the 'disorderly' in drunk & disorderly is defined as "acting in a way that disturbs the peace or interferes with the comfort of people who may be nearby". Why should people have to put up with that?
Drunk and asleep in the street, not necessarily. I'm referring to the behaviour that goes hand-in-hand.
FWIW the HS poll is running at 91% against.
It's just another lowering of standards, a weakening of resolve, like laying down in the "war on drugs".
We reap what we sow.
I also get a bit tired of the AMA always being quoted too as they are not really representative of a lot of views in the hospital space. I am not sure what changes for Hospitals and ED departments because if a patient is threatening or violent then the police will be called as they are now. If they need medical attention they will get it.
