Aussie drink-driving laws have similar penalties, but our BAC level is still at .05. This will be moved to .02 in the coming years. Be safe for you, your family and the person you may injure because, you thought you were ‘ok to drive!’
SHOULD YOU BE DRIVING? DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE....EVER!
Alcohol and other drug overdoses are a significant public health problem and a common cause of death among young adults. This study assessed whether alcohol use at age 15–16 years is a risk factor for alcohol or drug overdose, or poisoning requiring medical attention, by the age of 32–33 in a population-based Finnish cohort study
First alcohol intoxication at age ˜12, and high alcohol tolerance were associated with an increased risk of intentional overdose.
Comments: This cohort study suggests that specific alcohol use patterns in adolescence are associated with increased risk of alcohol and other drug-related overdose later in life. Overdose prevention efforts could include early identification and intervention during adolescence/young adulthood for people with early onset of alcohol consumption, frequent alcohol intoxication, and high alcohol tolerance.
The self-regulatory alcohol advertising system in Australia, ABAC, conducted a review of their code and processes last year, which report is about to be released.
Several health and community groups publicly declined to participate in the review. But more, they released the following statement in relation to the clearly industry subjective, and no doubt, self-affirming process. “We, the undersigned, refuse to participate in this process of reviewing a scheme which is inherently flawed. No amount of tinkering with the ABAC, which is designed and run by alcohol lobbyists, will ever put the health and wellbeing of our community above the profits of these multinational corporations. We need strong Government-led regulation of alcohol marketing in Australia that is independent of the alcohol industry — a comprehensive legislative framework with enforcement measures that effectively stop harmful alcohol marketing. Many community and health organisations have long recognised and advocated for such an approach.”
What is Really Needed:
Now, alcohol companies relentlessly market their products to children, young people and people at risk of harm – this must change immediately.
Consequently, it is way past time that all Alcohol advertising needs to be subject to government-led regulation that protects children, families and the broader community.
Bottle Shop in your hand – with much less scrutiny.
Endeavour & Coles account 60% of online sales – Endeavour Group accounts for 50% of sales grossing 1 Billion Dollars in sales. Coles 12% Both groups have experienced significant growth of online sales.
WA Cancer Council reported that there was an alcohol advertisement on social media every 35seconds every single night in 2020 – all during height of Covid and the psycho-social vulnerabilities this created.
Often alcohol supply to people 18 to 24 and those under 18 did not have their ID check at time of order or delivery.
Found deliveries frequently left unattended at point of delivery.
Online deliveries were received on average of only one hour of purchase.
Rapid delivery services extended drinking sessions and add to risks and harms in relation to oversupply and enabling extended binge drinking.
Many hospitalisations and deaths involve injury where the person injured had consumed alcohol, referred to here as “alcohol-related” injury. This report presents data from 2019–20 on 30,000 hospitalisations and almost 1,950 deaths from alcohol-related injury. For both males and females, falls, intentional self-harm and assault were the leading causes of hospitalisation. Among all hospitalisations for injury, 1 in 4 intentional self-harm and 1 in 5 assault cases involved alcohol.
Drunkenness has been a community issue since time immemorial, and there is no empirical data to show it is any worse or otherwise than it has been for many decades, relative to the size of the population. Decriminalising public drunkenness is fixing a problem that does not exist to any significant degree.
As public drunkenness can be confused with homelessness, vagrancy, mental illness and drug abuse, it is, therefore, sensible that the ‘sobering up’ process should be done under medical supervision, which the Community Advocacy Alliance Inc. (CAA) supports. Equally, because the likelihood of belligerent behaviour is inclined to be more prevalent with drunkenness, securing and safety of these people and the community is and must remain a Police responsibility.
Once the affected person settles and the community is safe, the police can hand them to a facility where clinicians take responsibility.
This whole policy seems to have been designed by people without experience with drunks in the field.
Perhaps a little research should be undertaken, and then the proponents of this social adjustment may just find the number of persons convicted each year for drunkenness as a percentage of the population is meagre. And of those arrested and charged, even fewer are actually convicted, and no record of their indiscretion is recorded.
We reject absolutely the need for racial profiling in this process. Irrespective of the drunk’s heritage or race, they all need the same care.
Exposing the naivety of this proposal, the Herald Sun reports, “Patients at the sobering up site can only be taken with their consent and police or paramedics will need to step in if they become a safety risk or need urgent care.”
This statement alone raises very serious questions and exposes a lack of knowledge of a drunk person’s usual demeanour or the law.
With decriminalising drunkenness, the Police have no power to ‘Step-in’ when the contractor’s management of the drunk goes pear-shaped.
Drunks always consider they are not drunk enough to need care or admit to what they have consumed.
A person who is perceived to be drunk cannot give Informed consent at law.
Entering into a debate about sobriety, consent or otherwise, is a recipe for belligerence.
Our experience is it would be a rare drunk who would agree to the time out in the drunk tank.
How can a government sub-contractor physically intervene with a drunk?
What happens when a drunk is involved in a crime, either as a victim or a perpetrator – it does happen?
A serious risk assessment for contractors out on the street without powers is a disaster waiting to happen. The legal minefield this opens up for the liability of the government and contractors is breathtaking.
Another legal minefield will occur when the drunk decides they are sober enough to leave the facility, but the clinicians know they are not. Holding them even with their uninformed consent would be unlawful. (currently, Police have four hours to detain somebody who is drunk.)
Contractors will find difficulty hiring or retaining staff for this high-risk and filthy foul job.
Another small matter is suitable transport for drunks. The inevitable mess that often is associated with their transport is why police use a Divisional Van that can be hosed out. Putting a drunk in a traditional vehicle is impractical as vomit and other bodily fluids often exuded by drunks tend to permeate every nook and cranny and cannot be removed easily.
The consequence of placing multiple drunks in a facility not properly designed, quasi cells, will lead to inevitable conflict and a huge risk to clinicians.
All police know that when it is determined that a person is drunk, they must be decisive, not enter into debate and secure the drunk immediately to minimise the risk of injury to the drunk, the Police or the public. This skill is learnt and cannot be assumed to exist with untrained subcontractors. A questionnaire is no substitute for years of onsite experience.
The police power of arrest for drunk and disorderly must be left in place to protect the drunks, the Police and the public.
