Doctors urge radical reduction in blood-alcohol limits & increasing drinking age

[Express]

Doctors urge radical reduction in blood-alcohol limits, increasing drinking age


2 April, 2016

Michael Koziol
National political reporter


'Super-consumers' drink 75 percent of alcohol sold - Around 20 percent of the population consumes around 75 percent of all alcohol sold according to the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education.


Access to alcohol would be drastically reduced under a radical rethink of liquor laws, taxes and sales being urged by one of the country's most influential groups of doctors.

The blood-alcohol limit for all drivers would decrease from .05 to .02 and then to zero, while the legal drinking age would rise and governments would further restrict the trading hours of licensed premises and bottle shops.

The dramatic crackdown is being proposed by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, which has submitted a string of recommendations to a Senate inquiry on drunken violence.



Doctors have urged a radical rethink of the minimum drinking age as part of broader alcohol policy reform. Photo: Jessica Shapiro


RACP president Nicholas Talley said it was imperative the government adopt the recommendations in full to "bring about a shift in the Australian drinking culture" and reduce the "undeniable and substantial" harms caused by alcohol.

"Australians have a culture of alcohol – that's fine, but we also have a problem with alcohol," he told Fairfax Media.



Royal Australasian College of Physicians president Nicholas Talley: "The harms from alcohol remain very significant and we're not doing enough about it."


The proposed regime recommends:

* The legal age for buying takeaway alcohol should be raised immediately, ahead of a public debate about lifting the drinking age

* State governments should ramp up last drinks and early closing laws such as those implemented in NSW, including shorter trading hours for bottle shops and bars

* Local councils should be given the power to reduce the number of licensed premises in their communities by challenging existing liquor licences and implementing caps on the number of bars

* Sports sponsorship by alcohol companies should be banned, as a precursor to a total ban on advertising alcohol to young people

* Alcohol packaging should carry warning labels, akin to cigarettes, under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code



The RACP also urges that all pregnant women receive screening for alcohol use, and calls for "brief intervention" for pregnant women and high-risk drinkers.

Dr Talley said this would involve making rehabilitation services more widely available, rather than involuntary rehab as advocated by Senator Jacqui Lambie.

The submission reaffirms the medical establishment's support for volumetric taxation of all alcohol, and the imposition of a minimum price per standard drink to be set by the states and territories.

Many of the recommendations are mirrored in submissions from other groups including the Victorian Alcohol & Drug Association, the Police Federation and the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth.

Independent Queensland senator Glenn Lazarus established the inquiry into the "need for a nationally consistent approach to alcohol-fuelled violence" after the one-punch death of 18-year-old Cole Miller in Brisbane. Senator Lazarus' son was also the victim of a glassing attack last year.





The push comes despite risky alcohol use and risky drinking being in decline in Australia. Apparent alcohol consumption last year fell to a 50-year low of 9.7 litres, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Meanwhile, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's authoritative survey on drug use found that from 2010 to 2013, the number of drinkers aged 14 and over who exceeded the lifetime guidelines for alcohol consumption fell to 18.2 per cent from 20 per cent. Those engaging in binge drinking at least once a month dropped to 26 per cent from 29 per cent.

The number of people who reported being a victim of an alcohol-related incident, including verbal abuse or being put in fear, also fell to 26 per cent from 29 per cent.

Dr Talley acknowledged there was "some dispute about the numbers" but said the level of harm arising from alcohol misuse in Australia was "still way too high". The RACP paper cited studies estimating the social cost of alcohol misuse in Australia was between $15 billion and $36 billion, accruing largely from healthcare costs, road accidents and lost productivity. Each year, 5000 deaths were attributable to alcohol misuse, along with 150,000 hospitalisations, Dr Talley said.

One of the more audacious ideas in the RACP's submission is to empower local governments to reduce the number of licensed premises in their area by challenging liquor licences – effectively giving councillors the ability to shut down venues.

"That's a challenging recommendation but yes, we would like to see that looked at," Dr Talley said. "We don't believe it's appropriate to do nothing. The harms from alcohol remain very significant and we're not doing enough about it."

Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm, a self-described libertarian who is conducting an inquiry into matters around personal choice, labelled the proposed regime "nanny state central".

"I think Australians are sick of people who consider themselves their superiors telling them how to live their lives," he said. "In a free society, harm is an inevitable consequence of adults making choices. You can't ever get zero harm."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...31-gnvslp.html

[Franco Cozzo]

Too many taxes come in from alcohol, its not a good idea to make it harder to access.

[Rockape]

Getting a bit sick of being told how to live my life..

[CoupeKing]

Should put respective warning labels on alcohol like they do with cigarettes.

Probably wouldn't work. Pics of someone running over a family, spouses bashing each other, Ambo's getting king-hit, raging lunatics punching the &^%$ out of their kids...and then there is the health pics.

[poppa smurf]

won't make a scrap of difference......we had a mob of youngsters (all well under 18) used next door as a party house.

drink, vomit, drink, pass out, drink .....some red lolly water stuff was their choice, stains all over the house and road.

police were regular attendants, not once were they asked where they obtained the alcohol or who bought it for them.

Culture now is that a "good time" can't be had without getting drunker than the next one, without booze they have no "good time".

age is not the problem, the amount is.......the culture that is behind the habit must be changed.

[Adamz Ghia]

Punish everyone for the actions of a few. Wish these people would go away. If I want to buy a six pack at 11pm why shouldn't I be able to?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

Punish everyone for the actions of a few. Wish these people would go away. If I want to buy a six pack at 11pm why shouldn't I be able to?

Yeah thats it, they should sell alcohol at servos as well.

[Ford_The_Win]

Educating the unwashed masses is the key to encouraging healthy behaviours, including those with alcohol. I find it ironic that through 'self education' on Facebook and blogs, people believe that vaccines cause autism or that fluoridated water is poisonous, yet they are happy to guzzle alcohol which is a classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the WHO.

[BPXR6T]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Yeah thats it, they should sell alcohol at servos as well.

they do in Orbost.

[sprintman1]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Yeah thats it, they should sell alcohol at servos as well.

They used to in Canberra which has almost non existent liquor lic rules. Strange going interstate where normal shops don't sell alcohol, kinda weird.

[JG66ME]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Yeah thats it, they should sell alcohol at servos as well.

They do in the UK.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

won't make a scrap of difference......we had a mob of youngsters (all well under 18) used next door as a party house.

drink, vomit, drink, pass out, drink .....some red lolly water stuff was their choice, stains all over the house and road.

police were regular attendants, not once were they asked where they obtained the alcohol or who bought it for them.

Culture now is that a "good time" can't be had without getting drunker than the next one, without booze they have no "good time".

age is not the problem, the amount is.......the culture that is behind the habit must be changed.

Rubbish.

Australian society has become one of do-gooders who are attempting to protect MY life.

Why should we tax alcohol out of existence as with cigarettes simply because someone else thinks it's bad for ME?!

For chrissake what has happened to this country?

I can buy pot cheaper than a pack of fags...that's how absurd this place has become.

People behaving badly is the problem...bloody hell!
Did anyone ask why those kids weren't charged? Maybe they didn't break any laws!

Poppa, is it your house that is stained, the road has some red stains on it, kids are being loud?

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

We already have some of the toughest drinking restrictions in the world of any developed country.

Gemany has a drinking age of 16, and alcohol is available freely to buy in take away shops and supermarkets. Most other countries have 18 as their legal age.

Dropping the drink driving limit has nothing to do with drinking, its about driving safely and vehicle control, and has no relevance to drinking in general and will have no affect on people binge drinking and abusing alcohol.

The limit is low enough IMO, as it is based on how the blood alcohol level influences vehicle control. I don;t think further restrictions are necessary or even relevant.

The more restrictions you put in place the more 'bas ***' kids are going to feel when they get wasted.

Just because some idiots can't behave themselves on the grog does not mean it should affect everyone else.

[olfella]

So, like ciggies you price there use out of reach so people look for alternatives. I think that is why ICE is so popular. Now dont get me started on taxing sugar drinks.

[thefargo]

I think poppa smurf nailed this one.
A drink, to me, and with me, is a social thing. Have a drink with a few friends, enjoy the company.
As poppa said it is the culture of drinking until something breaks that is the concern.
My limited experience suggests that the youth of today will drink until they can drink no more. Binge drinking is the norm.

[Jess1992]

Originally Posted by thefargo

I think poppa smurf nailed this one.
A drink, to me, and with me, is a social thing. Have a drink with a few friends, enjoy the company.
As poppa said it is the culture of drinking until something breaks that is the concern.
My limited experience suggests that the youth of today will drink until they can drink no more. Binge drinking is the norm.

My grandad said he and his mates would drink at the pub all down until the passed out or couldn't stand anymore. I don't think it's just the "youth" of today who like a drink

[Express]

Originally Posted by thefargo

My limited experience suggests that the youth of today will drink until they can drink no more. Binge drinking is the norm.

I'm 55 and many of the youth of my day did exactly the same thing, at least we who lived out in the far north west of NSW did.

I started going to pubs at the age of 16 and kept myself in a state of a total mess until my late thirties when my body said enough was enough.

Today I have a glass of wine with dinner each evening and if we have visitors I have a few beers and I never drink when I'm out if I'm the designated driver.

I don't miss hangovers.

I also don't like being told what to do all the time.

[thefargo]

Well I've learnt something today. I now stand corrected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sprintman1]

Best day of my of my life the day I gave up alcohol. Not cheap stuff either, I remember days drinking Latour and Mouton at BBQ's, bloody madness! Seemed like a good idea at the time though but reality shows it was just a waste of many ten of thousands of dollars.

[lgpking22]

best idea ever as usual along as people dont have to deal with the consequences of these idiots its all perfectly fine as it is i frankly believe hospitals should be able to choose who they treat let drunk morons and drug addicts who have hurt themselves lay outside on the pavement. simple breath or blood test should work out whats what then out on your ****.

[tranquilized]

This just makes my blood boil. Who are these idiots? Hidden agenda or just a bunch of wowsers? We already have the strictest laws regarding alcohol in the western world, and coincidently? one of the biggest problems with it.

It's exactly the same with road laws - just keep lowering the speed limit don't worry about education or training. Tackling a complex problem with a massive hammer.

Pass me another beer...

[SYZ]

On the whole, I agree with the recommendations of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and let's face it, their members are certainly in a position to observe and comment on the results of drunken driver road accidents.

And the fact that senator David Leyonhjelm labelled the proposed regime "nanny state central" simply further reinforces my opinion that the bloke is not fit to be in Parliament.

He says; "I think Australians are sick of people who consider themselves their superiors telling them how to live their lives. In a free society, harm is an inevitable consequence of adults making choices. You can't ever get zero harm."

There's nothing at all "superior" about doctors advising people about the harmful effects of alcohol, or the cost to the community of over-indulgence. I do agree that you can't ever get "zero harm" in a free society, but you can certainly lessen the chances by curbing excess alcohol consumption by its members. In some cases the so-called "nanny state" has a moral and ethical responsibility to step in, and protect intellectually-challenged people from themselves.

[Express]

Originally Posted by SYZ

There's nothing at all "superior" about doctors advising people about the harmful effects of alcohol, or the cost to the community of over-indulgence.

Sure let them advise the public of the harm and consequences but then it should be up to the individual to be allowed to decide if they wish to heed to that advice or not.

Originally Posted by SYZ

In some cases the so-called "nanny state" has a moral and ethical responsibility to step in, and protect intellectually-challenged people from themselves.

Not at the expense of everyone else, this is why we are slowly losing all our freedoms and becoming a nation regimented by rules and laws to protect a minority from themselves. Life is about choices and risks, let us be happy and free to live it that way.

[poppa smurf]

Originally Posted by Express

Sure let them advise the public of the harm and consequences but then it should be up to the individual to be allowed to decide if they wish to heed to that advice or not.

I agree wholeheartedly but in alcohol instances these individuals then get themselves into varying difficulty which makes alcohol and drugs their worst enemy. fighting, jumping off balconies, driving.

we, the emergency services must then fight the alcohol and drugs in their system in order to administer life saving equipment with the patient or on lookers are fighting us all the way.

the person would not act in this way if he/she were not affected by alcohol or drugs.


Not at the expense of everyone else, this is why we are slowly losing all our freedoms and becoming a nation regimented by rules and laws to protect a minority from themselves. Life is about choices and risks, let us be happy and free to live it that way.

unfortunately it is another case of "minorities ruining it for the majority"......I imbibe, a family, friends gathering more often than not involves the demon drink but No 1 I will never drive after a few drinks nor any of my friends or family, regardless of what the statistics show, I am on the coal face and have witnessed the outcome.

our freedoms (if we ever had such a thing) and rights (a whole different issue again) are being eroded by the few amongst us that are creating a position of danger to the masses with law makers reacting accordingly (rightly or wrongly).

we, the emergency services, must pick up the pieces of a drunken Saturday night too many times, some see it as fun to bash the head in on a total stranger then plead not guilty through alcohol,

drive too fast, act obnoxiously in public and generally behave like dicks simply because they are drunk.

I don't wholeheartedly agree with what the doctors are saying but I have also seen the "other side".....hospital staff abused and attacked for trying to help, ambo's having to be protected against the very people they are there to help, emergency services personnel having to fight their way to a crash scene.

sons and daughters doing irrational things that they regret in the morning and would not normally do.

alcohol has become such an intrinsic part of society that many people now see it as a right of passage, the hotels industry will lobby to the death against any lockout laws that are designed to make our streets safer but will not support our local footy.

we can't get volunteers anymore because they "can't be stuffed".......our footy, soccer, netball teams, emergency services can't get volunteers, ambo's can't get staff, systems, that uphold a whole town, are failing through lack of participants, society as a whole is failing our young.

drink is one problem, drugs are another, degradation of the family system is what I blame.

just let me correct one statement that is being echoed throughout this post.......I do not blame the young, nor did I say that it was restricted to the young, they are the victims of the breakdown of the morals of society, without direction they react in the simplistic of ways, the only way they know how.

I remember the "6 o'clock swill......even then there was consternation amongst more folks about that than there were participants......hence why it changed.

anyway, my two bobs worth.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

unfortunately it is another case of "minorities ruining it for the majority"......I imbibe, a family, friends gathering more often than not involves the demon drink but No 1 I will never drive after a few drinks nor any of my friends or family, regardless of what the statistics show, I am on the coal face and have witnessed the outcome.

our freedoms (if we ever had such a thing) and rights (a whole different issue again) are being eroded by the few amongst us that are creating a position of danger to the masses with law makers reacting accordingly (rightly or wrongly).

we, the emergency services, must pick up the pieces of a drunken Saturday night too many times, some see it as fun to bash the head in on a total stranger then plead not guilty through alcohol,

drive too fast, act obnoxiously in public and generally behave like dicks simply because they are drunk.

I don't wholeheartedly agree with what the doctors are saying but I have also seen the "other side".....hospital staff abused and attacked for trying to help, ambo's having to be protected against the very people they are there to help, emergency services personnel having to fight their way to a crash scene.

sons and daughters doing irrational things that they regret in the morning and would not normally do.

alcohol has become such an intrinsic part of society that many people now see it as a right of passage, the hotels industry will lobby to the death against any lockout laws that are designed to make our streets safer but will not support our local footy.

we can't get volunteers anymore because they "can't be stuffed".......our footy, soccer, netball teams, emergency services can't get volunteers, ambo's can't get staff, systems, that uphold a whole town, are failing through lack of participants, society as a whole is failing our young.

drink is one problem, drugs are another, degradation of the family system is what I blame.

just let me correct one statement that is being echoed throughout this post.......I do not blame the young, nor did I say that it was restricted to the young, they are the victims of the breakdown of the morals of society, without direction they react in the simplistic of ways, the only way they know how.

I remember the "6 o'clock swill......even then there was consternation amongst more folks about that than there were participants......hence why it changed.

anyway, my two bobs worth.

Degradation of the family ? and why is it so ?
I had a South African just say off hand say he found that Aussies have no strong family bond or real strong family values over here, I agreed with him that it's true from what I have seen mainly, rude kids that get away with anything, not to mention disrespectful of everyone.

It was not that way when I was a kid or you would get punched out if you were disrespectful or rude, not to mention getting the cane at school for even just talking.

There was always morons around and a type of people that were feared by the law to deal with them as they truly should of, but the wind bags just went mental claiming harassment and so on.
There was a political party that supported all this Political correct rubbish and it has caused a hell of a lot of problems nowadays with their degenerate BS.

Cops would get you if you were causing trouble and could polish their boot with you tail directly and if your ran home to mummy and daddy they would support the copper right to do so full on, but nowadays degenerates would sue the cop full on without hesitation.

We are a just a simple narrow minded short sighted me me, I I, generation now and they just do not see the big picture that we are a nation and Society reaps what it sows and the windbags have been running around undermining our nation by pushing for socialists Marxist state where just irrational dim whits claim what ever they see fit to go along with, what ever the trend at the time the TV media push, such poor simpletons that can't think for themselves or the nations benefit as a whole.

It's a new age degenerate criminal intent not to mention malice that our nation is facing and it sticks out like dogs balls.

No one can stand up to them because they are just like the Nazi's they hate freedom of speech and work to undermine all who stand up to there filthy grubby delinquent ways.

[SYZ]

Originally Posted by Express

Sure let them advise the public of the harm and consequences but then it should be up to the individual to be allowed to decide if they wish to heed to that advice or not.

Presumably if VicRoads lower the speed limit on a dangerous section of road (as often happens) you're happy in deciding that you're better qualified than the road authority to assess the situation, which then gives you the "right" to ignore the new limit and put others' lives at risk? Just as driving under the influence puts others' lives at risk—in the face of the medico's warnings?

Originally Posted by Express

Not at the expense of everyone else, this is why we are slowly losing all our freedoms and becoming a nation regimented by rules and laws to protect a minority from themselves. Life is about choices and risks, let us be happy and free to live it that way.

Are you seriously claiming that someone's excessive alcohol consumption is not a risk to other people? Or an unnecessary burden on our already overextended health facilities? At any rate, how can you claim that drunken behaviour only (allegedly) affects a minority of people, when between 25% and 30% (depending on the State) of road fatalities involve excessive BAC levels?

And I agree that life is about "choices and risks", but any/all of those risks should not impinge on the inalienable rights of other people surely? Yes, I can choose to drive at 160km/h in an 80 zone when I'm ****ed outa my brain, and risk my own life, but..... is it fair to also risk the lives of other road users? Of course not.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by SYZ

Are you seriously claiming that someone's excessive alcohol consumption is not a risk to other people?

On what basis are you claiming 0.02 to 0.05 is excessive? On what basis are the doctors? They haven't done any sort analysis. Its just an opinion, and on the face of it, no more valid than yours or mine.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by SYZ

Presumably if VicRoads lower the speed limit on a dangerous section of road (as often happens) you're happy in deciding that you're better qualified than the road authority to assess the situation, which then gives you the "right" to ignore the new limit and put others' lives at risk?

Different topic, but it is stupid when a stretch of road has been a particular speed limit for 40 years, the road is then upgraded with wide lanes, centre barriers and all that, then the speed limit is dropped by 20km/h. Have seen that happen so many times over the past few years. And what do you know mobile speed cameras and highway patrol suddenly show up daily.

[Express]

Originally Posted by SYZ

Presumably if VicRoads lower the speed limit on a dangerous section of road (as often happens) you're happy in deciding that you're better qualified than the road authority to assess the situation, which then gives you the "right" to ignore the new limit and put others' lives at risk? Just as driving under the influence puts others' lives at risk—in the face of the medico's warnings?

As an qualified Civil Engineer that designed and costed roads and bridges in rural NSW and oversaw their construction for Local Councils and was employed as a Traffic Engineer for a number of Sydney Councils where I formulated, recommended and implemented traffic management system for the Local Area Traffic Committees, I guess you could say I probably do have some qualifications in your scenario.

Check some of my older posting and you’ll see where I’ve spoken of my employment history.

Still I fail to see what that has to do with someone who has experience in patching up human bodies being given the go ahead to take a big stick and cure society of its ills by prohibition.

That approach really does have a strong history of working well doesn’t it, now pass the crack pipe.

Originally Posted by SYZ

Are you seriously claiming that someone's excessive alcohol consumption is not a risk to other people? Or an unnecessary burden on our already overextended health facilities? At any rate, how can you claim that drunken behaviour only (allegedly) affects a minority of people, when between 25% and 30% (depending on the State) of road fatalities involve excessive BAC levels?

And I agree that life is about "choices and risks", but any/all of those risks should not impinge on the inalienable rights of other people surely? Yes, I can choose to drive at 160km/h in an 80 zone when I'm ****ed outa my brain, and risk my own life, but..... is it fair to also risk the lives of other road users? Of course not.

You’re on a much higher horse than me as I have only offered my personal opinion on freedom versus regulation and a person’s right to choose.

If law makers follow your lead then it's going to be a sterile world as everything an individual does ultimately has an impact on those around them so where and when do you stop regulating?

Maybe the new world of social media is already doing this job for us as everyone is staying home behind lock indoors forming relations thru machines instead of like when I grew up and we went out into the world and my mum would scream out at me as I went out the door, Steven watch out for the wells, don’t fall down one.

Or maybe some travel will show that not every country see regulation as the answer, it's more the non thinking man's cure.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by SYZ

On the whole, I agree with the recommendations of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and let's face it, their members are certainly in a position to observe and comment on the results of drunken driver road accidents.

No, they're not. They're in a position to discuss treatment measures, they're not in a position to deliver an informed opinion on how to address the issue when it comes to road safety. For that, you need a statistician to identify who is causing the problem. And it certainly isnt the people in the 0.02-0.05 BAC range.

People in general give doctors way too much credit. As a former scientist, I would read a lot of medical research, and I would laugh at that which was conducted by clinicians. Faulty logic, faulty conclusions, faulty methodology. They should stick to treating people, and keep their nose out of areas in which they have no expertise.