Changes to licensing fees threaten Canberra nightlife

devils_advocate said :

bringontheevidence said :

So dumping them on the sidewalk with 4 hours’-worth of boozing compared with dumping them on the sidewalk with 8 hours’-worth of boozing – no difference, in your opinion?

Depends what time they get there?

Non-sequitur.
The time they get there is irrelevant to the fact that lockout laws shave off 4-hours’-worth of drinking and reduce violence.

devils_advocate said :

Anyone who works in a food place wouldn’t finish till 10-11pm and won’t be out in civic before midnight. They wouldn’t even have 4 hours.

Good. Less time to turn into punchy drunks. And the idea that nighclubs are full of people who’ve just knocked off work is not particularly credible speculation on your part.

devils_advocate said :

If someone plans to be there for 8 hours they’ll probably take their time, talk more and enjoy themselves. If you put a clock on it they’ll race it.

Speculation.

devils_advocate said :

If the clubs close at 3am then everyone will rush drinks at 2am trying to get in before closing.
If there was no closing time until say 4-5am then no one would rush or bother. They’d just leave when they felt like it and it might be before 3.

Wild speculation.

devils_advocate said :

Nanny states only breed Passive aggressive behaviour.

And the nightclub industry breeds punchy drunks, the consequence of whose actions is a costly burden on society in terms of healthcare, policing, and criminal justice issues.

devils_advocate said :

Would you agree that if someone had had too much to drink that perhaps the establishment they are at should stop serving them?

Depends on the establishment, depends on the drinker. When I was a heavy drinker the only venue that even came close to cutting me off was one bartender who told me to get someone else from my group to come to the bar for the next round so he wouldn’t be seen handing me my fifth or sixth screwdriver in less than an hour. Places almost always continued to serve me long after it must have been obvious I was intoxicated, but because I kept my mouth and fists to myself and I didn’t stagger on the way to the bar, and spent $100’s there, I guess in a ‘risk vs reward’ sense they figured I wasn’t much of a liability.

Years later when I worked security (at a venue that closed at 5am) for the 12 months I was there, liquor licensing inspectors did not visit once. The only guy I ever had to forcibly eject was on ice, he didn’t go to the bar once the whole time I had eyes on him. We would single out people to ‘watch’ but unless someone got absolutely fall-down drunk, they would continue to be served.

bringontheevidence said :

joingler said :

Yeah but there is a huge difference between correlation and causation. If there aren’t any clubs open there can’t be violence in clubs. However, you then have to dump everyone on to the sidewalk at the same time, on to a limited taxi rank.

So dumping them on the sidewalk with 4 hours’-worth of boozing compared with dumping them on the sidewalk with 8 hours’-worth of boozing – no difference, in your opinion?

Depends what time they get there?
Anyone who works in a food place wouldn’t finish till 10-11pm and won’t be out in civic before midnight. They wouldn’t even have 4 hours.

If someone plans to be there for 8 hours they’ll probably take their time, talk more and enjoy themselves. If you put a clock on it they’ll race it.

If the clubs close at 3am then everyone will rush drinks at 2am trying to get in before closing.
If there was no closing time until say 4-5am then no one would rush or bother. They’d just leave when they felt like it and it might be before 3.

Nanny states only breed Passive aggressive behaviour.

Would you agree that if someone had had too much to drink that perhaps the establishment they are at should stop serving them?

Also the Taxi’s

joingler said :

Yeah but there is a huge difference between correlation and causation. If there aren’t any clubs open there can’t be violence in clubs. However, you then have to dump everyone on to the sidewalk at the same time, on to a limited taxi rank.

So dumping them on the sidewalk with 4 hours’-worth of boozing compared with dumping them on the sidewalk with 8 hours’-worth of boozing – no difference, in your opinion?

Lenient said :

madelini said :

HeighwayQueen said :

Maybe we shouldn’t waste our time speculating and take an evidence-based approach?

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Reasearch found,

“the reforms were associated with an immediate and substantial reduction in assault in Kings Cross (down 32%) and a less immediate but substantial and perhaps ongoing reduction in assault in the Sydney CBD (down 26%).”

How much saved $$$ does this translate to in terms of healthcare and policing?

Sounds like a good result, to me, and seeing as my rates pay for the fall-out, I’m all for lock-out laws.

What was the reduction of people actually in the area or visiting the area during those times?

What was the reduction in business, what was the effect on the economic activity in the area?

You mean what was the reduction in punchy criminals? Quite high, apparently.

And an even higher reduction in non punchy citizens visiting the areas and spending their recreational money, leaving the actual assault rates higher proportionally. A fantastic achievement of removing potential victims and then crowing about the success of their scheme.

I can’t wait til their next scheme of banning cars and dropping the road death toll by >95%!!

Mordd said :

gooterz said :

HeighwayQueen said :

Maybe we shouldn’t waste our time speculating and take an evidence-based approach?

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Reasearch found,

“the reforms were associated with an immediate and substantial reduction in assault in Kings Cross (down 32%) and a less immediate but substantial and perhaps ongoing reduction in assault in the Sydney CBD (down 26%).”

How much saved $$$ does this translate to in terms of healthcare and policing?

Sounds like a good result, to me, and seeing as my rates pay for the fall-out, I’m all for lock-out laws.

I’ve got a rock that keeps bears away it works really well in Canberra,
I’ll sell it to you for the small price of a thousand dollars?

Your analogy is ridiculous. Lock-out laws are *obviously* well beyond being randomly correlated with violence in Kings Cross.

Yeah but there is a huge difference between correlation and causation. If there aren’t any clubs open there can’t be violence in clubs. However, you then have to dump everyone on to the sidewalk at the same time, on to a limited taxi rank.

It’s beyond me that people have missed that. Maybe Kmart shouldn’t be open 24 hours a day as it will decrease violence

gooterz said :

HeighwayQueen said :

Maybe we shouldn’t waste our time speculating and take an evidence-based approach?

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Reasearch found,

“the reforms were associated with an immediate and substantial reduction in assault in Kings Cross (down 32%) and a less immediate but substantial and perhaps ongoing reduction in assault in the Sydney CBD (down 26%).”

How much saved $$$ does this translate to in terms of healthcare and policing?

Sounds like a good result, to me, and seeing as my rates pay for the fall-out, I’m all for lock-out laws.

I’ve got a rock that keeps bears away it works really well in Canberra,
I’ll sell it to you for the small price of a thousand dollars?

Your analogy is ridiculous. Lock-out laws are *obviously* well beyond being randomly correlated with violence in Kings Cross.

madelini said :

HeighwayQueen said :

Maybe we shouldn’t waste our time speculating and take an evidence-based approach?

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Reasearch found,

“the reforms were associated with an immediate and substantial reduction in assault in Kings Cross (down 32%) and a less immediate but substantial and perhaps ongoing reduction in assault in the Sydney CBD (down 26%).”

How much saved $$$ does this translate to in terms of healthcare and policing?

Sounds like a good result, to me, and seeing as my rates pay for the fall-out, I’m all for lock-out laws.

What was the reduction of people actually in the area or visiting the area during those times?

What was the reduction in business, what was the effect on the economic activity in the area?

You mean what was the reduction in punchy criminals? Quite high, apparently.

HeighwayQueen said :

Maybe we shouldn’t waste our time speculating and take an evidence-based approach?

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Reasearch found,

“the reforms were associated with an immediate and substantial reduction in assault in Kings Cross (down 32%) and a less immediate but substantial and perhaps ongoing reduction in assault in the Sydney CBD (down 26%).”

How much saved $$$ does this translate to in terms of healthcare and policing?

Sounds like a good result, to me, and seeing as my rates pay for the fall-out, I’m all for lock-out laws.

What was the reduction of people actually in the area or visiting the area during those times?

What was the reduction in business, what was the effect on the economic activity in the area?

What about the reduction in freedoms and liberties of individuals to make their own decisions and live their own lives?

Sounds like a very selective use of statistics to me, we could of course reduce violence 100% by removing all the people or reduce car accidents by 100% by removing all the cars but I don’t think many would call that a “good result”.

HeighwayQueen said :

Maybe we shouldn’t waste our time speculating and take an evidence-based approach?

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Reasearch found,

“the reforms were associated with an immediate and substantial reduction in assault in Kings Cross (down 32%) and a less immediate but substantial and perhaps ongoing reduction in assault in the Sydney CBD (down 26%).”

How much saved $$$ does this translate to in terms of healthcare and policing?

Sounds like a good result, to me, and seeing as my rates pay for the fall-out, I’m all for lock-out laws.

I’ve got a rock that keeps bears away it works really well in Canberra,
I’ll sell it to you for the small price of a thousand dollars?