LETTERS: Your take on lock-out laws
VENUE operators believe proposed lock-out laws designed to curb alcohol-fuelled violence are ill-conceived and could lead to job losses.
After a special report in Friday's edition of the QT, we took to Facebook to find out what whether Ipswich supported the new laws.
Many called for the laws to be passed to help reduce the impact of poor decisions made when drinking.
Readers also showed their displeasure with the proposed laws, which would force licenced venues to call for last drinks served at 2am or 3am, with a 1am lockout for each venue.
No. I think they should just actually enforce the laws surrounding RSA. If pubs and clubs would cut people off from service when they should, people would not be able get drunk to the point of becoming adanger to themselves and others. I say hire heaps of extras to enforce the rules in clubs and maybe after a few people get the $10,000 fines for serving to those they shouldnt, the clubs will start doing the right thing
Also have police enforce the rules around being under the influence in public and put laws in place (and enforce them ) that actually make the consequences of violence unpalatable.
For every action there is a ripple of reactions that affects many others. Cutting off at bars and clubs is only going to put the problem some where else. Not stop it.
The legal ages has to go up. And the government has to be more firm on offenders. Because at the end of the day the kids of today get away with everything because they are taught at school that us the parents have no right in smacking our kids (discipline) at an early age so they get away with everything at home.
I think that it won't do anything to curb the violence and solve the problem. They're just going to be sending the drunks out to the street earlier.
It's the wrong approach. Maybe try stopping drinks at an earlier time than close and offering cheap or free soft drinks/water and tea or coffee until close time and also make food available in clubs.
And better policing of the liquor act as there is definatly overly intoxicated people still being served when they should be cut off and until that is properly policed it will continue to happen and the fights will keep spilling out on the street.
The problem with these people is not the amount of alcohol.
But more their behavior while drinking.
These people are obviously sober enough to throw a good punch.
I work in hospitality. I've seen people go from dead sober to unruly drunk on four beers (one round of drinks).
With these people, you don't know how they will react to alcohol until it's too late.
And people want to fine staff because these people can't handle four beers.
Yet want to enforce lock out, which would encourage binge drinking and forcing drinkers out into the street at the same time.
Yes. People have been warned time and time again. Yet the One Punch Can Kill campaign still seems to land on deaf ears.
These people ruin it for everyone else but unfortunately because of this, it is something that must happen now to help control the situation.
This is our future children's lives at stake here. That is more important than the consumption of just a little more alcohol before you head home.
What's more important your family or your drink.
Too much alcohol blinds these people's maturity, so the innocent have to be mature for them and say YES.
Cut off and lock out. I see there are plenty of good ideas but this is where the government is proposing to start. So start bring it in.
For each and every person, who thinks that this is not a good idea, I dare you to go into the emergency departments of any major hospital on a Friday and Saturday night to watch the carnage as it comes in.
More reason to load up before heading out. Or more reason to stay home and annoy the neighbours then have repeats of Woodridge street riots.
Take a lesson from casinos where it's 24/7 no lockouts no last drinks and live bands, very seldom do we see an incident surrounding a casino.