Ry Van Veluwen

When I first moved in at Hong Kong, I came out onto my balcony and directly beneath me was a 7/11. Only those fortunate enough to spend any amount of time in Asia can properly understand and appreciate just how much potential the simple convenience store really has. I headed downstairs, poked my head inside and discovered I could get 2 tall Asahi’s for about $5.00 AUD. Great, I thought, now I’m going to become an alcoholic and perpetuate the stereotype of the Australian, why wouldn’t I? I now had access to dirt cheap, good beer, 24 hours a day within 10 meters of my building.

However, I drank far less during my time in Hong Kong than I ever did back home, why?

Typically, the thinking in Australia would go like this - “Hey, I had a big day, I feel like a beer. Buying one isn’t a good idea, they are taxed so heavily it’s not cost effective. So I guess I’ll buy a 6 pack. Perhaps I’ll have guests over? If so, I’ll need more to share, and since the bottleshop will close early, I better be safe than sorry, so maybe I’ll buy two 6-packs? Perhaps a case?” Before you know it I’d have a fridge full of beer.

My point is all the laws we have here to shape the drinking culture all led to results that weren’t intuitive at all and scratching the surface to see the implications wasn’t hard & it should show that when we decide to implement laws we need to look far beyond what seem like the “obvious” results, because life & people are far more complex then reactions to an action.

For those that don’t know, Australia is told we have a drinking problem. Anecdotally - I have seen many other cultures and locals drink us beneath the table. But for the sake of argument, every now and again some one will get drunk and stupid enough to hurt someone. Sometimes this someone won’t recover. This leads to a campaign to ensure this never happens again and is often used as fuel in the political space to push an agenda.

This has lead to “lockout laws” being pushed aggressively in many parts of Australia - forcing bars & clubs to close at 1:00am and sending everyone home backed by both our main parties in different states. There are 3 things that really bother me about these laws and what they represent.

We are killing already rare jobs for a demographic - Australia currently has a bad reputation when it comes to how it is looking after my generation. Despite us being some of the best educated and progressive groups this country has ever produced we are priced out of the housing market & through various factors put into positions where the average barista has a degree or two. One industry that’s one of the only real prospects for people in my generation are - you guessed it - bars and pubs, working well into the morning for the only job we could secure. These laws have been in effect in Sydney for a year and saw many many many businesses close - destroying many jobs and creating an even more competitive environment for the few bars that could stay - and even those that did survive now offering many less hours.

The numbers don’t stack up - The two events that kicked this off in Queensland were “King hits” that killed two men on two separate occasions. Any death is tragic, but the logic that this is something that needs very strict, broad laws that dramatically change the landscape is entirely bizarre. We lost 2,522 people to Suicide here in Australia in 2013 which was our 14th leading cause of death - if we are about savings lives, we don’t we start here, for example? I’ve selected this statistic as an example, because it leads into my third and final issue which is something I’m yet to see discussed anywhere in the context of these laws : 

The changes are not measured against what is lost, specifically freedom & quality of life - There is a certain point where you are going to do more harm then good. We could all live to a ripe old age if we sit in padded cells for our entire lives. Why don’t we? Because then we lose everything that give us meaning in a modern context of life. Everytime you leave your doors you run the risk over never coming back, but we all make the call to do so because a life without risk isn’t worth living. Even if these laws could guarantee those lives will never be lost (Which they can’t, especially seeing as both the events in Queensland took place well before the lockout at 1:00am) is that really worth the quality of life change to all the locals? Is the anxiety behind knowing your night will end when the government tells you to, or that your choice to stay out late is no longer your own worth it in the end?