The notion of the timeout is ill-conceived and uses flawed logic. All it will do is promote frustration among patrons which has the potential to cause the kinds of conflicts these measures were designed to prevent.

The state government should spend its time looking at education and developing workable policies instead of trying to make a 'quick fix' through legislation. Better still, they should let people do what they want to do. It's our free time. We supposedly live in a free country, so restore our freedom Rees!

Interesting analysis of the campaign in today's SMH - what's your response? See http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fightback-over-new-liquor-laws/2009/01/04/1231003848106.html

They probably need to go further. I therefore lean toward your argument that they are 'the dumbest thing' ever and therefore need to be extended to 20 mins maybe even 30 mins.

Maybe people should take responsibility for them selves, why should I have to put up with people pissing in the doorways of shops, vomitting on footpaths, leaving thier rubbish were they finished. If people were a bit more responsible then there would be no need for the new laws.

I do not agree John, People will just binge when the bar is open getting drunk quicker... Like the UK when it was a 11PM close in all pubs everyone would get as much in before the close.. No doubt at all that would happen here..

Also locking people on the street after 2... I mean come on how f*cking dumb... Let them be under the supervision of door men at a pub.. they will cause less problems there

On the 4th July 2008, I was walking down George Street (outside World Tower)at about 10:30pm, in order to meet my wife and some friends at there appartment for a late dinner after work. I have lived in many large cities around the world, e.g, New York, London, Paris, Beijing etc, and was very surprised by the large number of what seemed like out of control and intoxicated people on the streets, compared to other cities.
Passing by some young males learning against the shopfront (not taking much notice), I heard what I thought was a request for money or something. Thinking that I should give the guy the courtesy of agknowledging him, I turned around, walked back and politely asked if I could help. Next thing I know, He calmly says that he is going to bash me. While saying this, about four of his friends surounded me. I turned to walk away, and that is when I was hit in the head multiple times, colapsing unconcious to the footpath. Aparently I was then kicked in the head and body many times.
I woke up in hospital an hour later with broken bones, covered in blood and temporarily blind. Six months later, many scans, stiches etc and injuries that will never fully heal, I CAN'T SEE WHAT PROTECTING YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES HAS TO DO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT.
While in the ER, the place was full of young drunk loud idiots, getting the alchohol pumped out of their system or getting injuries caused by intoxication fixed. Some were even shouting that they wanted to go back to the bar!

The low IQ BOYS that attacked me, had just come from the bar across the road.

What has happend to the responsible serving of alchohol???

That is a terrible thing to hear Andrew. It is an unfortunate truth that every society has a small element like this. I don't however believe it fair that the majority are punished for the sake of a few.

The sad effect of this system will be more people of this ilk out on the streets, drunk and lairy after downing as many as they could as quickly as possible, instead of in the bars where they can be supervised by security staff.

The lockout system didn't work for England - just look at the huge problem they have. What makes anyone think it would it work here?

Mark, thank you for your reply, but your attitude is systematic to the problem. In reply to your response that "every society has a small element like this", it is not a small element. The problem of irresponsible drinking and the social problems it creates at and around pubs, is growing to the extent of being out of control. The ER staff plainly pointed out that Places like Kings Cross are now tame compared to other areas, which are "out of control" their words, not mine.

If there wasn't a problem, the media and Sydney would not be having this conversation. The mere fact that security guards/bouncers are required is testimony to the problem. There is a large group of people who, when given the chance, will over consume and abuse alcohol at pubs, and to date, the alcohol serving premises that we are talking about have grossly abused their responsibility...to the extent of deliberate negligence.

How must my wife have felt, when after phoning to say that I was just about to get in the lift, and I didn't turn up, proceeded to come downstairs to see where I was. My pregnant wife, to here sheer terror, sees her unconscious husband being put in an ambulance, and then rides with me to two emergency rooms. Perhaps people need to start realising that alcohol is a responsible privilege and not a right. It's all good and well until it effects you or someone you love.

Just saw you on Seven News - good job man, keep it up :D

These discussions are great, but you are both correct and as right as each other. Almost every law passed in a democracy is as terrible as good and vice versa. There are many reasons to blame society for it's use of violence, perhaps fear??? Have we ever heard of the saying 'you can take the boy out of the trash, but you cant take the trash out of the boy'? No matter if you are pro or anti of these laws, anybody could find a way to contradict and debate democracy's law. In the end this all comes down to what you personally believe because there is no such thing as a universal utopia.

I dont agree with laws like this at all, I live in melbourne so these dont directly affect me, but they are a complete joke. You dont attack a problem by taking away the rights of anyone that could possibly get involved in the trouble. They are just taking the easy way out. Alcohol is not a privilege and neither is my right to go out or the hours i sleep and wake. If there is a problem with assualt then the people in question need to be addressed. If 18-25 year olds have a problem with assault or drinking too much then the laws should target those particular people, like harsher penalties for assualt under the influence of alcohol or after a certain time or people who are charged with certain offences be banned from licenced venues, but instead they make laws that take away the liberties of an entire generation of people and dont really address the problem at all. I like to go out and have a good time in the city, I like to drink alcohol, sometimes I drink too much, but when I drink I dont go around throwing punches or being anything but friendly so why should I be told what I can and cant do when I've never dont anything wrong. The only reason these laws are so broad and so unfair on the youth of Australia is because they are not made by the youth of Australia they are made by people on which these laws have no affect without proper research or consideration. All im saying is that any law changes should be specific and targeted at the individuals causing the problem.

It appears many people are outraged with the proposal put forward. Instead of disapproving with these new legislations, why not create your ideas on how the Governement can combat with these alcohol related problems. Closing the pubs earlier than normal? tried that and it failed?. Hire more security guards?, tried that and it failed?. Serve drinks after midnight in plastic cups?, will fail.. Creating alcohol free zones?. Failed. creating time outs for 10 minutes?. Who knows, it may or may not work.. Their is no loss to anyone if they give it a go..

has anyone noticed that it is generally the same people that throw the punches?? half the time they arent even at the clubs/pubs - my friends got rolled coming out of a party, by people that werent part of it. usually the guys that start the fights are drunk well before they get any where because they buy the booze from liquor stores, not high priced clubs. perhaps something along the lines of 'no one who has a criminal record' can buy alcohol - and i realise that they can easily get someone else to buy it but still, hooligans usually hang with hooligans.

lockouts for 10 minutes will just mean that people stand in a motionless line for 10 minutes and then the staff will be overwhelmed... drinking wont stop. perhaps random breathaliser tests and cutting off wristbands for those that are way over the limit is an idea?

i agree with what someone said before - its not the actual alcohol thats bad - its the people that drink it

I completely agree Alisa.
I and most of my friends enjoy a drink or two but none of us ever provoke or get involved in fights or arguments. We keep to ourselves and avoid people who are making trouble.
Why should the social lives of all be impacted upon because of a few individuals.
These laws punish the majority for the actions of a limited minority.

Paul maybe in your eyes there is no benefit in the consumption of alcohol however in mine there is and I would like to preserve my right to drink it when and where I want to.

I also think you are an idiot for suggesting only weak minded people enjoy it. What are you hiding? In my experience people who don't drink are afraid of letting go and showing people what they are really like.

Greetings. I have been studying nightlife in Australia and around the world for 5 years. In my opinion there are three interecting dimenions going on that complicate the issues.

1. Commercial. Anyone who thinks that pubs and clubs are not driven by the profit motive is thoroughly deluded. In today's SMH an article appeared quoting Sally Fielke arguing that the 10 minute ban should be overturned. Instead, she offered, pubs were angling for more water stations and staff to patrol and suggest patrons 'slow down'. What the? why arent these things already in place? No, only 'suggested' when the profit was threatened by being reduced for 1/6th of an hour. Hence, we must understand policy as attempts to push the buttons that make pub owers et al take the issue seriously.

2. Political. As many have pointed out throughout the debates, the NSW government (and others) frequently uses alcohol-related violence as an opportunity to appear to be 'doing something'. This does not mean the ARV is not an issue (although it is frequently the basis for media-generated moral panics), but simply that the timing of certain policy interventions needs to be understood in relation to both the political cycle and the popularity of the government at any given time.

3. And this is the biggie. Culture. The solutions to irresponsible use of alcohol lie in a shift in the culture of consumption. This happens over medium term periods - the analogy that is useful is convincing Australians of the dangers of smoking or the merits of wearing sunscreen. These are 25 years tasks, and policy initiatives must be calibrated (and funded) accordingly. At the local level, culture is about YOU. So, how do you drink? what do you think is acceptable? How often have you laughed at your mate for being pissed - because that is tacit approval of drinking patterns that in another person sees violence erupt. Unless you personally take repsonsibility the culture won't change.

So, a complicated issue, no doubt. Made more so by the fact that from one perspective a night out is a revenue stream, and from another a political football. One thing is certain, as punters, all we have control over is our capacity to regulate our own consumption and rethink what we think of as socially acceptable behaviour.

Stephen - what a moron! Anyone who thinks that need to drink to express who they really are needs to wake up to themselves.

People need to start taking personal responsibility for themselves and their actions. The fact is that alcohol related violence is on the rise and its attitudes like yours that are the problem. I personally don't drink, a decision i made almost 10 years ago when I was 20. Does this mean that for the last 10 years I have not been myself or afraid to have fun? The answer is simple – NO.

You talk about your right to consume booze, what about my right to walk down the street without being verbally or physically abused because some drunken idiot thinks they have the right to be in the state they are in?

I don't believe in banning alcohol completely but I do think that applying limitations is a step in the right direction. If people refuse to take responsibility for their actions then someone has too.

Well said Clint...
I am shocked to see the alcohol industry mask this website as a 'patron' uprising...
This is the alcohol industry sleeze trying to do their worst...
The idea that a lock out at only a small portion of NSW's thousands of venues being a threat to freedom is one of the most hilarous PR lines I have ever heard.

Andrew, sorry to hear of your injuries, but to blame alcohol for you getting mug is not right. Alcohol was not the catalyst of you being assualted and mugged, the lack of respect for fellow man is to blame.

Our governments social policy to promote single parentage and paying unmarried mothers to continue to breed is the catalyst of your injuries. These youths are brought up with no respect, they don't know the meaning of a hard earned dollar.

Don't take away my right to have a beer when I feel like, because our governments have failed us with their social policies...

Does anyone else get the feeling that the lobby groups forcing this absurd legislation on us will not really be content until they initiate the second coming of the prohibition?

What's next? Will they issue the population with alcohol ration cards?

When will they stop punishing the majority for the actions of the minority? This country has never been as safe as it is now and yet we have never been more scared.

I’m sorry James, but your conspiracy theory about pubs controlling their naive patrons is extremely stupid, as is the rest of your narrow minded opinion. (I’m sorry to single you out James, my comments apply equally to mv, Clint & John Stamos). Do I care that this campaign, or others, is funded by the AHA or other interested parties? No, I’m just glad that somebody is sticking for good old common sense.

Ask yourself what are the real threats to the citizens of our state? If you asked a doctor he’d probably say obesity. Obesity and the conditions and illnesses that it causes are a far greater problem than the anti-social behaviour occurring sometimes, when a small proportion of people drink.

Therefore why don’t we ban the selling of food for ten minutes every hour? Sorry, you’re right, that isn’t a fair comparison. What we should do is ban the selling of food for ten minutes every hour ONLY at the 30% of venues which serve the fattest people. Why not, the healthy people of this state are, through their taxes, subsidising the overweight?

Go back to Candy Mountain and stop trying to micro manage the lives of other people.

RD the government's approach may not be perfect, but until the publicans decided to take their share of the responsibility at least it is a start.

RD you say that the majority shoudn't be punished for the actions of a minority. I couldn't agree more, but how on earth is that relevant to this debate. It is only the minority of pubs who have been subjected to these laws, which were only bought in after years and years of government trying to get pubs to self regulate with no sucess.

To the administrators of this website:

What you REALLY need to do is to encourage all the sane minded people who visit this site to forward the link to their friends so that they too can join your petition. A Facebook group might not be a bad idea either.

You really need some momentum to stop people begrudgingly accepting what they feel they are powerless to change.

RD I think your example of obesity is not the one you should have used. This topic is about the measures put in place by the government to limit alcohol related violence and you are saying they need to do something about obesity. They have already stopped serving junk food in schools and have put in programs to educate kids to prevent them from becoming obese when they are older. Plus they have worked with companies who took responsibility for their part in obesity for example McDonalds to put out a healthier menu. How is that different to what the government is now trying to do with alcohol? The pubs need to take some responsibility for serving people who are clearly intoxicated allowing them to reach the stage where they become violent, they need to put in measures to help the government make things better not fight them without any thought to anyone or anything besides their pockets.

Chris Riley, if your name normally has a Father in front of it, then I greatly respect you and your work. Please understand that just because people like me disagree with these staggeringly misguided measures, does not mean that we are unconcerned with social issues.

However your "something is better than nothing" argument does not need me to point out it's fallacy. History has shown time and time again that misguided policy aimed as a "solution" can have many negative unforeseen consequences (such as polarising different age and interest groups and stifling productive dialogue) and that it can in fact exasperate the problem that it is designed to fix.

To the nameless person who posted the next comment: The point you make is as one dimensional as your point of view. The “minority” of venues that you are taking about effectively target an entire social demographic. Clearly however you don’t care because it is not you or demographic who are being punished.

If, as some other dim wit suggested, these people simply go to other venues instead, any logical person can see that these perceived problems will simply move from the old venue to the new one allowing for a continual expansion of these draconian laws.

Finally let me give you an analogy. Following your logic how about we punish all the inhabitants of say, Liverpool, because the crime rate is higher there than elsewhere. What we can do is implement a curfew of 10:30pm. Anyone on the streets after that time without express police permission will be arrested. By your logic the majority is not being punished by the actions of the minority because only the inhabitants of Liverpool have been affected rather than all of Sydney. Further as you pointed out nobody is forcing these people to live in Liverpool.

The main theme I see here is that the people who support this idiotic legislation will not be affected by it as they do not frequent the relevant venues. All of you seem to generalise about the people who chose to drink at these venues and look down on them as “troublemakers”, “drunks” or misguided young people who need to be controlled and have decisions made for them.

If these laws affected the life style of middle aged people who drive Camrys, drink prune juice, eat All Bran and watch ‘Wheel of Fortune” you’d all be absolutely incensed and outraged.

mv thank you. You have illustrated my point beautifully. In the campaign against obesity the ONLY people who’s choices are being restricted are children (who cannot buy junk food at school). Whereas in the government’s “War on Social Drinkers” they are restricting the choices of adults.

You simply need to look at the countless experiences of the last one hundred years from all over the world, whether that is in the United States, the UK or Scandinavia, to see that if people want to abuse alcohol they will find away.

CLEARLY THE SOLUTION IS NOT TO FIND ARTIFICIAL WAYS TO RESTRICT THE SUPPLY, IT IS TO ADDRESS THE CAUSES.

No one is saying that individual responsibility does not pay a large role. Of cause it does, and for this reason the law has been targeting the individual patron for years (approx 80% of prisoners where either intoxicated at time of offence or at time of arrest)..
However it takes two to tango, and the other part of the equation that of the drug supplier has been getting away with what ever they like for a long long time...
I have to agree with the other comments, this is far from a so called threat to civil liberties. If anything it will make Sydney a safer and more 'free' place for those to go and enjoy a good night out, as well as take a whole help of burden off the hero's of the ambulance and police service who spend hour after hour attending call outs at these irresponsible venues.
It is great to see people so passionate about their rights, but scratch beneath the slick PR propaganda that these alcohol executives are trying to spin and you will see if anything these laws will make Sydney life more enjoyable!!

I’ll start by saying I don’t agree with the 10 minute time-outs however I believe the rest of the legislation’s are fair.

People need to understand these legislation’s is not to punish the patron, but the few irresponsible hotels who let their patrons get drunk and endanger their safety. These hotels have proven over an extended time period not to be responsible enough in ensuring the safety of its patrons. These legislation’s are intend to decrease a hotels popularity and thus decrease the chance of overcrowding and drunken behaviour.

On another note the pics on the homepage of this site are laughable. Patrons under the influence of alcohol are NOT responsible. Not only have these individual hotels proven this,but any hotel operator who believes its patrons can make their own decisions as to when they've had enough should be shut down! The whole point of the RSA laws is because drunks can not say when!

I don't agree with all aspects of this legislation, but I have no sympathy for those few venues with it imposed. They have brought it upon themselves. Those who don’t like the laws; VISIT ANOTHER PUB! There is your solution. This in turn will force these irresponsible hotels to clean there acts up. Then the restrictions will be lifted and you can go back and enjoy your “freedom”. It is completely up to the Hotel when this happens.

The operators of this website should read the RSA guidelines and gather an understanding of hotels obligations. Intoxicated Patrons do not have the responsibility! The hotel staff and management do!

I think Frank G summed it all up...
These laws are completely able to be reversed at any time. The moment these hotels decide to take there responsible service of alcohol duty seriously the sooner these laws will be lifted. Until then support the pubs who aren't affect by these laws as they deserve your money.

The people who have pointed out that the laws are targeting a minority of bars don't seem to understand how Governments operate. Almost every piece of social issue related policy you come across is initially tried out across a small area, before being rolled out on a wider scale if it is proven to be effective. This is the first step, not the last one, which is why it's important for people to voice their concerns now, so that what currently isn't a blanket ban never, ever becomes one. While there is no doubt the hotels currently being targeted are not the most responsible venues in town, there is also a good chance that these measures will spread if people don't speak up.
Also, to those suggesting that alcohol related violence is on the rise - did you ever consider the fact that up until recently, alcohol wasn't a hot button issue. Alcohol related violence isn't on the rise, awareness of alcohol related violence is on the rise. You only need to look back a few years - ask your parents what it was like in the 70's - to see that drunk people have always beaten each other up, only now we care more about it.
Incest, domestic violence and child sexual abuse were only brought to light as major social issues after the rise of feminism. This issue is exactly the same, only rather than drawing public attention to a serious problem, it's drawing attention away from all the other gross failings of the NSW state government, it's being brought to light by wowsers who want to limit our freedom, rather than those concerned about equality and health. This move is designed to divide people - make young people feel disenfranchised and old people feel afraid of young people - so we pay less attention to all the other ways in which our Government has failed us.
As for an alternative solution? What about legalising some of the other party related substances that many people take on a regular basis anyway and have, despite the best efforts of police and politicians, continued to rise in popularity - if marijuana and MDMA were readily available and heavily legislated with age limits and taxation, maybe we'd see more people dancing, hugging, talking quietly in the corner and having a good time rather than shouting, vomiting and hitting everyone.
The solution isn't to limit our options, it's to expand them.

It takes a certain type of person to go out and get in a fight in the first place, alcohol or not. These people causing the problem of assault already have that mind set that its ok to behave that way and drinking simply makes it worse. These are the people that need to be targeted, the problem is bad people, not alcohol.

And to everyone who suggests that people should just go to another pub, that is a stupid suggestion.
If they decided to build an airport next door to your house, where you have lived a long time and which you love, and simply told you, its ok, move somewhere else where there its not a problem you would be ok with that, some people like the venues they go to, the music the people and the culture and wouldnt go anywhere else, pubs, bars and clubs do more than dispense alcohol so suggesting they are so interchangeable is an idiots idea.

I like the idea of the 10:30pm Liverpool curfew thing. RD you're a genius. Let's all write to the police minister.

I'm a mixologist in one of the venues that has these new laws and am really pissed off by all the people getting on here slamming the industry. I consider myself a hospitality professional and want to make a career in the industry but even though I've been working in this venue for 3 years and have NEVER seen a fight here, my shifts have dropped from 35 hours to 15 because of the lockout. A lot of my friends have lost their jobs over this and I'm getting sick of comments blaming us as though we were the ones getting people drunk so they'd start fights. People who don't work in bars have no idea of the pressure we are under to make sure we practise good RSA if we don't want to get fined and want to keep our jobs. I'm in the industry to provide good service and see my customers come back again with a smile on their face, how dare anyone suggest otherwise! Premier Rees has really let me down, and did he spare a thought for the 3 of my co-workers who were put off the week before Christmas as there are not enough hours available at night anymore? Keep your smug comments to yourself!

All you people in support of this crap who keep saying that the pubs will just keep taking money off me until im too drunk are ridiculous. People arent just drinking machines who dont stop until theyve been cut off, your talking like everyone needs to be cut off for a bar to be responsible and that if they didnt then everyone will just keep drinking non-stop. I, like 99% of the people who go to bars know how to drink and how much we want to and can drink, If i've had enough I know Ive had enough and I stop. People arent just mindless drones, we can think for ourselves.

you act like just because this is supported by the industry that it is some evil propaganda tool for them to manipulate people, but its supported by a whole lot more people than a few pub owners, people who dont have a profit agenda, our agenda is not sitting around while the government passes ridiculous failures of ideas all in the name of publicity. These laws only exist to put out the appearance that they are doing something, when really they dont address the real issues and when in time they will no doubt be reversed because they were flawed before they were even introduced, like the 2am lock out in melbourne, they introduced it for a 3 month trial, the public of melbourne said no, and its gone now, they spoke it up like some massive initiative and how they were saving the people of melbourne and cleaning up our streets, once theyve got their publicity who cares what happens to their laws since they never worked in the first place and they let them just disappear since no news papers report on their inability to follow through.

i really dont get the point of 10 min breaks - like someone said before 'its not like we cant wait'... so we'll just wait... it wont stop us from drinking... theres nothin wrong with plastic cups... i stand by my point before - not every person who gets crazy drunk is going to go out and punch someone - it is only the ones who say to themselves 'i feel like getting into a fight tonight' that will.

fine, whatever alcohol is a problem but clubs should not be the target places - i dont think that people develop drinking problems from going to pubs, it is a psychological matter not physical one. putting up prices, locking people out and creating 10 minute breaks wont stop alcohol concumption - better school education will, people bitch about how kids dont know science but i say there are more important things to learn about like sex, drugs and alcohol, which tend to only have an hour devoted to them once in year 11. yes i believe that this generation is a lost cause so lets make something better of the next one

"I also think you are an idiot for suggesting only weak minded people enjoy it. What are you hiding? In my experience people who don't drink are afraid of letting go and showing people what they are really like."

You have been brainwashed Stephen into thinking that you NEED alcohol to enjoy life.

I live a great public life and people always comment on how much energy I have every day. I am so happy that I never ever drank alcohol. (short story, I was 12 when my good friend, 14, drank too much and ended up in hospital getting his stomach pumped. I saw him collapsed in the gutter spewing his guts up. I promised myself then and there I would never be like that. Damn that has saved me a lot of $ and health over the years!)

As I said before, the simple fact is that all people would be better off without alcohol.

1. How many people die every year on the roads where drink driving is a factor?

2. How many people are assaulted every year by someone under the influence of alcohol?

3. People do lots of stupid things under the influence of alcohol that they would never have done otherwise. It costs them financially, physically. In many instances, it ruins their lives forever.

4. Final point. And this is my favourite. Get this. People who tell me how wonderful alcohol is, are usually the same ones who complain how bad they feel the next morning after a big night on the drink!

You can't argue against that. Don't even try.

I feel sorry for you that your mind has been so corrupted by the other sheep in society who tell you what you NEED!

Be a man, grow up and live a real life.

And you know what, you may well find that what I am telling you is correct.

I live life and are successful without alcohol. I can do all of that without any artificial assistance. Why can't you? I ain't got nothing to hide. I think you are the one hiding behind that drink in your hand.

Anthony you are an idiot! actually i think you are an anti Alcohol campaigner, probably a happy clapping hillsonger. This site is not about the AHA wanting to feed patrons more alcohol it is about people being able to make manage their own nights out. The RSA was a great initiative and works most of the time. Why are you guys blaming everyone for forcing us to drink. As none of this laws would effect you Anthony because you probably do not frequent any of the top 100 hotels in NSW (and they are not rated by most violent as you think but by the most contact they have with police, positive or negative)

Franky C
Your asumptions are incorrect. I am not an anti alcohol campaigner, I have a drink(or more) most days. I am not a member of Hillsong, although how this is relevant, eludes me. I am a regular patron of the Steyne Hotel in Manly, which is on the list. My concern is with the selfish "I'm allright Jack" attitude of people like you. Alcohol fuelled violence is real. Anything that addresses this issue is worth trying. Furthermore, I am not an idiot. Your descent to personal abuse only highlights the weakness of your argument. Best wishes

Anthony.
I guess you telling David he should "grow up and stop being a stooge" prompted me to call you an idiot. If you think that just trying "anything that addresses the issue" is a good idea you are more misguided and uninformed (see i didnt call you and idiot again :)) than i thought. no one on this blog is saying binge drinking or violence are good, they are saying that these measures are ill thought out, knee jerk reactions by people that have no idea what is going on out there. I dont have an "im all right jack" attitude and that is why these laws effect me. I had to pour a bottle of champagne into a plastic jug the other night for a bunch of girlfriends from London, how classy is that for an international city!! I have run bars and night clubs, worked in them as well, have done my RSA and worked with the AERF so i have a fair idea of the issues. These measures do not work as has been proven in other cities.

Franky C, if you where worried about being 'classy' with a bunch of girls, you sure as hell wouldn't have taken them near any of the venues on the lock out list in the first place.
There are far more upmarket and 'classy' establishments in the city that you could have gone to that aren't subject to these laws.
As for your comment with regards to these measures not working, it sounds like you have been duped by AHA...
The measures are actually shown to work!

The state government is simply fulfilling its mandate in these proposals, that is to make NSW the least efficient society in the world. Indeed i m sure the whole public service works on this 10 min rule, although possibly the otherway round. Anyone who might dare to work outside office hours, and therefore maybe go out after 2am is obviously a threat to economic stagnation and must be stopped from enjoying any sort of entertainment.

ha ha ha Gold Steve, you are right. As the most litigious society in the world (now we have overtaken California) and the most over governed society in the world, i am sure these new laws will keep all sort of hopeless, sniveling public servants partially working (in between their compulsory waters and 10 minute time outs) on solutions to their own non working solution. As for none of the hotels being classy "D" if you think Loft is not a classy venue i think the owners and patrons would disagree. Also if you think these measures work you are sadly mistaken, just look at the first 6 months in melbourne and the situation in LA. not exactly a model of seamless integration is it!!!!

Franky C you're right on the money.

No one will take responsibility for their own actions any more. I feel like I'm living in a Nanny State. People keep telling me it's for my own good.

How about we promote education and then punishment for people who are unable to abide by the code of decency that everyone else in society is held to.

What if you've been waiting in line for 50 minutes

I work behind one of the bars in sydney that has the timeout and the only good thing about the time out is we get to have a smoke. at the end of the 10mins it is like a mad house as everyone tries to get a drink it does encourage binge drinking.

Alcohol fuelled violence exists because we live in a dysfunctional culture. One that is all about 'me' which is cleary shown in some of the above posts. Instead of looking at how these regulations affect poor little old me who has to wait 10minutes for a drink,how about we look at how we can change the behavioural attitude of those who decide binge drinking is cool and smashing someone with a glass is funny.
Instead of downing the government for trying to make a difference, how bout we start making proactive and contructive suggestions to ensure that going out for a drink isn't going to leave you physically blind, raped or in hospital having your stomach pumped.

It is not socially acceptable to be pissed until you can't remember. And before anyone attacks me for not enjoying a drink or being a hillsong fanatic. I will put it all out there. I am 23 a christian who loves Jesus, an employee of a government body looking into alcohol-fuelled violence (hence finding this site for researc) and have collapsed in a nightclub toilet and as a result been rushed to hospital to be put on a drip. The minute I woke up I was kicked out to make room for multiple males all bloodied up from an alcohol fuelled fight.

The misuse of alcohol is a serious issue and government initiatives are all evidence based. Start researching yourselves on how many hospitalisations and misunderstanding of what excessive drinking is - you will discover the issue is larger than most of you realise.

If you start making the attitudinal change within yourselves that binge drinking isn't cool and that responsible drinking (following the guidleines for standard drinks) is a better option for your health and others. Then maybe the government wouldn't need to make these decisions and penalise everyone.

I am not saying the laws are necessarily right or wrong - I am just saying we need to stop complaining and start acting on being responsible adults like we all claim we are.

1. It is the minority (those who like to drink, get drunk and then cause trouble) that has caused the laws to be created
2. No one is taking away your rights so quit the whinging. The laws are in place to protect people.
3. Most of the laws make sense. Sure, I understand that the 10 minute time out is not ideal but no glass on the floor, no shots, etc are strong laws.
4. I work in one of these venues and without them I think the place would be a madhouse. At least they encourage some sort of control.
5. Many of you are morons - especially Ryan who says that Andrew didn't get mugged because of alcohol. Of course he did. OF COURSE alcohol encouraged those thugs to bash him. Had they been sober, chances are they would have let him pass.