lock out

[Priest of Evil]

Pub lock outs, SA is talking about one at 2am and also happy hours could be a thing of the past. Maybe we should go back to Prohibition or 6pm closes?! I'm not impressed, people have and will always drink plus kids will do whatever it takes to experience a state of euphoria. Your thoughts?

 

[phlogiston]

Melbourne has just done this. 2am lock-out. Unless you're one of the 100 or so that have been granted an exemption.

 

[Shannow]

I've no problem with curfews which require you to be in the premesis before (say) 1AM when the place closes at 3AM.

The increase in violence in Lithgow when they extended opening to 3AM was horrific. The curfews seem to be kerbing it a little (although another guy got killed a couple of weeks ago).

 

[Spiff]

As someone who doesn't drink, I'm fine with it.

 

[salty]

I too am fine with it.

Places here are still licensed till 5am in some instances...So if you're at a place and want to go hard till close, it's not like you can't still do that, just once 3am hits you'd want to be decided on where you want to drink the night out at.

 

[Shadow298]

two minds about these things.

with late light drinking (in the ACT it's until 3 AM and must resume at 8 AM, unless the pub is locked up and people remain inside or you ignore the rules and stay open all night, which pubs and clubs are allowed to do if they restrict their service of alcohol) people tend to expend all of their energy and be less trouble as the night goes on but you also have to deal with lots more drunken fuckwits as well as injury and general drinking problems -such as spew, passing out and so forth- but they can be easier to herd and handle.

now, if you kick everyone out at say 12-1 AM, like they are thinking of doing, you get more people drinking earlier and then you get a mass of exceptionally drunk people wandering about, waiting for cabs and wanting to drink more.
This will generally lead to more fights -especially at the cab rank, which is also a trouble spot- and outside clubs.
will also mean more hamfisted bouncers doing more harm (which I despise, especially since I'm going back for my security licence and am being constantly lectured at about proper conduct at clubs) and more scuffles and fights in the clubs too, because people are getting more plastered early.
this will lead to more and tenser work for the police -especially in regards to fights and drink driving.
there are a few positive aspects to early lock-outs but not really enough to justify doing so.

but, in all honesty, I really don't care unless I go back to being a bouncer (which I don't) or if it affects the few live music venues that I attend here in Canberra.
I haven't drunk in 8 years and generally despise going to clubs and venues anyway.

 

[Shadow298]

two minds about these things.

with late light drinking (in the ACT it's until 3 AM and must resume at 8 AM, unless the pub is locked up and people remain inside or you ignore the rules and stay open all night, which pubs and clubs are allowed to do if they restrict their service of alcohol) people tend to expend all of their energy and be less trouble as the night goes on but you also have to deal with lots more drunken fuckwits as well as injury and general drinking problems -such as spew, passing out and so forth- but they can be easier to herd and handle.

now, if you kick everyone out at say 12-1 AM, like they are thinking of doing, you get more people drinking earlier and then you get a mass of exceptionally drunk people wandering about, waiting for cabs and wanting to drink more.
This will generally lead to more fights -especially at the cab rank, which is also a trouble spot- and outside clubs.
will also mean more hamfisted bouncers doing more harm (which I despise, especially since I'm going back for my security licence and am being constantly lectured at about proper conduct at clubs) and more scuffles and fights in the clubs too, because people are getting more plastered early.
this will lead to more and tenser work for the police -especially in regards to fights and drink driving.
there are a few positive aspects to early lock-outs but not really enough to justify doing so.

but, in all honesty, I really don't care unless I go back to being a bouncer (which I don't) or if it affects the few live music venues that I attend here in Canberra.
I haven't drunk in 8 years and generally despise going to clubs and venues anyway.

 

[Goreripper]

If you're not already inside a place drinking by 2am, you should fuck off home. What annoys me about this is that licensed premises have always reserved the right not to allow people inside after a certain time, and for any reason. The Town Hall Hotel in Newtown, for example, is open until 5am, but if try to get in there after 2, good luck. It's been like that for ten years or more. Other pubs should have followed this sort of practice voluntarily in the first place, and this sort of legislation would have never been necessary.

 

[Winmar]

I'm not overly impressed by it. Prohibition is what I thought of as well. I don't find myself out at that time very often these days, but it'd be annoying to come out of a gig and not be able to go anywhere else, if that was what I felt like doing.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

We have had the 2am lockout here in Bendigo for many months now. I think a 3am lockout would be optimal, but I am not too fussed about it. If I am out at a gig or something and want to go out drinking afterwards, that would always happen before 2am anyway. The only problem I see, is what places licensed to 3am have been complaining about, and that the lockout favours businesses that have a 5am license, as less people are going to want to hang about in one pub/club for an hour then have to go home, they would rather be locked into a place with a 5am license.

 

[TinMan666]

It will only affect a handful of people in a negative way, really. I guess if you are a shift worker and don't finish work until 3am, you're screwed if you wanted to go out afterwards.

For the most part though the only people it is going to affect are the people who get kicked out of clubs for being too pissed, causing trouble or whatever, and then try to get in at another pub. Generally speaking, most people go to a club until it closes, and then go home. I don't reckon there's a high percentage of nightclub patrons who go to one club until it closes at 3am, and then move on to another club that is open until 5. And of the percentage that do, under current laws they probably shouldn't be allowed to enter the 2nd venue anyway, due to having been drinking already.

The only real change is that the bouncers can say "i'm sorry mate, it is after 2am" instead of having to argue that you are too pissed to come in, or whatever.

Still, people do like having something controverisal to be outraged about.

 

[Southy]

I don't get out much these days (read almost not at all) but the few times I have gotten out since the lockout laws were passed here, have never had a problem, shame really that the younger kids are that stupid that they need to be loked inside a pub late at night/early in the morning

 

[dreamwatch]

I would love to see that brought in over here, and I'm not biased - I drink like a bloody fish. Until last year it was 11pm in the pubs and then anywhere between 3-5am for the clubs. Because of all the fuckwits rolling out of pubs and clubs at the same time and fighting (gotta love drunk fights) they brought in 24 hour licenses. Not everyone has them, but they're there if a venue wants to apply for them. Needless to say it hasn't really helped in London, don't know if it's helped out in the boonies. A few clubs will stop you coming in after a certain time, but I've walked in to some at 4am before. I have to agree with Gorey, really you should be ensconced for the night by 2am. I know it might be annoying on the very odd occasion you want to club/bar hop, but how often does that really happen? As TinMan says, probably when you've been slung out of a place already.

 

[Mark]

Jesus, I have a problem staying awake until 2am, nevermind wanting to continue drinking at that time

 

[Incarnate]

Its not a disaster because once you're in the pub you can stay around. If you're only going to the one place then there will be no problem. I don't see the point in switching pubs many times in a night unless you are chasing happy hours (which will all wrap up well before curfew anyway).

 

[Goreripper]

It's just something else to whinge about really. There's nothing wrong with pubs and clubs stopping people entering the premises after a certain time, but staying open for another few hours. Like I mentioned, responsible pubs have already been doing it for years. The difference now is that they want to make it law. If more pubs had enforced a lock-out voluntarily, this sort of legislation would never have been necessary

 

[Priest of Evil]

Well its a shame it is necessary and thats what I mentioned it. I agree with a lot of the thoughts raised but when I was younger I would often move to other venues/arrive at venues late in the evening, often after 2am.

I don't like the fact people are getting hurt late at night but fights have always been and so has drinking, changing the times of a venue wont really make much of a difference. What pisses me off the most is all the attention the sale of alcohol is getting, the RTD tax, curfews and now they say they want to tax alcohol by the % of alcohol in each bottle.

People will behave like animals if that is what they've grown to understand. More direct attention needs to be given to certain sectors of the public. Community standards need to be raised, not taxes!

 

[dreamwatch]

Community standards need to be raised, not taxes!

100% correct.

 

[Stonewall]

That may be the case, but alcohol does affect people in different and sometimes surprising ways. I think venues need to pay a lot more attention to whom they keep serving alcohol.

 

[TRrEiTxIxRiE DTrash]

Lock out is a stupid idea because the aim is to stop alcohol fuelled street violence so their plan is to not let them into a club where they will be happy & in a good mood to keep partying, but give them a reason to get in a bad mood, have an argument with a bouncer, and then be stuck on the street waiting for their friends before they can go home. Dumb idea.

Plus, King St is the main "problem" street for violence in Melbourne yet pretty much every venue on King St got the exemption so that's just another inconsistency with it. Defeats the purpose really, if preventing street violence was the reason to do it - why exempt the street that has most of it!