In May, the New South Wales Labor government introduced a new law lowering the threshold for public intoxication before which a person could be "moved on" or potentially arrested by police. The threshold was changed from "seriously drunk" to "noticeably drunk".
I was surprised by the law change and wracked my brains for a list of noticeably sober institutions. The NSW Labor Party didn't make it.
It occurred to me that the NSW government had not thought through the full consequences of a "noticeably drunk" law.
Applied consistently across the board, parliament would regularly be emptied by the constabulary. Journalists and student backpackers would be rounded up. Footballers would face mass arrest.
Most people on any big street in any big city on a Friday night would be legitimate targets for our hard-working police force.
For better or worse, Australia is very often noticeably drunk.
As a resident of NSW, I can attest to the fact that, months after its passing, the new law is not being applied across the board. On more than one occasion, I have ignored the federal government's warning that four standard drinks, or more, constitute dangerous-level binge drinking.
If subpoenaed to testify in a court of law as to whether I was noticeably drunk, my friends would be forced to admit: "Yes, his ramblings on the Latin American revolution and the political economy of Lily Allen's new album were noticeably increasing in volume and incoherence."
On such nights, I have made my way to the train station with a no doubt noticeable unsteadiness. This is yet to cause me any trouble with the constabulary.
So, if it isn't being applied consistently, who is the law targeted at?
Thalia Anthony, a law lecturer at Sydney University, wrote in the May 12 Sydney Morning Herald: "New laws giving police the power to move on people who are slurring their words will cement a long tradition of criminalising Aboriginal people for public order offences ...
"History shows indigenous people are most likely to be caught by this type of legislation and incarcerated for the mere appearance of intoxication.
"The discriminatory policing of drunk Aboriginal people is blatant. Indigenous people are 42 times more likely than other Australians to be in custody for public drunkenness ...
"Through its move-on slurring powers, the NSW Government has provided another back-door means for incarcerating drunk Aboriginal people ... It is another sad attempt to criminalise indigenous behaviour rather than criminal activity."
The disgraceful fact is that Indigenous Australians are imprisoned at a rate higher than Blacks under apartheid in South Africa, a July 9 National Indigenous Times editorial said.
The law change happened as the federal government started its own war on "binge drinking".
NSW Premier Nathan Rees has jumped on the bandwagon. An October 21, 2008 SMH article said Rees "could not believe what he saw on Sydney's streets when he headed home late on Saturday night after his Labor Government's thumping [at a by-election] at the ballot box."
Rees said the "exhibitions of public drunkenness that I saw were mind-boggling".
Noting Rees is "known to enjoy a drink", the SMH continued, "Not everyone is convinced by his sudden discovery of alcohol-related violence".
It seems some cynics have suggested this was a populist ploy to detract attention from a disastrous by-election result flowing from a decade of Labor government policies that have combined corrupt incompetence with anti-people neo-liberalism.
We should be suspicious of any government-initiated moral panic. If the federal and state governments were really concerned with our health, they would fix our public health system.
This is about shifting responsibility for social problems, with systemic roots, onto ordinary people.
The global financial crisis is already hitting Rudd's beloved "working families" — with talk of a "jobless recovery".
Corporate profits may bounce back, but the rest of us will suffer rising unemployment — and accompanying pressure to accept worsening wages and conditions.
Greater economic hardship will inevitably be accompanied by greater levels of alcohol abuse and its associated social problems.
Rather than pushing for policies that do resolve such problems at the expense of the big end of town, we can expect Rudd to give us a bout of tut-tutting and pious reminders that four or more standard drinks a night is dangerous for our health.
It may even be the occasion for fresh laws giving police more powers to harass the increasing numbers who lose out from a system that bails out corporate criminals, while leaving the rest of us to bear the brunt of a corporate-caused crisis.
[This article was first published on Online Opinion on October 8.]